politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Corporeal looks at electoral precedent

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Corporeal looks at electoral precedent

(On a follow up tweet they noted that it should read no majority government, Wilson’s calling of a swift 2nd election in 1974 produced a small uptick for him).

Read the full story here

isam

Loving the lie being peddled that Rochester will be close whereas Clacton was "Always going to be very difficult"

Opening prices for UKIP
Clacton 4/6
Rochester 1/2

And people on here said Conservatives were the value in Clacton

adamandcat

2nd , like dAVE/ aLEX

taffys

And people on here said Conservatives were the value in Clacton

A few people even said Labour were 'though the middle' value, I believe.

CarlottaVance

Interesting perspective Corporeal - thanks - I suspect the days of single party majority government are behind us...for good or ill (in general for good as coalitions slow sudden rushes of blood to the head, unless you are a myopic Tory backbencher with a grossly inflated sense of his own importance.....)

Richard_Nabavi

Well, England certainly doesn't seem terribly keen on coalitions at the moment, especially not the people who voted for the LibDems specifically in order to get one.

Tykejohnno

Nadine Dorries MP ✔ @NadineDorriesMP

@OwenJones84 I am not defecting

JosiasJessop

Thanks Corporeal, very interesting. And I love the obligatory XKCD link when discussing this topic. :-)

Scrapheap_as_was

Tykejohnno said:

Nadine Dorries MP ✔ @NadineDorriesMP

@OwenJones84 I am not defecting

Bugger,

___Bobajob___

Labour would be as wise to soft pedal in Rochester.

Anything that gives Ukip the mo is useful for them, more so than a byelection win.

OblitusSumMe

isam said:

Loving the lie being peddled that Rochester will be close whereas Clacton was "Always going to be very difficult"

I imagine it's spin to try and give potential further turncoats pause for thought - but one presumes that UKIP have the opinion polls to calm the nerves of likely defectors.

Will we see polls for Rochester & Strood, or are Tory -> UKIP defections seen as old hat by those with the money to fund publicly available opinion polls?

Luckyguy1983

I have been thinking for the past few days -the SNP are wildly successful; yet the Indyref was a resounding 'No', even with everything stacked in their favour. UKIP are breaking through, yet people are lukewarm on Brexit (which sadly will only get worse when the MSM and big business get the knives out come a referendum). Are people telling us that their ideal solution is to stay in everything to avoid the risk, but counterbalance it by electing parties that they think will fiercely defend their interests within that organisation? Hence the rather illogical success of UKIP in European elections.

RodCrosby

Ipsos are wrong about 1931. The Opposition returned to government (as part of a coalition) before the 1931 election.

The last time an Opposition won a majority after one term in Opposition (having lost the previous election) was in 1880. Gladstone...

So the history suggests in order of likelihood.

i) Con maj
ii) HP
iii) Lab maj

JosiasJessop

Richard_Nabavi said:

Well, England certainly doesn't seem terribly keen on coalitions at the moment, especially not the people who voted for the LibDems specifically in order to get one.

I find that bemusing. The Lib Dems have stood for years on having 'fairer' electoral systems that stood good chances of putting them into coalitions. Yet the moment they go into coalition, people scream and huff about it being the 'wrong' coalition, despite the fact it was the only practical one available.

What did they expect?

(Edit: and I should add the coalition has been more mature and successful than I considered possible when it was formed).

Sunil_Prasannan

Corporeal - nice chart you got there, but shouldn't the current government be Coalition only, not Coalition AND Minority?

kle4

Richard_Nabavi said:

Well, England certainly doesn't seem terribly keen on coalitions at the moment, especially not the people who voted for the LibDems specifically in order to get one.

Quite. Being willing to work with anyone is one of those things many people might agree with I theory, but what they actually seem to want is a junior Labour Party. If there is all about minority I am interested to see how ukip react, as many Tories even now want and think unipolar want only to be a junior party, despite kip being overtly aggressive to them and trying to woo l about voters. Will I kip voters react like ld voters if they were, unlikely as it is, have to prop up a labour government.

Tykejohnno

Owen Jones ✔ @OwenJones84

@NadineDorriesMP you're not? we made a pact to defect together! you've landed me right in it!!

Sunil_Prasannan

Tykejohnno said:

Nadine Dorries MP ✔ @NadineDorriesMP

@OwenJones84 I am not defecting

Defecting or defective?

OblitusSumMe

"In 1918 Margot Asquith faced with a divided Liberal party, one half in Coalition with the Conservatives and a nascent Labour party, wrote that things would be better as soon as we get back to “normal politics”. Obviously the situation had shifted and normal politics never came back."

Well, you could argue that normal "two-party" politics did return after WWII, it's just that the non-Tory party was Labour and not Liberal. A similar thing could be happening now. The current two-party politics is breaking down, but it's possible that "normal" service will be resumed when things settle down again, in a few decades time, perhaps.

As to which two parties would be left standing in a 2045 general election I wouldn't dare hazard a guess, but if we still have FPTP it is quite possible that a two-party paradigm will have re-established itself.

kle4

Luckyguy1983 said:

I have been thinking for the past few days -the SNP are wildly successful; yet the Indyref was a resounding 'No', even with everything stacked in their favour. UKIP are breaking through, yet people are lukewarm on Brexit (which sadly will only get worse when the MSM and big business get the knives out come a referendum). Are people telling us that their ideal solution is to stay in everything to avoid the risk, but counterbalance it be electing parties that they think will fiercely defend their interests within that organisation? Hence the rather illogical success of UKIP in European elections.

Sounds plausible to me.

JosiasJessop said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Well, England certainly doesn't seem terribly keen on coalitions at the moment, especially not the people who voted for the LibDems specifically in order to get one.

I find that bemusing. The Lib Dems have stood for years on having 'fairer' electoral systems that stood good chances of putting them into coalitions. Yet the moment they go into coalition, people scream and huff about it being the 'wrong' coalition, despite the fact it was the only practical one available.

What did they expect?

(Edit: and I should add the coalition has been more mature and successful than I considered possible when it was formed).

They didn't really mean it. Or at least half their vote was not as committed to coalitions in general (rather than coalitions with labour if possible) as the other half, while that other half has been ground down by the actual realities and.difficulties of coalition politics.

Richard_Nabavi

OblitusSumMe said:

As to which two parties would be left standing in a 2045 general election I wouldn't dare hazard a guess.

I'm sure Paddy Power will offer you a price!

Peter_the_Punter

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Tykejohnno said:

Nadine Dorries MP ✔ @NadineDorriesMP

@OwenJones84 I am not defecting

Defecting or defective?

defecating?

Pong

Jeez, UKIP really is the ultimate NOTA projection party.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2773553/Now-White-Dee-threatens-defect-UKIP-Benefits-Street-star-tells-Tory-conference-IDS-touch-real-world.html

If they want to maximise their GE2015 vote, they should go with a 4-word manifesto;

"Feck 'em, vote UKIP"

kle4

Pong said:

Jeez, UKIP really is the ultimate NOTA projection party.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2773553/Now-White-Dee-threatens-defect-UKIP-Benefits-Street-star-tells-Tory-conference-IDS-touch-real-world.html

If they want to maximise their GE2015 vote, they should go with a 4-word manifesto;

"Feck 'em, vote UKIP"

I thought they tried that in 2010, but their star had not risen as high nor the political environment so much more potentially helpful to them. 'Sod the lot' or something, wasn't it?

TCPoliticalBetting

___Bobajob___ said:

Labour would be as wise to soft pedal in Rochester. Anything that gives Ukip the mo is useful for them, more so than a byelection win.

Lab have a good chance of winning Rochester. 45% of the vote (Lab & LD) vs 53% Con/UKIP/ED. Since LDs can be expected to drop to 5% or less, it leaves Lab with 40%+ vs Con & UKIP splitting 53% two ways.

AllyPally_Rob

Luckyguy1983 said:

I have been thinking for the past few days -the SNP are wildly successful; yet the Indyref was a resounding 'No', even with everything stacked in their favour. UKIP are breaking through, yet people are lukewarm on Brexit (which sadly will only get worse when the MSM and big business get the knives out come a referendum). Are people telling us that their ideal solution is to stay in everything to avoid the risk, but counterbalance it by electing parties that they think will fiercely defend their interests within that organisation? Hence the rather illogical success of UKIP in European elections.

Isn't that to some extent what happened in Northern Ireland with the rise of DUP/Sinn Fein and the decline of UUP/SDLP?

People not wanting revolution, but feeling like they are best placed to gain more by electing from the wings rather than the centre where compromise/capitulation will come sooner.

Lennon

Just seen an Economist blogpost - given that the Tories are focused on keeping potential UKIPpers on board, are they ignoring their left flank? Dominic Grieve or Ken Clarke to defect to the Lib Dems would cause total chaos :-)

NickPalmer

If we were looking at anything other than election results, we'd think the sample of postwar elections was laughably small to draw any inferences whatever. We have a dozen or so results with a zillion intervening variables.

RobC

JosiasJessop said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Well, England certainly doesn't seem terribly keen on coalitions at the moment, especially not the people who voted for the LibDems specifically in order to get one.

I find that bemusing. The Lib Dems have stood for years on having 'fairer' electoral systems that stood good chances of putting them into coalitions. Yet the moment they go into coalition, people scream and huff about it being the 'wrong' coalition, despite the fact it was the only practical one available.

What did they expect?

(Edit: and I should add the coalition has been more mature and successful than I considered possible when it was formed).

The parliamentary Lib Dems have largely got on with it. I was at a local activists party in 2010 (I'm now just an invisible supporter) and the feeling then was although it was not something we want to do there's a job to be done and therefore we need to do it well. The problems the Tories have is with their EU obsessed right flank (ie with their own internal coalition).

RodCrosby

NickPalmer said:

If we were looking at anything other than election results, we'd think the sample of postwar elections was laughably small to draw any inferences whatever. We have a dozen or so results with a zillion intervening variables.

In statistics, "laughably small" samples can still offer powerful inferences...

Tykejohnno

Lennon said:

Just seen an Economist blogpost - given that the Tories are focused on keeping potential UKIPpers on board, are they ignoring their left flank? Dominic Grieve or Ken Clarke to defect to the Lib Dems would cause total chaos :-)

I was thinking that of the lib dems,with Cameron moving to the centre ground,maybe a lib dem defection to the tories,some one like Jeremy Browne ;-)

Tykejohnno

Alistair Burt ✔ @AlistairBurtMP

If anymore MPs want to go, go now will you, and not cause this cynically calculated pain to the Party workers who got you to Parliament?


Retweeted by Zac Goldsmith

JosiasJessop

RobC said:

JosiasJessop said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Well, England certainly doesn't seem terribly keen on coalitions at the moment, especially not the people who voted for the LibDems specifically in order to get one.

I find that bemusing. The Lib Dems have stood for years on having 'fairer' electoral systems that stood good chances of putting them into coalitions. Yet the moment they go into coalition, people scream and huff about it being the 'wrong' coalition, despite the fact it was the only practical one available.

What did they expect?

(Edit: and I should add the coalition has been more mature and successful than I considered possible when it was formed).

The parliamentary Lib Dems have largely got on with it. I was at a local activists party in 2010 (I'm now just an invisible supporter) and the feeling then was although it was not something we want to do there's a job to be done and therefore we need to do it well. The problems the Tories have is with their EU obsessed right flank (ie with their own internal coalition).

The problem the Conservatives have is not just their EU-obsessed right flank, but a large number who hark back to nebulous glorious days of the past, when our military was strong, we ruled ourselves, society was somehow better, and the days were generally sunnier (thus disproving this newfangled AGW rubbish).

As a forty-something, I find this attitude curious. Whilst the country has problems, I would rather be alive now than at any time in the past. Give me the Britain of 2014 over that of 1984, 1954 or 1924.

And we all - including political parties - need to work to ensure that 2044 is better than 2014.

RodCrosby

OblitusSumMe said:

"In 1918 Margot Asquith faced with a divided Liberal party, one half in Coalition with the Conservatives and a nascent Labour party, wrote that things would be better as soon as we get back to “normal politics”. Obviously the situation had shifted and normal politics never came back."

Well, you could argue that normal "two-party" politics did return after WWII, it's just that the non-Tory party was Labour and not Liberal. A similar thing could be happening now. The current two-party politics is breaking down, but it's possible that "normal" service will be resumed when things settle down again, in a few decades time, perhaps.

As to which two parties would be left standing in a 2045 general election I wouldn't dare hazard a guess, but if we still have FPTP it is quite possible that a two-party paradigm will have re-established itself.

One explanation for the re-establishment of two-party politics is that electoral reform narrowly failed twice (in 1917 and 1931). Had it succeeded there would have been no return...

OblitusSumMe

TCPoliticalBetting said:

___Bobajob___ said:

Labour would be as wise to soft pedal in Rochester. Anything that gives Ukip the mo is useful for them, more so than a byelection win.

Lab have a good chance of winning Rochester. 45% of the vote (Lab & LD) vs 53% Con/UKIP/ED. Since LDs can be expected to drop to 5% or less, it leaves Lab with 40%+ vs Con & UKIP splitting 53% two ways.

That's not how the Lib Dem vote is splitting.

In today's Populus Labour take 36% of the 2010 Lib Dems, but UKIP and Conservatives combined take 24% - so only a 3:2 ratio in Labour's favour. Given Labour's piss-poor record in by-elections in this Parliament it probably puts them third - again - in a seat that they really should be able to win in a good year/by-election.

AlastairMeeks

"Decide or decline" is an awful slogan. I get what it's aimed at, and it's what the Conservatives should be aiming at, but it will be incomprehensible to nearly all of its intended audience.

Pong

JosiasJessop said:

RobC said:

JosiasJessop said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Well, England certainly doesn't seem terribly keen on coalitions at the moment, especially not the people who voted for the LibDems specifically in order to get one.

I find that bemusing. The Lib Dems have stood for years on having 'fairer' electoral systems that stood good chances of putting them into coalitions. Yet the moment they go into coalition, people scream and huff about it being the 'wrong' coalition, despite the fact it was the only practical one available.

What did they expect?

(Edit: and I should add the coalition has been more mature and successful than I considered possible when it was formed).

The parliamentary Lib Dems have largely got on with it. I was at a local activists party in 2010 (I'm now just an invisible supporter) and the feeling then was although it was not something we want to do there's a job to be done and therefore we need to do it well. The problems the Tories have is with their EU obsessed right flank (ie with their own internal coalition).

The problem the Conservatives have is not just their EU-obsessed right flank, but a large number who hark back to nebulous glorious days of the past, when our military was strong, we ruled ourselves, society was somehow better, and the days were generally sunnier (thus disproving this newfangled AGW rubbish).

As a forty-something, I find this attitude curious. Whilst the country has problems, I would rather be alive now than at any time in the past. Give me the Britain of 2014 over that of 1984, 1954 or 1924.

And we all - including political parties - need to work to ensure that 2044 is better than 2014.

Amen.

chestnut

TCPoliticalBetting said:

Lab have a good chance of winning Rochester. 45% of the vote (Lab & LD) vs 53% Con/UKIP/ED. Since LDs can be expected to drop to 5% or less, it leaves Lab with 40%+ vs Con & UKIP splitting 53% two ways.

Half of LD switchers are going somewhere other than Labour, but it's very true that Labour could win if the 26,000 Tories/EngDems split.

It would certainly aid the May 2015 Vote UKIP/Get Labour cause if Labour win.

FalseFlag

Evidence of atrocities carried out by the Kiev government forces in the Donbass emerging.
http://rt.com/news/190564-mass-graves-three-osce/

After continual shelling of residential areas of Donetsk by Kiev government forces the Novorussian Armed Forces are seeking to dislodge them from the Donetsk airport.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/09/29/ukraine-crisis-attack-idUKL6N0RU1G120140929

Elswehere Kiev government forces have abandoned a number of positions in the Donbass leaving behind heavy equipment sorely needed by the rebels. NAF now able to muster circa 20k soldiers with Kiev able to muster only 35-40k with many of their elite units and equipment significantly degraded. Offensive capabilities remain limited and any offensive runs the risk of a counter offensive which would see further NAF gains. Novorossiya is beginning to take shape as an independent state with a military well capable of protecting itself.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/09/16/ukraines-breakaway-region-is-becoming-a-de-facto-country/

In the rear support for the war party led by Lyashko continues to drop with Poroshenko set to win a sizeable majority. Fully 32% plan to boycott the parliamentary election, 3% to spoil the ballot, 5% to vote for pro-Russian parties which most likely won't be allowed on the ballot (CPU, PR), and another 3% to vote for Tihipko's "Strong Ukraine". Less than 60% plan to vote in Eastern and Southern Ukraine (obviously this excludes Crimea and the Donbass which are de facto liberated now). In the government controlled areas of Donbass, 23.5% are planning to participate in the October election. Very poor considering the intensive propaganda of the Kiev media. The natives are getting restless with promised Western economic assistance proving so far to be empty promises.

dr_spyn

If the Europhiles in the government want to stay in, it would help to know how they propose to kick start the EU into economic growth. Youth unemployment isn't low in Spain or Greece, GDP growth is almost insignificant outside Germany and Holland. Regulations come thick and fast from Brussels, but the Eurozone is almost a stagnant growth free area.

There are flights of fancy from the BOO brigade, but perhaps the BOI lot need to buck up.

Richard_Tyndall

JosiasJessop said:

RobC said:

JosiasJessop said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Well, England certainly doesn't seem terribly keen on coalitions at the moment, especially not the people who voted for the LibDems specifically in order to get one.

I find that bemusing. The Lib Dems have stood for years on having 'fairer' electoral systems that stood good chances of putting them into coalitions. Yet the moment they go into coalition, people scream and huff about it being the 'wrong' coalition, despite the fact it was the only practical one available.

What did they expect?

(Edit: and I should add the coalition has been more mature and successful than I considered possible when it was formed).

The parliamentary Lib Dems have largely got on with it. I was at a local activists party in 2010 (I'm now just an invisible supporter) and the feeling then was although it was not something we want to do there's a job to be done and therefore we need to do it well. The problems the Tories have is with their EU obsessed right flank (ie with their own internal coalition).

The problem the Conservatives have is not just their EU-obsessed right flank, but a large number who hark back to nebulous glorious days of the past, when our military was strong, we ruled ourselves, society was somehow better, and the days were generally sunnier (thus disproving this newfangled AGW rubbish).

As a forty-something, I find this attitude curious. Whilst the country has problems, I would rather be alive now than at any time in the past. Give me the Britain of 2014 over that of 1984, 1954 or 1924.

And we all - including political parties - need to work to ensure that 2044 is better than 2014.

The only main reasons things are 'better' now is because of technological and medical advances. It is a huge error to use that to counter the idea of things being better in the past. Yes lots of things are better but lots of things are worse as well. Certainly on the whole I believe both society and the relationship between the State and the population were better in the past.

FalseFlag

South German state TV channel ZDF does a satirical take on Western propaganda on Ukraine. It's German humour so its not funny but then neither is people dying and their homes being wrecked.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSOfQ7tgTLg

chestnut

Pong said:

Jeez, UKIP really is the ultimate NOTA projection party.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2773553/Now-White-Dee-threatens-defect-UKIP-Benefits-Street-star-tells-Tory-conference-IDS-touch-real-world.html

If they want to maximise their GE2015 vote, they should go with a 4-word manifesto;

"Feck 'em, vote UKIP"

This reminds me of the time that Daniella Westbrook was seen walking her poodle, with the pair of them all kitted out in Burberry.

Awful for the brand.

Benefits Street Dee votes UKIP.

Socrates

FalseFlag said:

Evidence of atrocities carried out by the Kiev government forces in the Donbass emerging.
http://rt.com/news/190564-mass-graves-three-osce/

Desperate.

RodCrosby

Rochester could end up as Eastleigh - a tight three-way battle.

JosiasJessop

Richard_Tyndall said:

JosiasJessop said:

RobC said:

JosiasJessop said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Well, England certainly doesn't seem terribly keen on coalitions at the moment, especially not the people who voted for the LibDems specifically in order to get one.

I find that bemusing. The Lib Dems have stood for years on having 'fairer' electoral systems that stood good chances of putting them into coalitions. Yet the moment they go into coalition, people scream and huff about it being the 'wrong' coalition, despite the fact it was the only practical one available.

What did they expect?

(Edit: and I should add the coalition has been more mature and successful than I considered possible when it was formed).

The parliamentary Lib Dems have largely got on with it. I was at a local activists party in 2010 (I'm now just an invisible supporter) and the feeling then was although it was not something we want to do there's a job to be done and therefore we need to do it well. The problems the Tories have is with their EU obsessed right flank (ie with their own internal coalition).

The problem the Conservatives have is not just their EU-obsessed right flank, but a large number who hark back to nebulous glorious days of the past, when our military was strong, we ruled ourselves, society was somehow better, and the days were generally sunnier (thus disproving this newfangled AGW rubbish).

As a forty-something, I find this attitude curious. Whilst the country has problems, I would rather be alive now than at any time in the past. Give me the Britain of 2014 over that of 1984, 1954 or 1924.

And we all - including political parties - need to work to ensure that 2044 is better than 2014.

The only main reasons things are 'better' now is because of technological and medical advances. It is a huge error to use that to counter the idea of things being better in the past. Yes lots of things are better but lots of things are worse as well. Certainly on the whole I believe both society and the relationship between the State and the population were better in the past.

You can't split technological and medical advances off and ignore them. In fact, part of the reason why the relationship between state and population has become more complex is because of technological advance. As technology gives us freedom to do more - from work, to transport, to academia, to leisure - so does the potential for misuse of that technology by both citizens and the state.

I daresay my gay friends would rather be living today then in 1954. And most women will be better off as well.

Charles

@isam FPT

I'd approach it differently (because I think it is low probability, but want to keep the upside myself!)

So I'd say , for an investment that I could lose everything, I'd want a 20% + return on equity on an annualised basis.

Which means I'd need a 10% return between now and the election (taking that as the cut off).

So I'd offer you 7-1. But I'm sure you will find someone on betfair who will offer better odds.

Sean_F

JosiasJessop said:

RobC said:

JosiasJessop said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Well, England certainly doesn't seem terribly keen on coalitions at the moment, especially not the people who voted for the LibDems specifically in order to get one.

right flank (ie with their own internal coalition).

The problem the Conservatives have is not just their EU-obsessed right flank, but a large number who hark back to nebulous glorious days of the past, when our military was strong, we ruled ourselves, society was somehow better, and the days were generally sunnier (thus disproving this newfangled AGW rubbish).

As a forty-something, I find this attitude curious. Whilst the country has problems, I would rather be alive now than at any time in the past. Give me the Britain of 2014 over that of 1984, 1954 or 1924.

And we all - including political parties - need to work to ensure that 2044 is better than 2014.

JosiasJessop said:

RobC said:

JosiasJessop said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Well, England certainly doesn't seem terribly keen on coalitions at the moment, especially not the people who voted for the LibDems specifically in order to get one.

The parliamentary Lib Dems have largely got on with it. I was at a local activists party in 2010 (I'm now just an invisible supporter) and the feeling then was although it was not something we want to do there's a job to be done and therefore we need to do it well. The problems the Tories have is with their EU obsessed right flank (ie with their own internal coalition).

The problem the Conservatives have is not just their EU-obsessed right flank, but a large number who hark back to nebulous glorious days of the past, when our military was strong, we ruled ourselves, society was somehow better, and the days were generally sunnier (thus disproving this newfangled AGW rubbish).

As a forty-something, I find this attitude curious. Whilst the country has problems, I would rather be alive now than at any time in the past. Give me the Britain of 2014 over that of 1984, 1954 or 1924.

And we all - including political parties - need to work to ensure that 2044 is better than 2014.

Speaking for myself, I enjoyed the late 1980s most of all.

The thing about 1924, 1954, or 1984, is that although people were worse off financially than they are today, they could expect their own lives, and their childrens' to get better. That assumption no longer holds. And, we were much more clearly a self-governing society in those years than we are now.

hucks67

This link is a must read, as it show how few seats actually change hands.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25949029

I think 2015 will be similar to 2005, where only 62 changed hands. 1997 and 2010 were not normal as a government had been in power for quite awhile, so those who wanted a change went out to vote.

isam

Charles said:

@isam FPT

I'd approach it differently (because I think it is low probability, but want to keep the upside myself!)

So I'd say , for an investment that I could lose everything, I'd want a 20% + return on equity on an annualised basis.

Which means I'd need a 10% return between now and the election (taking that as the cut off).

So I'd offer you 7-1. But I'm sure you will find someone on betfair who will offer better odds.

No deal!

FalseFlag

Socrates said:

FalseFlag said:

Evidence of atrocities carried out by the Kiev government forces in the Donbass emerging.
http://rt.com/news/190564-mass-graves-three-osce/

Desperate.

Scum.

Sean_F

RodCrosby said:

Rochester could end up as Eastleigh - a tight three-way battle.

I expect Labour will get squeezed.

Socrates

FalseFlag said:

Socrates said:

FalseFlag said:

Evidence of atrocities carried out by the Kiev government forces in the Donbass emerging.
http://rt.com/news/190564-mass-graves-three-osce/

Desperate.

Scum.

Because I don't subscribe to your worship of racist and homophobic autocrats? How upsetting for me.

Luckyguy1983

Socrates said:

FalseFlag said:

Evidence of atrocities carried out by the Kiev government forces in the Donbass emerging.
http://rt.com/news/190564-mass-graves-three-osce/

Desperate.

How so?

Smarmeron

In the "not helpful category"
John Redwood (BBC conference blog)



If [business leaders] don’t understand that now they will find those of us organising the ‘get out’ campaign will then make life difficult for them by making sure that their customers, their employees and their shareholders who disagree with them - and there will be a lot who disagree with them - will be expressing their views very forcefully and will be destablising their corporate governance.

This is absolutely crucial that these people get this. That it will be deeply disruptive to their businesses, and maybe even to their own tenure of their jobs, if a chief executive with a handful of shares thinks he can put the voice of a multi-national corporation behind a highly intense political argument in one country in which they operate.

It would be extremely foolish and we must make sure they have to pay a very dear economic and financial price were they to try that ill-judged thing.

RodCrosby

"Perhaps over time we’ll come to see the post-war years as if not an anomaly, just one more period of British politics rather than the natural definitive state."

The "post-war" period ended in 1974, according to most psephologists.

The question now might be is whether we are moving from a three-party to a four-party system.

volcanopete

Iain Dale @IainDale
Follow
Told by a normally reliable source another Tory UKIP defection is imminent. Stand by your beds.
1:31 PM - 29 Sep 2014
Any markets up?

Smarmeron

@volcanopete
We would be as well climbing into bed at this rate?

Richard_Nabavi

Smarmeron said:

In the "not helpful category"
John Redwood (BBC conference blog)



If [business leaders] don’t understand that now they will find those of us organising the ‘get out’ campaign will then make life difficult for them by making sure that their customers, their employees and their shareholders who disagree with them - and there will be a lot who disagree with them - will be expressing their views very forcefully and will be destablising their corporate governance.

This is absolutely crucial that these people get this. That it will be deeply disruptive to their businesses, and maybe even to their own tenure of their jobs, if a chief executive with a handful of shares thinks he can put the voice of a multi-national corporation behind a highly intense political argument in one country in which they operate.

It would be extremely foolish and we must make sure they have to pay a very dear economic and financial price were they to try that ill-judged thing.

I usually admire John Redwood, but that is not so much 'unhelpful' as 'raving bonkers'.

Charles

antifrank said:

"Decide or decline" is an awful slogan. I get what it's aimed at, and it's what the Conservatives should be aiming at, but it will be incomprehensible to nearly all of its intended audience.

Conservative or Bust!

Socrates

Luckyguy1983 said:

Socrates said:

FalseFlag said:

Evidence of atrocities carried out by the Kiev government forces in the Donbass emerging.
http://rt.com/news/190564-mass-graves-three-osce/

Desperate.

How so?

Citing Russian government reporting on Russian militias' claims that anti-Russian forces carried out mass killings as "evidence"?

Eastwinger

chestnut said:

Pong said:

Jeez, UKIP really is the ultimate NOTA projection party.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2773553/Now-White-Dee-threatens-defect-UKIP-Benefits-Street-star-tells-Tory-conference-IDS-touch-real-world.html

If they want to maximise their GE2015 vote, they should go with a 4-word manifesto;

"Feck 'em, vote UKIP"

This reminds me of the time that Daniella Westbrook was seen walking her poodle, with the pair of them all kitted out in Burberry.

Awful for the brand.

Benefits Street Dee votes UKIP.

English benefits for English scroungers.

AlastairMeeks

Charles said:

antifrank said:

"Decide or decline" is an awful slogan. I get what it's aimed at, and it's what the Conservatives should be aiming at, but it will be incomprehensible to nearly all of its intended audience.

Conservative or Bust!

That would be far better. That's pretty good from a Conservative perspective, actually.

Richard_Tyndall

JosiasJessop said:

You can't split technological and medical advances off and ignore them. In fact, part of the reason why the relationship between state and population has become more complex is because of technological advance. As technology gives us freedom to do more - from work, to transport, to academia, to leisure - so does the potential for misuse of that technology by both citizens and the state.

I daresay my gay friends would rather be living today then in 1954. And most women will be better off as well.

Of course you can split off technological and medical advances. The problem is not one of more freedom to do more (who amongst the employed actually works less now than they used to?) but what we have allowed the State to accrue in terms of powers over us and their ability to spemd our money.

One could argue that given the speed of technological and medical advance in countries outside the UK it is very easy - indeed preferable - to separate them from the general trends in society and governance.

I would agree that there have been some societal improvements that I would not change. But overall I believe our society is much poorer in terms of the relationship between the Government and the populace than it has been in the past and that the trend is going in entirely the wrong direction.

As an aside I also believe it is unsustainable and the sort of welfare state model that currently exists cannot last in the medium term.

Theuniondivvie

Smarmeron said:

In the "not helpful category"
John Redwood (BBC conference blog)



If [business leaders] don’t understand that now they will find those of us organising the ‘get out’ campaign will then make life difficult for them by making sure that their customers, their employees and their shareholders who disagree with them - and there will be a lot who disagree with them - will be expressing their views very forcefully and will be destablising their corporate governance.

This is absolutely crucial that these people get this. That it will be deeply disruptive to their businesses, and maybe even to their own tenure of their jobs, if a chief executive with a handful of shares thinks he can put the voice of a multi-national corporation behind a highly intense political argument in one country in which they operate.

It would be extremely foolish and we must make sure they have to pay a very dear economic and financial price were they to try that ill-judged thing.

Lol.
Jim Sillars ('SNP no.2') and Redwood on the same page, for probably the only time in both their lives.

Charles

isam said:

Charles said:

@isam FPT

I'd approach it differently (because I think it is low probability, but want to keep the upside myself!)

So I'd say , for an investment that I could lose everything, I'd want a 20% + return on equity on an annualised basis.

Which means I'd need a 10% return between now and the election (taking that as the cut off).

So I'd offer you 7-1. But I'm sure you will find someone on betfair who will offer better odds.

No deal!

So tell me what you want & l'll see if I can accommodate you.

hucks67

volcanopete said:

Iain Dale @IainDale
Follow
Told by a normally reliable source another Tory UKIP defection is imminent. Stand by your beds.
1:31 PM - 29 Sep 2014
Any markets up?

Would not surprise me if it were Philip Davies.

RodCrosby

What time of day was the Reckless announcement?

TheScreamingEagles

Anyone defected yet?

___Bobajob___

2010 The Big Society
2015 Decide or Decline

The Tories' bizarre penchant for cryptic slogans continues

TheScreamingEagles

RodCrosby said:

What time of day was the Reckless announcement?

2.30ish

hucks67

TheScreamingEagles said:

Anyone defected yet?

Philip Davies has been asked about it on twitter and he has not denied it.

Smarmeron

Apols. Guardian live blog, not BBC...bad day for multi tasking.

JosiasJessop

Sean_F said:

Speaking for myself, I enjoyed the late 1980s most of all.

The thing about 1924, 1954, or 1984, is that although people were worse off financially than they are today, they could expect their own lives, and their childrens' to get better. That assumption no longer holds. And, we were much more clearly a self-governing society in those years than we are now.

(I'm hoping I've edited the quotes correctly, and that you said this SeanF).

The 1980s are my favourite decade. Then again, they were my childhood and teens.

"self-governing" led to all sorts of abuses; Saville and other child abuse being small examples. We expect government to deal with all sorts of ills, and complain when they do not, yet want to be a more self-governing society?

As for expecting life to get better: perhaps those feelings were based on an unrealistic view of the world, and especially Britain's place on it. The last few years may have caused reality to crash into many people's consciousnesses.

But leaving that aside: will my son's life be 'better' than my own? I think so, given he avoids the obvious health and other problems that can bedevil us. He will certainly have more opportunities than I ever did, and I came from a loving, reasonably well-off family. He will probably live longer (if the trend continues), and I can see few reasons why he might not be at least as happy as I am, if not happier.

But 'better' is such an awful word to use; it means different things to everyone.

JohnO

RodCrosby said:

What time of day was the Reckless announcement?

Closing time?

JosiasJessop

___Bobajob___ said:

2010 The Big Society
2015 Decide or Decline

The Tories' bizarre penchant for cryptic slogans continues

Big Society was hardly cryptic, and easy to understand. Agree about 'Decide or decline', if indeed that is their current slogan.

(Question to knowledgeable posters: is it?)

TheScreamingEagles

hucks67 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Anyone defected yet?

Philip Davies has been asked about it on twitter and he has not denied it.

Cheers.

Time to ring David Herdson.

___Bobajob___

@Nick Palmer

Indeed. Which is why I never set much stall by "precedent" stats. There was a great cartoon at the Potus 2012 election which I think Antifrank sourced which poked fun at this brilliantly.

I wish I could put my finger on it.

Smarmeron

Guardian Blog update
"Alistair Burt, the former Foreign Office minister, says John Redwood’s comment is so extreme he thinks Redwood can’t really have said it."
Dave will be most upset.

JosiasJessop

Richard_Tyndall said:

JosiasJessop said:

You can't split technological and medical advances off and ignore them. In fact, part of the reason why the relationship between state and population has become more complex is because of technological advance. As technology gives us freedom to do more - from work, to transport, to academia, to leisure - so does the potential for misuse of that technology by both citizens and the state.

I daresay my gay friends would rather be living today then in 1954. And most women will be better off as well.

Of course you can split off technological and medical advances. The problem is not one of more freedom to do more (who amongst the employed actually works less now than they used to?) but what we have allowed the State to accrue in terms of powers over us and their ability to spemd our money.

One could argue that given the speed of technological and medical advance in countries outside the UK it is very easy - indeed preferable - to separate them from the general trends in society and governance.

I would agree that there have been some societal improvements that I would not change. But overall I believe our society is much poorer in terms of the relationship between the Government and the populace than it has been in the past and that the trend is going in entirely the wrong direction.

As an aside I also believe it is unsustainable and the sort of welfare state model that currently exists cannot last in the medium term.

I disagree with all of that except for the last paragraph, which I agree will sadly be unsustainable, unless we see major societal change.

But I doubt I will convince you about the rest, or you me.

Luckyguy1983

Socrates said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Socrates said:

FalseFlag said:

Evidence of atrocities carried out by the Kiev government forces in the Donbass emerging.
http://rt.com/news/190564-mass-graves-three-osce/

Desperate.

How so?

Citing Russian government reporting on Russian militias' claims that anti-Russian forces carried out mass killings as "evidence"?

That story cites the OSCE ( http://www.osce.org ) as confirming the presence of these mass graves. Again, a case where a short read ahead might have helped you. Again a case where your under-nourished list of news sources has let you down. It has always been widely known that the Ukranian forces were not fully under one central command, with many groups such as Right-Sector operating independently. That's a neo-nazi group unless you weren't aware. I take it your firm line on the 'far right' still applies?

AlastairMeeks

___Bobajob___ said:

@Nick Palmer

Indeed. Which is why I never set much stall by "precedent" stats. There was a great cartoon at the Potus 2012 election which I think Antifrank sourced which poked fun at this brilliantly.

I wish I could put my finger on it.

I didn't source it, but here it is:

http://xkcd.com/1122/

___Bobajob___

Is John "John Boy" Redwood the defector?

taffys

I'd have thought UKIP might want to time a defection to happen when Dave is making his keynote speech....???

Theuniondivvie

Another slant on topic, from Kellner.

'Ukip, the SNP and the risks of parliamentary paralysis'

http://tinyurl.com/l7sq7cl

TheScreamingEagles

antifrank said:

___Bobajob___ said:

@Nick Palmer

Indeed. Which is why I never set much stall by "precedent" stats. There was a great cartoon at the Potus 2012 election which I think Antifrank sourced which poked fun at this brilliantly.

I wish I could put my finger on it.

I didn't source it, but here it is:

http://xkcd.com/1122/

That's the one embedded in the thread header.

Richard_Nabavi

Richard_Tyndall said:

I would agree that there have been some societal improvements that I would not change. But overall I believe our society is much poorer in terms of the relationship between the Government and the populace than it has been in the past and that the trend is going in entirely the wrong direction.

That's looking at things very much through rose-tinted spectacles. I remember times, and they are not long ago, when:

- The state told me how much foreign exchange I was allowed to buy
- The state told me how much of a mortgage I was allowed
- The state told my employer how much it could pay its employees
- The state told my employer what prices it could charge its customers
- The state insisted I'd have to join a particular trade union to work in a given industry
- The state told me that I could only buy not only telecoms services, but even telecoms equipment, only through the state monopoly industy

There are many more such examples. We actually live in a much freer society than at any time in living memory. The Maggie revolution was stunning, but the achievements are of course taken for granted now even by those who claim to despise her.

___Bobajob___

Josias
Was it ? What did Big Society mean then? Picking up your own dog poo?

JosiasJessop

Off-topic:

The Mirror's bang to rights. Apparently the photos used in their stingentrapment were of a Swedish model, used without permission.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/29/swedish-model-did-not-permit-sunday-mirror-use-photo-brooks-newmark

TGOHF

TheScreamingEagles said:

Anyone defected yet?

You have to wait until they delete some tweets and edit their blog page.

"Philip Davies, Tory MP for Shipley, West Yorkshire, said: "This is absolutely scandalous and yet another example of the racket enjoyed by European politicians and bureaucrats."

I don't think he meant you Nige

TheScreamingEagles

Dave if you're reading this, first ennoble JohnO, secondly, pass a law banning Mike Smithson from going on holiday ever again.

Ta.

JosiasJessop

___Bobajob___ said:

Josias
Was it ? What did Big Society mean then? Picking up your own dog poo?

The fact you use that as an example shows that you either know the answer, or are intellectually incapable of understanding.

Garethofthevale

hucks67 said:

volcanopete said:

Iain Dale @IainDale
Follow
Told by a normally reliable source another Tory UKIP defection is imminent. Stand by your beds.
1:31 PM - 29 Sep 2014
Any markets up?

Would not surprise me if it were Philip Davies.

Could UKIP win a by-election in Shipley though? Not convinced.

Looking at the 'no's to action in Syria I would narrow it down to 3 possibles:

Gordon Henderson - Sittingbourne
Adam Holloway - Gravesham
John Baron - Basildon and Billericay

Think UKIP could win a defection by-election in any of these 3 constituencies.

manofkent2014

‘England does not love coalitions’ is the famous and (since 2010) commonly quoted declaration by Disraeli, which is a quote that doesn’t bear up to much scrutiny.

How many times have the electorate been able to choose a Coalition at the ballot box? Coalitions are generally the creature of political parties back room stitch-ups. They are not mentioned let alone detailed in manifestos and therefore they are not chosen by the people. Already there seems to be some lazy expedience creeping in here.

As is lumping together alliances and coalitions. To me an alliance is a long term agreement of two groups with similar outlooks forming a partnership for mutual benefit (e.g. Ulster Unionists, Scottish Unionists, National Liberals and English Conservatives) .One knows before the election that these parties will work together generally after the election and you will find that there are clear demarcation lines such as locale between them.

SImilarly, lumping in two periods of National Government which were enforced by World War and involved the suspension of democracy hardly bare any resemblance to what one might call a 'coalition' in normal times.

A coalition on the other hand to me is two parties who directly opposed each other in the general election who through a lack of a definitive result through expedience do a deal to form the government. Unlike alliances, voters have little or no advanced warning of a coalition and what its nature and policy offering will be. Unlike National government there are no extenuating circumstances of an extreme National Security nature to justify the suspension of democracy. The three forms of government are very different and should not be lumped together.

A better sense of how voters view coalitions is how many true coalitions have survived beyond one term?

It seems to me though that Coalitions come about as a result of the destabilisation of the political landscape by new political factors such as the rise of the Labour Party at the end of the Victorian/ Industrial Revolution consensus at the start of the 20th Century. Similarly this latest incarnation of coalition is driven by the potential end of the Post War Consensus and the rise of new parties in it's wake.

Now none of these factors are higlighted in the article and suggest to me that the assertion quoted above doesn't really stand up to any scrutiny at all. I tend to agree with Disraeli. I do not think people like coalition for the simple reason they have no way to judge its potential in advance or stop it from happening should it occur!

Whilst I may have libertarian tendencies I would suggest that lumping together alliances, national government and coalitions in the same category is one 'liberty' too far!

___Bobajob___

Antifrank - that's it. Many thanks, much appreciated

taffys

Decide or decline sounds like one of those late afternoon quiz shows....

'And coming up after Pointless, Decide or Decline.....where Conservative MPs face their careers ending if they can't decide to agree with David Cameron quickly enough...

Sunil_Prasannan

TheScreamingEagles said:

Anyone defected yet?

"And in other news today, TSE defects from the Tories PB.com to Guido"

DecrepitJohnL

JosiasJessop said:

Off-topic:

The Mirror's bang to rights. Apparently the photos used in their stingentrapment were of a Swedish model, used without permission.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/29/swedish-model-did-not-permit-sunday-mirror-use-photo-brooks-newmark

Yes, it is appalling but as with Oscar Wilde's libel suit, maybe the Tories would be better advised to swallow it rather than risk it hitting the headlines again in, say, six months' time during the election campaign.

___Bobajob___

Josias

Nope. I guessed at the answer then, and I'm still guessing now.

isam

___Bobajob___ said:

2010 The Big Society
2015 Decide or Decline

The Tories' bizarre penchant for cryptic slogans continues

I think The Big Society was good myself... set themselves against The Big State well

Cameron didn't have the balls to stick with it, a la Miliband and Blue Labour

I would say UKIP are a combo of both, that's why I vote for them. I liked both ideas at the time

TheScreamingEagles

Sunil_Prasannan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Anyone defected yet?

"And in other news today, TSE defects from the Tories PB.com to Guido"

Bah I'm joining the Guardian