Richard Delingpole @DickDelingpole 9h9 hours ago The Lib Dems are ACTUALLY using the phrase "if we win the General Election" when announcing their execrable policies. LOL
As one of the 6% and one of the last seven or eight LDs left in the country (apparently), there's lots for me to comment on from the largely negative postings of the past couple few days.
I'm absolutely convinced the Party will survive - 7.5% and six seats in 1970 didn't destroy us and I don't think even the most optimistic anti-LD is saying six seats or fewer so the party will go on albeit to a different tune.
I've commented on here and elsewhere about Nick's mistakes - AV was never and has never been Party policy. In many ways, it's as disproportionate as FPTP. I presume either we offered a referendum on STV in the post-election negotiations and were rebuffed or didn't offer it because we knew we would be rebuffed.
Very few in the LDs shed any tears for the demise of AV - I do accept it was a personal humiliation for Nick following the tuition fees debacle. The problem with credibility is once lost it's incredibly tough to regain.
My view has long been that the Party will (unless a miracle happens and 50+ MPS are returned) not seek to go into Coalition or any other arrangement after the next election. IF either the Labour or Conservative parties need a Coalition partner next May, it will be the likes of SNP or UKIP (if they have any MPs) to do the heavy lifting.
There was a fascinating defeatist piece by Amol Rajan in Wednesday's Evening Standard saying next year would be a good election for Labour to lose and pointing out the not inconsiderable obstacles facing the 2015-2020 Government. Politics doesn't work like that - nobody seriously wants to lose though positioning oneself is always helpful.
I'm on a 2015 or later election at 1-10 and I'd be very happy to top up another hundred liability at 1-8.
Audrey mentioned 800/1, Pulpstar, although I don't think she really considered the potential liabilities when doing so.
To be fair, she said that 800/1 was value. That's not the same as making a book - it's saying what you would need to be a punter.
To be fair, it implies that she might be prepared to take a bet at those odds or something like it.
It also implies she knows something about odds and value, or at least more than David Herdson whose suggestion of 8/1 she found laughable. In the circumstances, I think an offer to take her at her word was fair enough.
It is, after all, a betting site, Charles.
Sorry have been away doing housework and sorting out some admin.
Dear Peter, you are being rather curmudgeonly. You are allowing your fondness for David Herdson get the better of you. I merely suggested that odds of 8-1 on an autumn election are almost as laughable as the thread topic: that odds of 800-1 would be closer to a fair reflection on the likelihood of it happening.
However, do I wish to bet on an autumn election at those, or indeed any, odds? Nope.
p.s. last time I checked commenting on here about odds, value, spreads, likelihoods etc. didn't constitute a 'liability' p.p.s. shhhh I also rather like David, but this wasn't him at his best.
You are wise to duck the bet, Audrey.
I didn't for one moment think you were serious, or had thought about the potential liabilities (4,000 quid for a fiver return.) I did however think your dismissive remark deserved to be put in perspective. David knows his politics and his odds. If he quotes 8/1 he's given the matter some thought, and the odds are not likely to be far out. You found his suggestion laughable. Fairy nuff. But if you suggest something closer to 800/1, on a betting site, you can't be surprised if somebody makes you an offer you damn well better refuse.
Fairy nuff?
Mr. Punter,
I read your comments with interest. Are you saying that if someone posts a comments suggesting that the odds on something seem too low at n/1 and xn/1 would be more appropriate then that person should be treated as offering those longer odds?
You're being a bit of a silly bee Peter to be honest, and I'm quite tempted to take you up on the bet. However, as an occasional better I won't because the odds don't make it worth my while. That doesn't imply that my comment is devalued, merely that it's not a value punt for me. You know this. I know this.
You also know as well as I do that odds of 8-1 on an autumn election are absolutely ludicrous, but I will take your rush to the defence of David, when it would cost you barely a dime, as endearing rather than the macho bullying it might otherwise appear. ----------------------------- Being patronising, silly and sneering won't endear you to this blog, #audreyanne.
I'm on a 2015 or later election at 1-10 and I'd be very happy to top up another hundred liability at 1-8.
Audrey mentioned 800/1, Pulpstar, although I don't think she really considered the potential liabilities when doing so.
To be fair, she said that 800/1 was value. That's not the same as making a book - it's saying what you would need to be a punter.
To be fair, it implies that she might be prepared to take a bet at those odds or something like it.
It also implies she knows something about odds and value, or at least more than David Herdson whose suggestion of 8/1 she found laughable. In the circumstances, I think an offer to take her at her word was fair enough.
It is, after all, a betting site, Charles.
I'd disagree - betting is only one aspect of the site these days.
I think she was using it metaphorically and you were being mean to pursue it.
It's always been just one aspect of the site, Charles.
It is however the aspect that distinguishes it from other political sites. It explains why you get less bullshit on here than most political sites. Shoot the breeze and you are likely to get shot down, financially if you are not careful.
Nobody's obliged to get involved in the betting, but if you start talking about odds, value and the like, you can't be surprised if the punting types around here take you up. David Herdson is one of the strongest political posters on here and knows a thing or two about betting too. If he considers the odds to be about 8/1, you can take it that he won't be that far wide of the mark. Of course if somebody thinks that he is so laughably wrong as to suggest 800/1 would be 'just about value', they are entitled to their opinion, but they can also expect to be asked to back it up with a small wager.
Or possibly concede that they had perhaps overegged it a bit.
It was the mocking conversation with Pulpstar that was mean
Audrey can speak for herself, Charles.
Anyway, on a betting site I don't see that it's mean to lightly mock somebody for some ill-considered comments about odds and value and the like.
I don't get the impression she's bothered - nor should she be, if she's going to enter the fray by deriding somebody who does know a thing or two about odds etc.
As one of the 6% and one of the last seven or eight LDs left in the country (apparently), there's lots for me to comment on from the largely negative postings of the past couple few days.
I'm absolutely convinced the Party will survive - 7.5% and six seats in 1970 didn't destroy us and I don't think even the most optimistic anti-LD is saying six seats or fewer so the party will go on albeit to a different tune.
I've commented on here and elsewhere about Nick's mistakes - AV was never and has never been Party policy. In many ways, it's as disproportionate as FPTP. I presume either we offered a referendum on STV in the post-election negotiations and were rebuffed or didn't offer it because we knew we would be rebuffed.
Very few in the LDs shed any tears for the demise of AV - I do accept it was a personal humiliation for Nick following the tuition fees debacle. The problem with credibility is once lost it's incredibly tough to regain.
My view has long been that the Party will (unless a miracle happens and 50+ MPS are returned) not seek to go into Coalition or any other arrangement after the next election. IF either the Labour or Conservative parties need a Coalition partner next May, it will be the likes of SNP or UKIP (if they have any MPs) to do the heavy lifting.
There was a fascinating defeatist piece by Amol Rajan in Wednesday's Evening Standard saying next year would be a good election for Labour to lose and pointing out the not inconsiderable obstacles facing the 2015-2020 Government. Politics doesn't work like that - nobody seriously wants to lose though positioning oneself is always helpful.
Of course the LibDems will survive, but they need a period of opposition to go away and decide what they collectively believe in.
I notice Jeremy Browne was in this week's NewStatesman offering a third alternative for Liberals: not social liberalism nor Clegg/Orange book, but what he calls 360 degree Liberalism with a strong emphasis on economic liberalism, free markets, profit in public services etc. He has a book coming soon.
Won't be an election this year - Labour are still ahead in the Polls
Are we expecting any polls in the Sundays?
Yes, YouGov and I think Opinium, maybe others?
On 800gate, I rather agree with audreyanne that 800-1 is about right. But my utility function is curved, in that I'd less than 800 times rather have a 799/800 chance of £5 than a 1/800 chance of losing £4000, so I won't offer a bet. However, I'll offer £10 at 24-1: I predict that there will be no election called by November 30, and will pay £240 to the first person who takes the bet if there is. Three times David's odds! How can you lot resist?
Dr. Prasannan, exile yourself to ConHome this instant for abuse of the exclamation mark (unless you've won a five figure sum or more on that incident occurring, in which case exile yourself to ConHome forever for not sharing the tip with the rest of us).
Dr. Prasannan, exile yourself to ConHome this instant for abuse of the exclamation mark (unless you've won a five figure sum or more on that incident occurring, in which case exile yourself to ConHome forever for not sharing the tip with the rest of us).
Apologies, Mr Dancer. "The Hunt for Red October" is on Film4, you see.
The Conservatives signed up to bring forward an elected lords, then didn't. With a significant chunk of the party rejecting any kind of elections (contrary to their owb manifesto).
The Lib Dems signed up to bring forward boundary reform and didn't.
If you going to try to rewrite history, it's better not to choose an aspect where the documentary evidence trivially rebuts your rewrite.
Or do you think no-one has access to the Coalition Agreement any more?
Corporeal clearly has a problem understanding the facts from history. So it maybe best to move on as Corporeal is convinced that the Lib Dems walk on water , are whiter than white (well their MPs are) and are always right in any argument with another party.
I did hear from the LD Conf that 2/3 of the delegates they approved for this Conference will not be turning up. 120 of them have a substitute....
rottenborough So what Jeremy Browne is recommending is basically Cameron Conservatism, except a bit more rightwing on public services and the NHS
Well, details are sketchy - it's only a short interview. I guess the book will say more. I know profit-making free schools was mentioned. I'm guessing that the model is the Free Democrats of Germany, but I'm not sure. They certainly espouse economic liberalism and flat tax.
You're being a bit of a silly bee Peter to be honest, and I'm quite tempted to take you up on the bet. However, as an occasional better I won't because the odds don't make it worth my while. That doesn't imply that my comment is devalued, merely that it's not a value punt for me. You know this. I know this.
You also know as well as I do that odds of 8-1 on an autumn election are absolutely ludicrous, but I will take your rush to the defence of David, when it would cost you barely a dime, as endearing rather than the macho bullying it might otherwise appear. ----------------------------- Being patronising, silly and sneering won't endear you to this blog, #audreyanne.
Macho, Mike?
Moi?
Seriously, I think 8/1 is a bit low. But 800/1 was way, way too high, and kind of derisive of an interesting and thoughtful piece by a respected punting-politico.
Offering to take the odds was a tease and seemed a semi-seriious way of suggesting as much. The bet would never have got layed, you know that. But I do think people shouldn't go round quoting fancy odds without any intention of taking them - not anywhere, and particularly not here, where some people do bet, occasionally in large amounts.
Won't be an election this year - Labour are still ahead in the Polls
Are we expecting any polls in the Sundays?
Yes, YouGov and I think Opinium, maybe others?
On 800gate, I rather agree with audreyanne that 800-1 is about right. But my utility function is curved, in that I'd less than 800 times rather have a 799/800 chance of £5 than a 1/800 chance of losing £4000, so I won't offer a bet. However, I'll offer £10 at 24-1: I predict that there will be no election called by November 30, and will pay £240 to the first person who takes the bet if there is. Three times David's odds! How can you lot resist?
You disappoint me, Nick!
I'm sure I'd lose the fiver but it would be worth it for the outside chance of taking four grand off the next MP for Broxtowe.
Nor will I take your kind offer of 24/1. As I've already indicated, I agree that David's 8/1 is a bit low. My figure is closer to yours, so no bet.
As one of the 6% and one of the last seven or eight LDs left in the country (apparently), there's lots for me to comment on from the largely negative postings of the past couple few days.
I'm absolutely convinced the Party will survive - 7.5% and six seats in 1970 didn't destroy us and I don't think even the most optimistic anti-LD is saying six seats or fewer so the party will go on albeit to a different tune.
I've commented on here and elsewhere about Nick's mistakes - AV was never and has never been Party policy. In many ways, it's as disproportionate as FPTP. I presume either we offered a referendum on STV in the post-election negotiations and were rebuffed or didn't offer it because we knew we would be rebuffed.
Very few in the LDs shed any tears for the demise of AV - I do accept it was a personal humiliation for Nick following the tuition fees debacle. The problem with credibility is once lost it's incredibly tough to regain.
My view has long been that the Party will (unless a miracle happens and 50+ MPS are returned) not seek to go into Coalition or any other arrangement after the next election. IF either the Labour or Conservative parties need a Coalition partner next May, it will be the likes of SNP or UKIP (if they have any MPs) to do the heavy lifting.
There was a fascinating defeatist piece by Amol Rajan in Wednesday's Evening Standard saying next year would be a good election for Labour to lose and pointing out the not inconsiderable obstacles facing the 2015-2020 Government. Politics doesn't work like that - nobody seriously wants to lose though positioning oneself is always helpful.
The 9/1 on Labour minority and 10/1 on Conservative minority bets are (were? I see the latter option is suspended) both excellent ones on Ladbrokes post-election government market.
"Seriously, I think 8/1 is a bit low. But 800/1 was way, way too high, and kind of derisive of an interesting and thoughtful piece by a respected punting-politico.
Offering to take the odds was a tease and seemed a semi-seriious way of suggesting as much. The bet would never have got layed, you know that. But I do think people shouldn't go round quoting fancy odds without any intention of taking them - not anywhere, and particularly not here, where some people do bet, occasionally in large amounts. "
Quick dip from Strictly.
Peter, fair enough. However, I think the actual odds of an autumn election are closer to 2000-1. If anyone can tell me differently I think that's what the bookies would offer.
My point though was this: I could make a case for John Redwood becoming Prime Minister by Christmas, and argue it with reasonable coherence. Suppose I suggested my own odds of 8-1 on the likelihood, and you, Peter, said it should be closer to 800-1. Would I, at that point, suggest you match your comment with your money? No. Why? Because it wouldn't be a value bet for you and besides I wouldn't insist every time you made a comment it should be backed with your own cash.
As I mentioned below, David Herdson is one of my favourite commentators on here. He posts fabulous threads week after week, and I like the way he often seems to counter-balance other bias. I also admire him for having the courage to take a polemic and run with it. Bravo. But, do I think an autumn General Election is remotely likely? 8-1 likely? No. 800-1 or longer.
Anyway, you make a good point Peter that there are people here not only who do bet, but occasionally bet large amounts. This gives a dimension that is different from many, or all, other sites. There's nothing quite like money for talking.
rottenborough An interesting idea philosophically, but if the LDs wish to follow the FDP, who now have no seats in the Bundestag and are polling 2-3% in the latest polls, be my guest
Seriously, I think 8/1 is a bit low. But 800/1 was way, way too high, and kind of derisive of an interesting and thoughtful piece by a respected punting-politico.
Offering to take the odds was a tease and seemed a semi-seriious way of suggesting as much. The bet would never have got layed, you know that. But I do think people shouldn't go round quoting fancy odds without any intention of taking them - not anywhere, and particularly not here, where some people do bet, occasionally in large amounts.
Quick dip from Strictly.
Peter, fair enough. However, I think the actual odds of an autumn election are closer to 2000-1. If anyone can tell me differently I think that's what the bookies would offer.
My point though was this: I could make a case for John Redwood becoming Prime Minister by Christmas, and argue it with reasonable coherence. Suppose I suggested my own odds of 8-1 on the likelihood, and you, Peter, said it should be closer to 800-1. Would I, at that point, suggest you match your comment with your money? No. Why? Because it wouldn't be a value bet for you and besides I wouldn't insist every time you made a comment it should be backed with your own cash.
As I mentioned below, David Herdson is one of my favourite commentators on here. He posts fabulous threads week after week, and I like the way he often seems to counter-balance other bias. I also admire him for having the courage to take a polemic and run with it. Bravo. But, do I think an autumn General Election is remotely likely? 8-1 likely? No. 800-1 or longer.
Anyway, you make a good point Peter that there are people here not only who do bet, but occasionally bet large amounts. This gives a dimension that is different from many, or all, other sites. There's nothing quite like money for talking.
It's a great article by David, as they always are, but I agree that 8/1 feels far too short for the reasons antifrank lists below.
To put this into perspective, this would make it *more* likely than a Conservative minority government next year, according to Ladbrokes. That just feels wrong.
Agree with Nick Palmer - this is more of a 25/1 shot.
The one factor David does not take into account is personal interest,money and status and the perks of ministerial office.For all the bogus talk of "the national interest",it's the personal interest that affects the probabilities here.Conclusion -no offer from me on this market as they all like their ministerial cars too much.
Browne is a proponent of what I would call "classical liberalism" and indeed the mind set of the Liberal Party of the 1950s.
It's a stance with which many Conservatives would be comfortable - for modern liberals the problem is that it doesn't say much about a range of social issues which were first confronted by the liberal entrepreneurs of the 19th Century and then taken over (to some degree) by the State after 1914.
The provision of housing, education and health were evolved by municipal liberals who saw the benefit to the economy of a well-housed, educated and healthy workforce which created a coherent and stable community. That argument holds true today.
Opinium polls forthnightly for the Observer, there last was last weekend so there next should be next weekend, interesting their latest poll had Labour on 34%, the same as yougov gave them in their poll this week, though they had a 2 point lead over the Tories on 32% http://ourinsight.opinium.co.uk/survey-results/political-polling-23rd-september-2014
The 9/1 on Labour minority and 10/1 on Conservative minority bets are (were? I see the latter option is suspended) both excellent ones on Ladbrokes post-election government market.
I do think that the two main parties (who won 555 of the 650 seats on offer last time) will be close to each other in terms of seats won. Labour may have slightly more options than the Tories but I suspect whichever has the greater number of seats will seek to form a minority administration.
They will succeed because there will be no desire among the other parties to force a new election even if loopholes in the FPA give them that option.
The 9/1 on Labour minority and 10/1 on Conservative minority bets are (were? I see the latter option is suspended) both excellent ones on Ladbrokes post-election government market.
I do think that the two main parties (who won 555 of the 650 seats on offer last time) will be close to each other in terms of seats won. Labour may have slightly more options than the Tories but I suspect whichever has the greater number of seats will seek to form a minority administration.
They will succeed because there will be no desire among the other parties to force a new election even if loopholes in the FPA give them that option.
Agreed. I do still think it's possible one (or the other) may to come to a 'confidence and supply' arrangement with the Lib Dems, however. If the maths works.
This could be a time limited agreement, rather than for the full 5 years.
Must admit I was just looking at Premiership odds during Strictly and QPR are 5000-1 and Burnley 10000-1. Those are probably closer to the chances of a general election this autumn, no offence meant.
There looks like a bit of value to be had in the Premiership: Liverpool at 33/1, Arsenal 12/1, Man Utd at 14/1 and even Spurs at 150/1 tempt me for small flutters for fun: particularly the Arsenal and Liverpool ones. The reason for this is that it's incredibly early in the season to be certain the two form horses (Chelski and ManCity) will go onto win.
Tom Gordon @ScottishPol 14 mins14 minutes ago "You're far too bloody nice," Paddy Ashdown tells #ldconf delegates. We lack the "proper 14-carat shits" other parties have in abundance
Ho, ho, whatever gets them through those long, single-digit poll nights.
The 9/1 on Labour minority and 10/1 on Conservative minority bets are (were? I see the latter option is suspended) both excellent ones on Ladbrokes post-election government market.
I do think that the two main parties (who won 555 of the 650 seats on offer last time) will be close to each other in terms of seats won. Labour may have slightly more options than the Tories but I suspect whichever has the greater number of seats will seek to form a minority administration.
They will succeed because there will be no desire among the other parties to force a new election even if loopholes in the FPA give them that option.
Agreed. I do still think it's possible one (or the other) may to come to a 'confidence and supply' arrangement with the Lib Dems, however. If the maths works.
This could be a time limited agreement, rather than for the full 5 years.
Inclined to agree. I don't that any party can afford two elections in quick succession, apart perhaps from UKIP!
Tom Gordon @ScottishPol 14 mins14 minutes ago "You're far too bloody nice," Paddy Ashdown tells #ldconf delegates. We lack the "proper 14-carat shits" other parties have in abundance
Ho, ho, whatever gets them through those long, single-digit poll nights.
Tom Gordon @ScottishPol 14 mins14 minutes ago "You're far too bloody nice," Paddy Ashdown tells #ldconf delegates. We lack the "proper 14-carat shits" other parties have in abundance
Ho, ho, whatever gets them through those long, single-digit poll nights.
So over to the Scottish Justice Minister who then tweeted this late last night. Twitter Kenny MacAskill SNP @KennyMacAskill · 21h 21 hours ago In southern states of USA post civil war poll tax and other ruses were used to disenfranchise Black people. In 2014 we have Aberdeenshire.
So over to the Scottish Justice Minister who then tweeted this late last night. Twitter Kenny MacAskill SNP @KennyMacAskill · 21h 21 hours ago In southern states of USA post civil war poll tax and other ruses were used to disenfranchise Black people. In 2014 we have Aberdeenshire.
STVNews - Kenny MacAskill faces calls to apologise over poll tax tweet "First Minister Alex Salmond defended his decision to block councils pursuing people for historic poll tax debts on Friday, accusing some local authorities of trying to "put the frighteners on people".
A spokeswoman for the SNP said Mr MacAskill was not comparing the two situations."
Typical Tories, the moron did not have a clue about what debts were outstanding , collected £2K last year and lying about £1.7M being outstanding. What a turnip Gifford sounded on BBC as Alex ripped him a new erchie and showed him what being a real politician looked like.
You're being a bit of a silly bee Peter to be honest, and I'm quite tempted to take you up on the bet. However, as an occasional better I won't because the odds don't make it worth my while. That doesn't imply that my comment is devalued, merely that it's not a value punt for me. You know this. I know this.
You also know as well as I do that odds of 8-1 on an autumn election are absolutely ludicrous, but I will take your rush to the defence of David, when it would cost you barely a dime, as endearing rather than the macho bullying it might otherwise appear.
----------------------------- Being patronising, silly and sneering won't endear you to this blog, #audreyanne.
Macho, Mike?
Moi?
Seriously, I think 8/1 is a bit low. But 800/1 was way, way too high, and kind of derisive of an interesting and thoughtful piece by a respected punting-politico.
Offering to take the odds was a tease and seemed a semi-seriious way of suggesting as much. The bet would never have got layed, you know that. But I do think people shouldn't go round quoting fancy odds without any intention of taking them - not anywhere, and particularly not here, where some people do bet, occasionally in large amounts.
So sorry but you've grabbed the wrong end of the stick #Peter. Every thing above the dotted line was written by #audreyanne. I only wrote the one line below it.
You're being a bit of a silly bee Peter to be honest, and I'm quite tempted to take you up on the bet. However, as an occasional better I won't because the odds don't make it worth my while. That doesn't imply that my comment is devalued, merely that it's not a value punt for me. You know this. I know this.
You also know as well as I do that odds of 8-1 on an autumn election are absolutely ludicrous, but I will take your rush to the defence of David, when it would cost you barely a dime, as endearing rather than the macho bullying it might otherwise appear.
----------------------------- Being patronising, silly and sneering won't endear you to this blog, #audreyanne.
Macho, Mike?
Moi?
Seriously, I think 8/1 is a bit low. But 800/1 was way, way too high, and kind of derisive of an interesting and thoughtful piece by a respected punting-politico.
Offering to take the odds was a tease and seemed a semi-seriious way of suggesting as much. The bet would never have got layed, you know that. But I do think people shouldn't go round quoting fancy odds without any intention of taking them - not anywhere, and particularly not here, where some people do bet, occasionally in large amounts.
So sorry but you've grabbed the wrong end of the stick #Peter. Every thing above the dotted line was written by #audreyanne. I only wrote the one line below it.
Apologies, Mike, although as always I stand by what I have written anyway.
Basic approach is same as Cameron's "Vote UKIP get Labour" i.e. "Vote SNP get Cameron"
Nice tart line on SNP:
"the SNP lost. This was an existential moment for them. And their entire political project – their purpose – was rejected. Decisively. Not just across Scotland, but even worse for them – in their heartlands."
So over to the Scottish Justice Minister who then tweeted this late last night. Twitter Kenny MacAskill SNP @KennyMacAskill · 21h 21 hours ago In southern states of USA post civil war poll tax and other ruses were used to disenfranchise Black people. In 2014 we have Aberdeenshire.
STVNews - Kenny MacAskill faces calls to apologise over poll tax tweet "First Minister Alex Salmond defended his decision to block councils pursuing people for historic poll tax debts on Friday, accusing some local authorities of trying to "put the frighteners on people".
A spokeswoman for the SNP said Mr MacAskill was not comparing the two situations."
Typical Tories, the moron did not have a clue about what debts were outstanding , collected £2K last year and lying about £1.7M being outstanding. What a turnip Gifford sounded on BBC as Alex ripped him a new erchie and showed him what being a real politician looked like.
And yet they handed you your arse in the referendum, doesn't say much for your side's abilities does it?
"Seriously, I think 8/1 is a bit low. But 800/1 was way, way too high, and kind of derisive of an interesting and thoughtful piece by a respected punting-politico.
Anyway, you make a good point Peter that there are people here not only who do bet, but occasionally bet large amounts. This gives a dimension that is different from many, or all, other sites. There's nothing quite like money for talking.
They wouldn't offer 2,000-1 but not because that is or is not a reasonable estimate of the probability. They wouldn't offer it because it wouldn't be necessary. Anybody wanting to bet on that outcome would probably be happy to take 50/1. Those not wanting to wouldn't be attracted even by 2,000/1, so there is no point in taking on board the additional potential liabilities.
I never post odds or suggestions with a betting implication here unless I am prepared to give or take those odds or back those suggestions myself, at least to reasonable stakes. Even before proposing our rather fanciful wager, I did seriously consider the possibility that you might agree, just in case. Had you done so, I would probably have tried to dissuade you but I would nevertheless have gone ahead if a) you had been utterly determined and b) were prepared to lodge 4,000 quid as security with a trusted third party. I didn't consider either possibility very likely, but on that basis I would have proceeded.
Most suggestions of fanciful odds are plainly hypothetical, but it's not a bad idea idea to think 'what if...' before stating them. Take your Redwood example. I wouldn't ever suggest that - here or anywhere - because I couldn't afford to pay up if it did come in. And I would not bet on it other than with an established bookmaker (who would be unlikely to be so bold anyway) because of the doubts and difficulty with collection in the unlikely event of it winning.
So I do think it is wise to think before quoting odds, especially here. I think most punters are naturally cautious like that. Posters who casually toss about fancy odds quotes are probably not punters, for very good reasons.
You like Strictly? I used to, before they started introducing silly comedy contestants. Now when my Special Friend is away I have nothing better to do on a Saturday nite than wind up people on PB.
@joncraig: John Prescott launching blistering attack on Ed Miliband in Sunday Mirror column: "far too timid", "core vote strategy", "time ruining out".
@joncraig: John Prescott launching blistering attack on Ed Miliband in Sunday Mirror column: "far too timid", "core vote strategy", "time ruining out".
@joncraig: John Prescott launching blistering attack on Ed Miliband in Sunday Mirror column: "far too timid", "core vote strategy", "time ruining out".
That doesn't sound blistering. Rather unbaked...!
So long as it isn't a blistering hot chipolata.
Ack. I deserve a six month exile to conhome for that.
@joncraig: Prescott says Ed "might as well have said prepare for coalition", "ditch pollsters & focus groups", conference "flat", "Tories screwing us".
@AnooshChakelian: "A fairly attractive proposition": DJ Alistair Carmichael MP hints that he'll play 'YMCA' at tonight's Lib Dem Disco http://t.co/SfiWqD9qFe
"Seriously, I think 8/1 is a bit low. But 800/1 was way, way too high, and kind of derisive of an interesting and thoughtful piece by a respected punting-politico.
Anyway, you make a good point Peter that there are people here not only who do bet, but occasionally bet large amounts. This gives a dimension that is different from many, or all, other sites. There's nothing quite like money for talking.
Most suggestions of fanciful odds are plainly hypothetical, but it's not a bad idea idea to think 'what if...' before stating them.
I think you're confusing two different issues Peter. This is a site about political betting. It isn't William Hill. By which I mean, if we end up with every comment, analysis, counter-suggestion or, indeed, proposal of appropriate odds being followed by you asking us into the betting shop to pull out our coinage the place will descend into farce. I and the vast majority of people on here will continue to make political analysis without you swooping with a 'betcha'.
I was quite serious. The chances of a General Election being held this autumn are 800-1 or longer in my view. The chances are better than QPR winning the Premier League but not by a lot.
Strictly seems to have some decent dancers this time. Pixie Lott was very elegant tonight, but no that's not an invitation for a bet …
As one of the 6% and one of the last seven or eight LDs left in the country (apparently), there's lots for me to comment on from the largely negative postings of the past couple few days.
I'm absolutely convinced the Party will survive - 7.5% and six seats in 1970 didn't destroy us and I don't think even the most optimistic anti-LD is saying six seats or fewer so the party will go on albeit to a different tune.
I've commented on here and elsewhere about Nick's mistakes - AV was never and has never been Party policy. In many ways, it's as disproportionate as FPTP. I presume either we offered a referendum on STV in the post-election negotiations and were rebuffed or didn't offer it because we knew we would be rebuffed.
Very few in the LDs shed any tears for the demise of AV - I do accept it was a personal humiliation for Nick following the tuition fees debacle. The problem with credibility is once lost it's incredibly tough to regain.
My view has long been that the Party will (unless a miracle happens and 50+ MPS are returned) not seek to go into Coalition or any other arrangement after the next election. IF either the Labour or Conservative parties need a Coalition partner next May, it will be the likes of SNP or UKIP (if they have any MPs) to do the heavy lifting.
There was a fascinating defeatist piece by Amol Rajan in Wednesday's Evening Standard saying next year would be a good election for Labour to lose and pointing out the not inconsiderable obstacles facing the 2015-2020 Government. Politics doesn't work like that - nobody seriously wants to lose though positioning oneself is always helpful.
Of course the LibDems will survive, but they need a period of opposition to go away and decide what they collectively believe in.
I notice Jeremy Browne was in this week's NewStatesman offering a third alternative for Liberals: not social liberalism nor Clegg/Orange book, but what he calls 360 degree Liberalism with a strong emphasis on economic liberalism, free markets, profit in public services etc. He has a book coming soon.
Comments
The Lib Dems are ACTUALLY using the phrase "if we win the General Election" when announcing their execrable policies. LOL
As one of the 6% and one of the last seven or eight LDs left in the country (apparently), there's lots for me to comment on from the largely negative postings of the past couple few days.
I'm absolutely convinced the Party will survive - 7.5% and six seats in 1970 didn't destroy us and I don't think even the most optimistic anti-LD is saying six seats or fewer so the party will go on albeit to a different tune.
I've commented on here and elsewhere about Nick's mistakes - AV was never and has never been Party policy. In many ways, it's as disproportionate as FPTP. I presume either we offered a referendum on STV in the post-election negotiations and were rebuffed or didn't offer it because we knew we would be rebuffed.
Very few in the LDs shed any tears for the demise of AV - I do accept it was a personal humiliation for Nick following the tuition fees debacle. The problem with credibility is once lost it's incredibly tough to regain.
My view has long been that the Party will (unless a miracle happens and 50+ MPS are returned) not seek to go into Coalition or any other arrangement after the next election. IF either the Labour or Conservative parties need a Coalition partner next May, it will be the likes of SNP or UKIP (if they have any MPs) to do the heavy lifting.
There was a fascinating defeatist piece by Amol Rajan in Wednesday's Evening Standard saying next year would be a good election for Labour to lose and pointing out the not inconsiderable obstacles facing the 2015-2020 Government. Politics doesn't work like that - nobody seriously wants to lose though positioning oneself is always helpful.
I read your comments with interest. Are you saying that if someone posts a comments suggesting that the odds on something seem too low at n/1 and xn/1 would be more appropriate then that person should be treated as offering those longer odds?
You're being a bit of a silly bee Peter to be honest, and I'm quite tempted to take you up on the bet. However, as an occasional better I won't because the odds don't make it worth my while. That doesn't imply that my comment is devalued, merely that it's not a value punt for me. You know this. I know this.
You also know as well as I do that odds of 8-1 on an autumn election are absolutely ludicrous, but I will take your rush to the defence of David, when it would cost you barely a dime, as endearing rather than the macho bullying it might otherwise appear.
-----------------------------
Being patronising, silly and sneering won't endear you to this blog, #audreyanne.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-29492262
Anyway, on a betting site I don't see that it's mean to lightly mock somebody for some ill-considered comments about odds and value and the like.
I don't get the impression she's bothered - nor should she be, if she's going to enter the fray by deriding somebody who does know a thing or two about odds etc.
I notice Jeremy Browne was in this week's NewStatesman offering a third alternative for Liberals: not social liberalism nor Clegg/Orange book, but what he calls 360 degree Liberalism with a strong emphasis on economic liberalism, free markets, profit in public services etc. He has a book coming soon.
On 800gate, I rather agree with audreyanne that 800-1 is about right. But my utility function is curved, in that I'd less than 800 times rather have a 799/800 chance of £5 than a 1/800 chance of losing £4000, so I won't offer a bet. However, I'll offer £10 at 24-1: I predict that there will be no election called by November 30, and will pay £240 to the first person who takes the bet if there is. Three times David's odds! How can you lot resist?
Dr. Prasannan, exile yourself to ConHome this instant for abuse of the exclamation mark (unless you've won a five figure sum or more on that incident occurring, in which case exile yourself to ConHome forever for not sharing the tip with the rest of us).
I'll return to this after Strictly, but am happy to leave it there.
You also know as well as I do that odds of 8-1 on an autumn election are absolutely ludicrous, but I will take your rush to the defence of David, when it would cost you barely a dime, as endearing rather than the macho bullying it might otherwise appear.
-----------------------------
Being patronising, silly and sneering won't endear you to this blog, #audreyanne.
Macho, Mike?
Moi?
Seriously, I think 8/1 is a bit low. But 800/1 was way, way too high, and kind of derisive of an interesting and thoughtful piece by a respected punting-politico.
Offering to take the odds was a tease and seemed a semi-seriious way of suggesting as much. The bet would never have got layed, you know that. But I do think people shouldn't go round quoting fancy odds without any intention of taking them - not anywhere, and particularly not here, where some people do bet, occasionally in large amounts.
TSE - Can you drop me an email, please? I don't seem to have yours.
Thanks
arklebar@gmail.com
You disappoint me, Nick!
I'm sure I'd lose the fiver but it would be worth it for the outside chance of taking four grand off the next MP for Broxtowe.
Nor will I take your kind offer of 24/1. As I've already indicated, I agree that David's 8/1 is a bit low. My figure is closer to yours, so no bet.
>> Moi?
"Seriously, I think 8/1 is a bit low. But 800/1 was way, way too high, and kind of derisive of an interesting and thoughtful piece by a respected punting-politico.
Offering to take the odds was a tease and seemed a semi-seriious way of suggesting as much. The bet would never have got layed, you know that. But I do think people shouldn't go round quoting fancy odds without any intention of taking them - not anywhere, and particularly not here, where some people do bet, occasionally in large amounts. "
Quick dip from Strictly.
Peter, fair enough. However, I think the actual odds of an autumn election are closer to 2000-1. If anyone can tell me differently I think that's what the bookies would offer.
My point though was this: I could make a case for John Redwood becoming Prime Minister by Christmas, and argue it with reasonable coherence. Suppose I suggested my own odds of 8-1 on the likelihood, and you, Peter, said it should be closer to 800-1. Would I, at that point, suggest you match your comment with your money? No. Why? Because it wouldn't be a value bet for you and besides I wouldn't insist every time you made a comment it should be backed with your own cash.
As I mentioned below, David Herdson is one of my favourite commentators on here. He posts fabulous threads week after week, and I like the way he often seems to counter-balance other bias. I also admire him for having the courage to take a polemic and run with it. Bravo. But, do I think an autumn General Election is remotely likely? 8-1 likely? No. 800-1 or longer.
Anyway, you make a good point Peter that there are people here not only who do bet, but occasionally bet large amounts. This gives a dimension that is different from many, or all, other sites. There's nothing quite like money for talking.
To put this into perspective, this would make it *more* likely than a Conservative minority government next year, according to Ladbrokes. That just feels wrong.
Agree with Nick Palmer - this is more of a 25/1 shot.
It's a stance with which many Conservatives would be comfortable - for modern liberals the problem is that it doesn't say much about a range of social issues which were first confronted by the liberal entrepreneurs of the 19th Century and then taken over (to some degree) by the State after 1914.
The provision of housing, education and health were evolved by municipal liberals who saw the benefit to the economy of a well-housed, educated and healthy workforce which created a coherent and stable community. That argument holds true today.
http://ourinsight.opinium.co.uk/survey-results/political-polling-23rd-september-2014
They will succeed because there will be no desire among the other parties to force a new election even if loopholes in the FPA give them that option.
Looks like an 80,000/1 shot to me.
This could be a time limited agreement, rather than for the full 5 years.
There looks like a bit of value to be had in the Premiership: Liverpool at 33/1, Arsenal 12/1, Man Utd at 14/1 and even Spurs at 150/1 tempt me for small flutters for fun: particularly the Arsenal and Liverpool ones. The reason for this is that it's incredibly early in the season to be certain the two form horses (Chelski and ManCity) will go onto win.
Interesting @YouGov polling in tomorrow's paper @Robin_Henry
"You're far too bloody nice," Paddy Ashdown tells #ldconf delegates. We lack the "proper 14-carat shits" other parties have in abundance
Ho, ho, whatever gets them through those long, single-digit poll nights.
Con 32
Lab 31
UKIP 16
LD 9
'The First Minister accuses the leader of Aberdeenshire Council of trying to frighten Poll Tax dodgers after ringing into a BBC Scotland talk show.'
So over to the Scottish Justice Minister who then tweeted this late last night.
Twitter
Kenny MacAskill SNP @KennyMacAskill · 21h 21 hours ago
In southern states of USA post civil war poll tax and other ruses were used to disenfranchise Black people. In 2014 we have Aberdeenshire.
STVNews - Kenny MacAskill faces calls to apologise over poll tax tweet
"“Mr MacAskill wasn't making a comparison between the two situations, and would obviously never do so.”"
Think I'm going to dust down some tenners for a bit of football fluttering.
Being patronising, silly and sneering won't endear you to this blog, #audreyanne.
Macho, Mike?
Moi?
Seriously, I think 8/1 is a bit low. But 800/1 was way, way too high, and kind of derisive of an interesting and thoughtful piece by a respected punting-politico.
Offering to take the odds was a tease and seemed a semi-seriious way of suggesting as much. The bet would never have got layed, you know that. But I do think people shouldn't go round quoting fancy odds without any intention of taking them - not anywhere, and particularly not here, where some people do bet, occasionally in large amounts.
So sorry but you've grabbed the wrong end of the stick #Peter. Every thing above the dotted line was written by #audreyanne. I only wrote the one line below it.
Macho, Mike?
Moi?
Seriously, I think 8/1 is a bit low. But 800/1 was way, way too high, and kind of derisive of an interesting and thoughtful piece by a respected punting-politico.
Offering to take the odds was a tease and seemed a semi-seriious way of suggesting as much. The bet would never have got layed, you know that. But I do think people shouldn't go round quoting fancy odds without any intention of taking them - not anywhere, and particularly not here, where some people do bet, occasionally in large amounts.
So sorry but you've grabbed the wrong end of the stick #Peter. Every thing above the dotted line was written by #audreyanne. I only wrote the one line below it.
Apologies, Mike, although as always I stand by what I have written anyway.
http://www.progressonline.org.uk/2014/10/03/scotland-is-labour-still/
Basic approach is same as Cameron's "Vote UKIP get Labour" i.e. "Vote SNP get Cameron"
Nice tart line on SNP:
"the SNP lost. This was an existential moment for them. And their entire political project – their purpose – was rejected. Decisively. Not just across Scotland, but even worse for them – in their heartlands."
I thought it was a prerequisite for posting here?
Hillary Clinton (D) 51% (47%) {53%} [58%] (50%) {48%} [47%] (46%)
Chris Christie (R) 42% (41%) {42%} [37%] (37%) {45%} [41%] (43%)
Hillary Clinton (D) 52% (48%) {54%} [58%] {55%} [50%] (52%)
Rand Paul (R) 43% (42%) {40%} [38%] {40%} [38%] (41%)
Hillary Clinton (D) 53% (48%) {55%} [58%] {53%} [48%] (54%)
Jeb Bush (R) 42% (41%) {39%} [38%] {41%} [40%] (38%)
https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1308863/2016-mcclatchy-marist-poll-presidency-october-2014.pdf#storylink=relast
Ed = Joe Dolce
Dave = Midge Ure/Ultravox
Israeli company offers cure for Ebola
Protalix says it has the resources to produce experimental medicine ZMapp,... http://fb.me/1DtiE3TGZ
I'm glad someone is still on the ball.
I never post odds or suggestions with a betting implication here unless I am prepared to give or take those odds or back those suggestions myself, at least to reasonable stakes. Even before proposing our rather fanciful wager, I did seriously consider the possibility that you might agree, just in case. Had you done so, I would probably have tried to dissuade you but I would nevertheless have gone ahead if a) you had been utterly determined and b) were prepared to lodge 4,000 quid as security with a trusted third party. I didn't consider either possibility very likely, but on that basis I would have proceeded.
Most suggestions of fanciful odds are plainly hypothetical, but it's not a bad idea idea to think 'what if...' before stating them. Take your Redwood example. I wouldn't ever suggest that - here or anywhere - because I couldn't afford to pay up if it did come in. And I would not bet on it other than with an established bookmaker (who would be unlikely to be so bold anyway) because of the doubts and difficulty with collection in the unlikely event of it winning.
So I do think it is wise to think before quoting odds, especially here. I think most punters are naturally cautious like that. Posters who casually toss about fancy odds quotes are probably not punters, for very good reasons.
You like Strictly? I used to, before they started introducing silly comedy contestants. Now when my Special Friend is away I have nothing better to do on a Saturday nite than wind up people on PB.
Enjoy the dancing.
Ack. I deserve a six month exile to conhome for that.
@AnooshChakelian: "A fairly attractive proposition": DJ Alistair Carmichael MP hints that he'll play 'YMCA' at tonight's Lib Dem Disco http://t.co/SfiWqD9qFe
@joncraig: Prescott says Tories have "confident leader" & "policies galore". PM's tax cut promise "a con". "But as election bribes go, it's a belter."
I was quite serious. The chances of a General Election being held this autumn are 800-1 or longer in my view. The chances are better than QPR winning the Premier League but not by a lot.
Strictly seems to have some decent dancers this time. Pixie Lott was very elegant tonight, but no that's not an invitation for a bet …
UKIP 77%
Lab 9%
Con 8%
Green 2%
LD 1%
http://www.maidstoneandmedwaynews.co.uk/POLL-vote-Rochester-Strood-election/story-23015672-detail/story.html
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/10/jeremy-browne-lib-dem-leadership-contest-must-include-free-market-candidate
I cannot see him winning if he stands, but he does at least set out his stall well.
Clashes a bit with Leicester City giving away points to OGH though..