Cameron not addressing issue of energy prices for energy intensive users - legacy of crap energy policies from Labour. If Scunthorpe closes then what, blame The Greens, Ed Miliband and the other windmill lovers.
In opposition, the Conservatives voted for the 2008 Climate Change Act. (I think Cameron whipped in favour of it.)
And your suggestion is that we fold the party and tell our voters, most of whom are not ex Tories, to vote for Cameron Isn't it?
If you want the chance to leave the EU, yes, of course. If you don't, and are happy for the progress on the economy and employment to be reversed, and don't mind ever-closer-union, then by all means vote UKIP and thus help Ed into No 10.
Depending on your seat, a vote for UKIP could well reduce the Labour majority. Any vote for UKIP will also mean they are more likely to hold the balance of power in the election after next, after which an EU referendum has a decent chance of actually happening.
Anyway, the fact that the main argument the Tories have against UKIP is "the electoral system we lobbied hard to keep means you shouldn't vote for your preferred party" shows how intellectually bankrupt they are.
Given that UKIP take disproportionately from the Tories (3:1 wasn't it). Then voting UKIP in a Labour seat is unlikely to let the Tories win it. They're also unlikely to win it themselves. Voting UKIP in a Tory seat makes it more likely that Labour would win. So how does voting UKIP reduce the Labour majority, it's surely more likely to increase it. This looks like wishful thinking on your part. Maybe there are a few seats where UKIP could win themselves rather than just affect the result but, unless they hit the mid twenties, it's unlikely to be more than a handful. Twas the same for the LibDems, on 24% they get under 60 and they have had decades to build up a more 'lumpy' support.
If they hit the low 20s nationally, then it will be a lot more than a handful of seats they could win outright. Even more so if you're willing to look beyond the next election for the long term effect of your vote.
Rubbish. You're effectively quoting 3/1 about the Con score falling within a 2.5% range.
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that UKIP and the Tories end up with 80% of the vote, the only way the handicap pays and the outright doesn't is if the Tories finish between 37.5% and 40%.
I know you tried to outfox me yesterday to no avail but there is no need to get angry
Your assumption makes your argument, which makes your argument rubbish.
The opinion poll gave UKIP and the Tories 71% of the vote. You cant just pluck numbers out of the air then argue as if they mean something more than that
I expect some Labour backbenchers would also be uncomfortable with being in a majority government in such a position.
I hadn't thought of you as a starry-eyed dreamer, Casino! Do you really think Labour, Labour, MPs are going to be embarrassed at being in power? They're not embarrassed about an unfair advantage in constituency sizes, or being propped up by Scottish MPs in an asymmetric devolution structure, so the chances of them being embarrassed by anything which helps Labour must be zero.
In practice, I think your scenario is wrong. What would happen is that, against a split opposition, Labour would be re-elected in 2020, no matter how unpopular they became in the interim, and they'd happily live with any embarrassment. They might well be forced to ditch Miliband, though, as I suggested in my article a few days ago.
Haha yes. Labour were not embarrassed at all 2005-10 on 35% of the vote. Labour, the party with no shame.
Crocodile tears from Tories.
The Tories weren't embarrassed to campaign for the system which produces such results.
And your suggestion is that we fold the party and tell our voters, most of whom are not ex Tories, to vote for Cameron Isn't it?
If you want the chance to leave the EU, yes, of course. If you don't, and are happy for the progress on the economy and employment to be reversed, and don't mind ever-closer-union, then by all means vote UKIP and thus help Ed into No 10.
Depending on your seat, a vote for UKIP could well reduce the Labour majority. Any vote for UKIP will also mean they are more likely to hold the balance of power in the election after next, after which an EU referendum has a decent chance of actually happening.
Anyway, the fact that the main argument the Tories have against UKIP is "the electoral system we lobbied hard to keep means you shouldn't vote for your preferred party" shows how intellectually bankrupt they are.
Given that UKIP take disproportionately from the Tories (3:1 wasn't it). Then voting UKIP in a Labour seat is unlikely to let the Tories win it. They're also unlikely to win it themselves. Voting UKIP in a Tory seat makes it more likely that Labour would win. So how does voting UKIP reduce the Labour majority, it's surely more likely to increase it. This looks like wishful thinking on your part. Maybe there are a few seats where UKIP could win themselves rather than just affect the result but, unless they hit the mid twenties, it's unlikely to be more than a handful. Twas the same for the LibDems, on 24% they get under 60 and they have had decades to build up a more 'lumpy' support.
Say, it's a seat which Labour won on 40-45% last time, with mostly white working class voters in the electorate. Places like Grimsby, Rother Valley, Don Valley, Heywood & Middleton, Dudley North, Plymouth Moor View. If the Conservative vote collapses to UKIP, at the same time as UKIP pulling some votes away from Labour and the Lib Dems, that makes a Labour loss more, not less, likely.
OK that's 6 seats with a few assumptions that things will go UKIPs way. Not enough to swing an election.
There's nothing unrealistic about being successful outside the European Union, reducing immigration to sensible levels, or having an English parliament.
True.
However those are not what UKIP are selling voters. They are selling them the false prospectus of being successful outside the European Union without having to make any compromises in the deal with the European Union, for example on immigration.
Or at least it seems to be false. It's a bit hard to tell because UKIP don't have much interest in exploring what settlement with the EU we might have if we left. They just follow Alex Salmond's technique of listing a whole lot of things they don't like and a whole lot of things they do like, and saying we could have all of the latter with none of the former.
To be fair, though, they have now finally conceded the point I have been making for several years:
UKIP would not seek to remain in the European Free Trade Area (EFTA) or European Economic Area (EEA) while those treaties maintain a principle of free movement of labour, which prevents the UK managing its own borders.
So that's Farage's previous nonsense about being like Norway or Switzerland blown out of the water. This does perhaps show a slight nodding towards reality.
Rubbish. You're effectively quoting 3/1 about the Con score falling within a 2.5% range.
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that UKIP and the Tories end up with 80% of the vote, the only way the handicap pays and the outright doesn't is if the Tories finish between 37.5% and 40%.
I know you tried to outfox me yesterday to no avail but there is no need to get angry
Your assumption makes your argument, which makes your argument rubbish.
The opinion poll gave UKIP and the Tories 71% of the vote. You cant just pluck numbers out of the air then argue as if they mean something more than that
I'm not angry. I'm just pointing out, for the benefit of anyone who might be tempted to respond to your goading, that evens is a rubbish offer, compared to the 3/1+ available on the outright. As for plucking numbers out of the air, 80% seems a reasonable estimate given the poll and the likely squeeze. But, if you prefer...
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that UKIP and the Tories end up with 71% of the vote, the only way the handicap pays and the outright doesn't is if the Tories finish between 33% and 35.5%.
According to the PB Sinister, Cameron is definitely chickening out of the live TV debates. Presumably then, the only downside to Shadsy's evens on the debates not happening is Cameron not being leader at election which can be hedged. Why aren't they piling in to a sure thing?
And your suggestion is that we fold the party and tell our voters, most of whom are not ex Tories, to vote for Cameron Isn't it?
If you want the chance to leave the EU, yes, of course. If you don't, and are happy for the progress on the economy and employment to be reversed, and don't mind ever-closer-union, then by all means vote UKIP and thus help Ed into No 10.
Depending on your seat, a vote for UKIP could well reduce the Labour majority. Any vote for UKIP will also mean they are more likely to hold the balance of power in the election after next, after which an EU referendum has a decent chance of actually happening.
Anyway, the fact that the main argument the Tories have against UKIP is "the electoral system we lobbied hard to keep means you shouldn't vote for your preferred party" shows how intellectually bankrupt they are.
Given that UKIP take disproportionately from the Tories (3:1 wasn't it). Then voting UKIP in a Labour seat is unlikely to let the Tories win it. They're also unlikely to win it themselves. Voting UKIP in a Tory seat makes it more likely that Labour would win. So how does voting UKIP reduce the Labour majority, it's surely more likely to increase it. This looks like wishful thinking on your part. Maybe there are a few seats where UKIP could win themselves rather than just affect the result but, unless they hit the mid twenties, it's unlikely to be more than a handful. Twas the same for the LibDems, on 24% they get under 60 and they have had decades to build up a more 'lumpy' support.
If you don't vote for UKIP in Thurrock, Labour will gain a seat from the Tories
... and if you do vote UKIP and they take 3:1 from Tory:Labour then Labour will gain a seat from the Tories with a bigger majority. Please point out if my maths is wrong, because I just don't understand yours.
£2 per hour enough for some disabled people according to the disability minister David Freud Of course some other Tory MPs agree, Philip Davies for example stands by his view that those with disabilities might be more able to get a job by working for less than the minimum wage.
There's nothing unrealistic about being successful outside the European Union, reducing immigration to sensible levels, or having an English parliament.
True.
However those are not what UKIP are selling voters. They are selling them the false prospectus of being successful outside the European Union without having to make any compromises in the deal with the European Union, for example on immigration.
Or at least it seems to be false. It's a bit hard to tell because UKIP don't have much interest in exploring what settlement with the EU we might have if we left. They just follow Alex Salmond's technique of listing a whole lot of things they don't like and a whole lot of things they do like, and saying we could have all of the latter with none of the former.
To be fair, though, they have now finally conceded the point I have been making for several years:
UKIP would not seek to remain in the European Free Trade Area (EFTA) or European Economic Area (EEA) while those treaties maintain a principle of free movement of labour, which prevents the UK managing its own borders.
So that's Farage's previous nonsense about being like Norway or Switzerland blown out of the water. This does perhaps show a slight nodding towards reality.
There's nothing unrealistic about being successful outside the European Union, reducing immigration to sensible levels, or having an English parliament.
True.
However those are not what UKIP are selling voters. They are selling them the false prospectus of being successful outside the European Union without having to make any compromises in the deal with the European Union, for example on immigration.
Or at least it seems to be false. It's a bit hard to tell because UKIP don't have much interest in exploring what settlement with the EU we might have if we left. They just follow Alex Salmond's technique of listing a whole lot of things they don't like and a whole lot of things they do like, and saying we could have all of the latter with none of the former.
To be fair, though, they have now finally conceded the point I have been making for several years:
UKIP would not seek to remain in the European Free Trade Area (EFTA) or European Economic Area (EEA) while those treaties maintain a principle of free movement of labour, which prevents the UK managing its own borders.
So that's Farage's previous nonsense about being like Norway or Switzerland blown out of the water. This does perhaps show a slight nodding towards reality.
Rubbish. You're effectively quoting 3/1 about the Con score falling within a 2.5% range.
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that UKIP and the Tories end up with 80% of the vote, the only way the handicap pays and the outright doesn't is if the Tories finish between 37.5% and 40%.
I know you tried to outfox me yesterday to no avail but there is no need to get angry
Your assumption makes your argument, which makes your argument rubbish.
The opinion poll gave UKIP and the Tories 71% of the vote. You cant just pluck numbers out of the air then argue as if they mean something more than that
I'm not angry. I'm just pointing out, for the benefit of anyone who might be tempted to respond to your goading, that evens is a rubbish offer, compared to the 3/1+ available on the outright. As for plucking numbers out of the air, 80% seems a reasonable estimate given the poll and the likely squeeze. But, if you prefer...
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that UKIP and the Tories end up with 71% of the vote, the only way the handicap pays and the outright doesn't is if the Tories finish between 33% and 35.5%.
You're doing no more than state the obvious. with a five point start of course they are going to be between a range of 2.5% but it is tied to the UKIP score, so its not the same as Shadsy's Markets
Go ahead and tell us what the handicap should be then
£2 per hour enough for some disabled people according to the disability minister David Freud Of course some other Tory MPs agree, Philip Davies for example stands by his view that those with disabilities might be more able to get a job by working for less than the minimum wage.
Tristram only slightly over-reached by saying it revealed the Tories secretly want ALL the disabled to only be on £2 per hour.
I've sort of lost track of what Kippers want at this point. A while ago I thought most would be happy with the referendum that Cameron is promising, but just don't trust him to follow through. Now, though, it seems more like they'd be unhappy with even that because they don't like the idea of the renegotiation and they don't like that the three main parties would all be campaigning to stay in.
So, er, what exactly do they want? If renegotiation is on the table, then I think most people would be unhappy with not doing so, and as I understand it the polls back this up. Likewise I don't see how even an influential UKIP could prevent parties- or their members/donors- campaigning in a referendum for the result they want. Would that even be fair or democratic?
Well, quite.
UKIP at this point remind me of nothing so much as HAL9000 in 2001. HAL was programmed both to achieve the goals of the mission reliably, but also to dissemble to the crew about the goals of the mission. He resolved this dilemma by killing off the crew. He justified this by telling himself the stupid crew were only jeopardising the mission anyway.
UKIP both wants a referendum but does not because they know they'll lose it. They resolve this dilemma by killing off the referendum by assisting Ed Miliband into power. They justify this by telling themselves that the stupid electors will only jeopardise the referendum result by voting wrong anyway.
I tried to come up with an analogy involving Carthage but I lack the erudition.
Rubbish. You're effectively quoting 3/1 about the Con score falling within a 2.5% range.
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that UKIP and the Tories end up with 80% of the vote, the only way the handicap pays and the outright doesn't is if the Tories finish between 37.5% and 40%.
I know you tried to outfox me yesterday to no avail but there is no need to get angry
Your assumption makes your argument, which makes your argument rubbish.
The opinion poll gave UKIP and the Tories 71% of the vote. You cant just pluck numbers out of the air then argue as if they mean something more than that
I'm not angry. I'm just pointing out, for the benefit of anyone who might be tempted to respond to your goading, that evens is a rubbish offer, compared to the 3/1+ available on the outright. As for plucking numbers out of the air, 80% seems a reasonable estimate given the poll and the likely squeeze. But, if you prefer...
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that UKIP and the Tories end up with 71% of the vote, the only way the handicap pays and the outright doesn't is if the Tories finish between 33% and 35.5%.
Go ahead and tell us what the handicap should be then
You're the one offering prices. And all credit to you for that, it's a brave thing to do on this site. But you're also the one using the failure of anyone to take up your offer as some sort of debating point, when the simple fact is that much better value is available elsewhere.
A 10 point handicap and I'd be interested at evens.
"Incidentally, Scottish Labour are worried Scottish Greens will have more members soon."
Thay may already have more members than Slab. At the end of their Conference on Sunday, SGP had 7,057 members. Last known SLab figures were 13,135 in September 2010, and there has been considerable hemorrhaging since then.
Lord Freud was responding to a question from David Scott, a Tory councillor from Tunbridge Wells, according to a transcript obtained by PoliticsHome.com.
Mr Scott said: "I have a number of mentally damaged individuals, who to be quite frank aren’t worth the Minimum Wage, but want to work. And we have been trying to support them in work, but you can’t find people who are willing to pay the Minimum Wage.
"We had a young man who was keen to do gardening; now the only way we managed to get him to work was actually setting up a company for him, because as a director in a company we didn’t have to pay the Minimum Wage, we could actually give him the earnings from that," he said, adding: "How do you deal with those sort of cases?"
And your suggestion is that we fold the party and tell our voters, most of whom are not ex Tories, to vote for Cameron Isn't it?
If you want the chance to leave the EU, yes, of course. If you don't, and are happy for the progress on the economy and employment to be reversed, and don't mind ever-closer-union, then by all means vote UKIP and thus help Ed into No 10.
Depending on your seat, a vote for UKIP could well reduce the Labour majority. Any vote for UKIP will also mean they are more likely to hold the balance of power in the election after next, after which an EU referendum has a decent chance of actually happening.
Anyway, the fact that the main argument the Tories have against UKIP is "the electoral system we lobbied hard to keep means you shouldn't vote for your preferred party" shows how intellectually bankrupt they are.
Given that UKIP take disproportionately from the Tories (3:1 wasn't it). Then voting UKIP in a Labour seat is unlikely to let the Tories win it. They're also unlikely to win it themselves. Voting UKIP in a Tory seat makes it more likely that Labour would win. So how does voting UKIP reduce the Labour majority, it's surely more likely to increase it. This looks like wishful thinking on your part. Maybe there are a few seats where UKIP could win themselves rather than just affect the result but, unless they hit the mid twenties, it's unlikely to be more than a handful. Twas the same for the LibDems, on 24% they get under 60 and they have had decades to build up a more 'lumpy' support.
If you don't vote for UKIP in Thurrock, Labour will gain a seat from the Tories
... and if you do vote UKIP and they take 3:1 from Tory:Labour then Labour will gain a seat from the Tories with a bigger majority. Please point out if my maths is wrong, because I just don't understand yours.
Just noticed that Tolhurst is in to 4/7, Firth out to 5/4. I think I may have been unfair comparing Firth to Reckless yesterday. She was only a banker briefly and then she went into family law. Reckless was a banker far longer and worked for a city law firm. Not that I think there's actually anything wrong with bankers becoming MPs, just that it may not be electorally favourable.
LDs "...the [2014 local elections] results represented the party’s worst local election performance since its formation in 1989.
In what has now become a standard refrain in the face of adversity, the party argued that the results showed the party’s vote could hold up better in places where they had an incumbent MP.
This was true in some places, such as Bradford West and Birmingham Yardley, but on average the drop in the Lib-Dem vote in wards located in the constituency of an incumbent Lib-Dem MP was, at 13 points, much the same as elsewhere."
I assume so, though the chances of David Ward holding on there are still probably about the same as Eric Pickles riding next year's Grand National winner.
I've sort of lost track of what Kippers want at this point. A while ago I thought most would be happy with the referendum that Cameron is promising, but just don't trust him to follow through. Now, though, it seems more like they'd be unhappy with even that because they don't like the idea of the renegotiation and they don't like that the three main parties would all be campaigning to stay in.
So, er, what exactly do they want? If renegotiation is on the table, then I think most people would be unhappy with not doing so, and as I understand it the polls back this up. Likewise I don't see how even an influential UKIP could prevent parties- or their members/donors- campaigning in a referendum for the result they want. Would that even be fair or democratic?
Well, quite.
UKIP at this point remind me of nothing so much as HAL9000 in 2001. HAL was programmed both to achieve the goals of the mission reliably, but also to dissemble to the crew about the goals of the mission. He resolved this dilemma by killing off the crew. He justified this by telling himself the stupid crew were only jeopardising the mission anyway.
UKIP both wants a referendum but does not because they know they'll lose it. They resolve this dilemma by killing off the referendum by assisting Ed Miliband into power. They justify this by telling themselves that the stupid electors will only jeopardise the referendum result by voting wrong anyway.
I tried to come up with an analogy involving Carthage but I lack the erudition.
You are mixing up 2001 and Alien. HAL went mad, Mother in Alien was programmed to dissemble to the crew.
Rubbish. You're effectively quoting 3/1 about the Con score falling within a 2.5% range.
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that UKIP and the Tories end up with 80% of the vote, the only way the handicap pays and the outright doesn't is if the Tories finish between 37.5% and 40%.
I know you tried to outfox me yesterday to no avail but there is no need to get angry
Your assumption makes your argument, which makes your argument rubbish.
The opinion poll gave UKIP and the Tories 71% of the vote. You cant just pluck numbers out of the air then argue as if they mean something more than that
I'm not angry. I'm just pointing out, for the benefit of anyone who might be tempted to respond to your goading, that evens is a rubbish offer, compared to the 3/1+ available on the outright. As for plucking numbers out of the air, 80% seems a reasonable estimate given the poll and the likely squeeze. But, if you prefer...
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that UKIP and the Tories end up with 71% of the vote, the only way the handicap pays and the outright doesn't is if the Tories finish between 33% and 35.5%.
Go ahead and tell us what the handicap should be then
You're the one offering prices. And all credit to you for that, it's a brave thing to do on this site. But you're also the one using the failure of anyone to take up your offer as some sort of debating point, when the simple fact is that much better value is available elsewhere.
A 10 point handicap and I'd be interested at evens.
I understand why you might think that, and I realise I am banging on about it, but the point is that Richard, who I like a lot, predicted two scenarios in his conclusion
Conservatives win by 13 or UKIP win by 3
Several people, who have been listing many reasons why UKIP wont win this seat easily(Hatred of Reckless, Reckless "No Carswell", Open Primaries, Euro result flakiness, Survation poll bias) heaped hearty praise on Richard for his methodology and conclusions
Mike is saying anything bigger than 6/4 is value, best bookie price is 11/4 (BF 4.3 for £100)
Given that both his conclusions would be winners (with at least 2% to spare) on the terms I offered, I thought it reasonable to assume that they are not as confident as they make out
So if you were making a spread price on UKIP winning percentage margin (can make up negative) you would be 9-10?
Are there any odds available for UKIP being ahead of Tories in polling before May 2015 ?
Thinking there may an odd poll that put UKIP ahead of the Tories, but would expect 100/1 as it is pretty unlikely. I can't see the Tories ever polling below say 28% and UKIP will never get anywhere near that.
King Cole, the question was along the lines of Cable being a better leader than Clegg, or voters being more likely to vote Lib Dem if Cable were leader.
Are there any odds available for UKIP being ahead of Tories in polling before May 2015 ?
Thinking there may an odd poll that put UKIP ahead of the Tories, but would expect 100/1 as it is pretty unlikely. I can't see the Tories ever polling below say 28% and UKIP will never get anywhere near that.
UKIP have already polled at 25% for westminster VI. +3 is no great leap.
Cameron not addressing issue of energy prices for energy intensive users - legacy of crap energy policies from Labour. If Scunthorpe closes then what, blame The Greens, Ed Miliband and the other windmill lovers.
In opposition, the Conservatives voted for the 2008 Climate Change Act. (I think Cameron whipped in favour of it.)
Cameron is still a bloody fool on so many levels, and that is another example. But Miliband was keen to kow tow to the windmill lobby that he was happy to sell the steel workers down the river.
Are there any odds available for UKIP being ahead of Tories in polling before May 2015 ?
Thinking there may an odd poll that put UKIP ahead of the Tories, but would expect 100/1 as it is pretty unlikely. I can't see the Tories ever polling below say 28% and UKIP will never get anywhere near that.
They did come close to crossover in 2013, they were within 1-2% back then with survation I think.
Are there any odds available for UKIP being ahead of Tories in polling before May 2015 ?
Thinking there may an odd poll that put UKIP ahead of the Tories, but would expect 100/1 as it is pretty unlikely. I can't see the Tories ever polling below say 28% and UKIP will never get anywhere near that.
They got 25% on Sunday!
Its nowhere near 100/1 I wouldn't think its a all that near a double figure price
And your suggestion is that we fold the party and tell our voters, most of whom are not ex Tories, to vote for Cameron Isn't it?
If you want the chance to leave the EU, yes, of course. If you don't, and are happy for the progress on the economy and employment to be reversed, and don't mind ever-closer-union, then by all means vote UKIP and thus help Ed into No 10.
Depending on your seat, a vote for UKIP could well reduce the Labour majority. Any vote for UKIP will also mean they are more likely to hold the balance of power in the election after next, after which an EU referendum has a decent chance of actually happening.
Anyway, the fact that the main argument the Tories have against UKIP is "the electoral system we lobbied hard to keep means you shouldn't vote for your preferred party" shows how intellectually bankrupt they are.
Given that UKIP take disproportionately from the Tories (3:1 wasn't it). Then voting UKIP in a Labour seat is unlikely to let the Tories win it. They're also unlikely to win it themselves. Voting UKIP in a Tory seat makes it more likely that Labour would win. So how does voting UKIP reduce the Labour majority, it's surely more likely to increase it. This looks like wishful thinking on your part. Maybe there are a few seats where UKIP could win themselves rather than just affect the result but, unless they hit the mid twenties, it's unlikely to be more than a handful. Twas the same for the LibDems, on 24% they get under 60 and they have had decades to build up a more 'lumpy' support.
If you don't vote for UKIP in Thurrock, Labour will gain a seat from the Tories
... and if you do vote UKIP and they take 3:1 from Tory:Labour then Labour will gain a seat from the Tories with a bigger majority. Please point out if my maths is wrong, because I just don't understand yours.
They wont take 3:1 Tory/Labour in Thurrock
You're assuming that they will take more Labour than Tory?
You're the one offering prices. And all credit to you for that, it's a brave thing to do on this site. But you're also the one using the failure of anyone to take up your offer as some sort of debating point, when the simple fact is that much better value is available elsewhere.
A 10 point handicap and I'd be interested at evens.
I understand why you might think that, and I realise I am banging on about it, but the point is that Richard, who I like a lot, predicted two scenarios in his conclusion
Conservatives win by 13 or UKIP win by 3
Several people, who have been listing many reasons why UKIP wont win this seat easily(Hatred of Reckless, Reckless "No Carswell", Open Primaries, Euro result flakiness, Survation poll bias) heaped hearty praise on Richard for his methodology and conclusions
Mike is saying anything bigger than 6/4 is value, best bookie price is 11/4 (BF 4.3 for £100)
Given that both his conclusions would be winners (with at least 2% to spare) on the terms I offered, I thought it reasonable to assume that they are not as confident as they make out
So if you were making a spread price on UKIP winning percentage margin (can make up negative) you would be 9-10?
Well, I tend to agree with RN & OGH that the Tories might do better than currently anticipated. If your evens were the only bet available I might even be tempted by that.
If I were making a spread, I'd want to allow for bigger risk on the Tory win side than on the UKIP landslide. Maybe UKIP by 6.5-8.5, given the rest of the market. I certainly wouldn't be opening up with a 1 point middle!
There's plenty of subsidised catering in the private sector - I presume you and Socrates don't get invited to lunch at the right places or to meet the right people!
Get invited to a meeting at a bank in Docklands - Nomura's catering is first class and very cheap.
On the substantive - in many Councils there is a small core of effectively full-time politicians (Cabinet members) who are about and interact with senior officers on a daily basis. Then you have the vast majority of Councillors who sit on Committees but don't do much in truth apart from a) vote the right way and b) get involved in local issues.
I think it's apocryphal but I was told of a meeting at which a newly-elected Councillor stood up and started ranting about the poor quality of the Council's building maintenance service saying "at no time have they come to fix the roof of my library" at which one of the public gallery shouted out "well, why don't you get up the ladder and fix it yourself as it's your library?"
In my experience, there are two types of Councillor - those who recognise they are members of a larger body called the Council and those who see themselves as solely the representative of some of the electors of their own patch. Fortunately, the former are growing in number and the latter diminishing.
I don't particularly rate the guys at Nomura so don't bother with them. In the private sector generally subsidised canteens are tax inefficient and have been largely wound down (my family firm still has one because we see the benefits of encouraging staff to eat together in terms of sharing ideas)
I'm not sold on the need for full time Councillors. I'd see the role as one for the executive (service delivery) with direction and accountability provided by elected representatives. What do the "effectively full time" councillors do all day that really adds value?
Is it appropriate for Cameron to use his personal experience to justify the governments performance on helping the disabled ? Not very many children with disabilities have parents who are multi-millionaires, even if they used state services. So I don't think it is relevant for Cameron to cite his experience when asked about government performance. It is surely about disabled people across the country, some who have parents who are not as fortunate as the Camerons.
There's nothing unrealistic about being successful outside the European Union, reducing immigration to sensible levels, or having an English parliament.
True.
However those are not what UKIP are selling voters. They are selling them the false prospectus of being successful outside the European Union without having to make any compromises in the deal with the European Union, for example on immigration.
Or at least it seems to be false. It's a bit hard to tell because UKIP don't have much interest in exploring what settlement with the EU we might have if we left. They just follow Alex Salmond's technique of listing a whole lot of things they don't like and a whole lot of things they do like, and saying we could have all of the latter with none of the former.
To be fair, though, they have now finally conceded the point I have been making for several years:
UKIP would not seek to remain in the European Free Trade Area (EFTA) or European Economic Area (EEA) while those treaties maintain a principle of free movement of labour, which prevents the UK managing its own borders.
So that's Farage's previous nonsense about being like Norway or Switzerland blown out of the water. This does perhaps show a slight nodding towards reality.
You're making up a change in position. The video you used to quote from supposedly proving that Farage wanted to have the status of Norway and Switzerland actually said - in the same video - that we'd negotiate a bilateral deal. The Norwegian and Swiss examples were merely used as an illustrative point about EU membership and free trade not being synonymous. It's not UKIP's fault you couldn't understand what was clear as day.
Also, the idea that we'd have to have free labour to get a trade deal outside the EU is complete and utter nonsense. Korea already, and Canada shortly, will have 95% of the trade access with out any of that.
And your suggestion is that we fold the party and tell our voters, most of whom are not ex Tories, to vote for Cameron Isn't it?
If you want the chance to leave the EU, yes, of course. If you don't, and are happy for the progress on the economy and employment to be reversed, and don't mind ever-closer-union, then by all means vote UKIP and thus help Ed into No 10.
Depending on your seat, a vote for UKIP could well reduce the Labour majority. Any vote for UKIP will also mean they are more likely to hold the balance of power in the election after next, after which an EU referendum has a decent chance of actually happening.
Anyway, the fact that the main argument the Tories have against UKIP is "the electoral system we lobbied hard to keep means you shouldn't vote for your preferred party" shows how intellectually bankrupt they are.
Given that UKIP take disproportionately from the Tories (3:1 wasn't it). Then voting UKIP in a Labour seat is unlikely to let the Tories win it. They're also unlikely to win it themselves. Voting UKIP in a Tory seat makes it more likely that Labour would win. So how does voting UKIP reduce the Labour majority, it's surely more likely to increase it. This looks like wishful thinking on your part. Maybe there are a few seats where UKIP could win themselves rather than just affect the result but, unless they hit the mid twenties, it's unlikely to be more than a handful. Twas the same for the LibDems, on 24% they get under 60 and they have had decades to build up a more 'lumpy' support.
If you don't vote for UKIP in Thurrock, Labour will gain a seat from the Tories
... and if you do vote UKIP and they take 3:1 from Tory:Labour then Labour will gain a seat from the Tories with a bigger majority. Please point out if my maths is wrong, because I just don't understand yours.
They wont take 3:1 Tory/Labour in Thurrock
You're assuming that they will take more Labour than Tory?
What? Where do you get that from?
We can discuss the ratios if you like, but the bottom line is that Thurrock is a two horse race between Labour and UKIP... voting Tory is a way of making losing the seat score -2 rather than -1 overall
You're the one offering prices. And all credit to you for that, it's a brave thing to do on this site. But you're also the one using the failure of anyone to take up your offer as some sort of debating point, when the simple fact is that much better value is available elsewhere.
A 10 point handicap and I'd be interested at evens.
I understand why you might think that, and I realise I am banging on about it, but the point is that Richard, who I like a lot, predicted two scenarios in his conclusion
Conservatives win by 13 or UKIP win by 3
Several people, who have been listing many reasons why UKIP wont win this seat easily(Hatred of Reckless, Reckless "No Carswell", Open Primaries, Euro result flakiness, Survation poll bias) heaped hearty praise on Richard for his methodology and conclusions
Mike is saying anything bigger than 6/4 is value, best bookie price is 11/4 (BF 4.3 for £100)
Given that both his conclusions would be winners (with at least 2% to spare) on the terms I offered, I thought it reasonable to assume that they are not as confident as they make out
So if you were making a spread price on UKIP winning percentage margin (can make up negative) you would be 9-10?
Well, I tend to agree with RN & OGH that the Tories might do better than currently anticipated. If your evens were the only bet available I might even be tempted by that.
If I were making a spread, I'd want to allow for bigger risk on the Tory win side than on the UKIP landslide. Maybe UKIP by 6.5-8.5, given the rest of the market. I certainly wouldn't be opening up with a 1 point middle!
I am just calling a mate to see if I can borrow his bus to drive through that spread!
There is even worse news for the government behind the UKIP record and Farage most popular leader in the Ipsos-Mori poll. Satisfaction with the government has slumped to its lowest in more than a year, and economic optimism has also slumped to its worse since the summer of 2013. What happens if the economy slumps before the election? Tories and LD gets the blame but who benefits, especially if it's another eurocrisis?
Is it appropriate for Cameron to use his personal experience to justify the governments performance on helping the disabled ? Not very many children with disabilities have parents who are multi-millionaires, even if they used state services. So I don't think it is relevant for Cameron to cite his experience when asked about government performance. It is surely about disabled people across the country, some who have parents who are not as fortunate as the Camerons.
Silly comment. Wealth is no bar to Cameron having a view - sadly for him, he's in a better position than most to know what he's talking about.
Miliband's a millionaire too. Following your logic, by being so rich, he has no right to say anything about the NHS.
Given that everyone on this forum who thinks that UKIP voters should vote Conservative in order to secure an EU Referendum wants the UK to remain in the EU, and believes that would be the outcome of the vote, why should UKIP voters be impressed by such an offer?
Lord Freud was responding to a question from David Scott, a Tory councillor from Tunbridge Wells, according to a transcript obtained by PoliticsHome.com.
Mr Scott said: "I have a number of mentally damaged individuals, who to be quite frank aren’t worth the Minimum Wage, but want to work. And we have been trying to support them in work, but you can’t find people who are willing to pay the Minimum Wage.
"We had a young man who was keen to do gardening; now the only way we managed to get him to work was actually setting up a company for him, because as a director in a company we didn’t have to pay the Minimum Wage, we could actually give him the earnings from that," he said, adding: "How do you deal with those sort of cases?"
In cases like that, employers shouldn't have to fund the minimum wage. If they do, the inevitable result is that the people won't be employed and they'll be left to rot without work that they're willing to do.
A much better option would be for the government to provide a subsidy related to their disability, to be paid to the employer, to enable the individual to receive (at least) the minimum wage. Someone mentioned Philip Davies downthread. I put this idea to him when the issue was last under debate and he was open to it.
The point is that there is a market rate for any individual in any job. If some, due to disability, cannot do any to a point where their value to an employer is greater than the min wage, they won't be employed. That leaves four options: (1) leave things as they are and give them benefits, which seems to be Labour's preferred solution, (2) set up state-run and -subsidised 'businesses' that can employ them, which has been done but smacks of institutionalism, (3) link the subsidy to the individual, and (4) amend the min wage. None is ideal but to pretend that because the defects of one do not exist in another it means that that other doesn't have defects of its own is disingenuous.
Lord Freud was responding to a question from David Scott, a Tory councillor from Tunbridge Wells, according to a transcript obtained by PoliticsHome.com.
Mr Scott said: "I have a number of mentally damaged individuals, who to be quite frank aren’t worth the Minimum Wage, but want to work. And we have been trying to support them in work, but you can’t find people who are willing to pay the Minimum Wage.
"We had a young man who was keen to do gardening; now the only way we managed to get him to work was actually setting up a company for him, because as a director in a company we didn’t have to pay the Minimum Wage, we could actually give him the earnings from that," he said, adding: "How do you deal with those sort of cases?"
This actually highlights the more fundamental problem with the Minimum Wage: if the work isn't worth it then the business won't employ.
I spoke to someone recently who used to get their supplies from a manufacturer in the UK. But that manufacturer is now merely an importer as it is cheaper to get them made in China. The manufacturing jobs have left the country, and our balance of payments is worse.
Another example, I stayed in a hotel overnight recently, and the breakfast had changed. Before there would be young people getting their first job taking orders and bringing you the food. Now it was all self-service; just one person directing customers on what to do and one bringing out food to the central area. Actually, I preferred it, but jobs have gone to reduce the costs.
The Minimum Wage (whatever the benefits) has a negative impact too, and not only on Mr Scott's young man who just wanted to work.
Are there any odds available for UKIP being ahead of Tories in polling before May 2015 ?
Thinking there may an odd poll that put UKIP ahead of the Tories, but would expect 100/1 as it is pretty unlikely. I can't see the Tories ever polling below say 28% and UKIP will never get anywhere near that.
The odds should be way below 100/1 given that UKIP have already polled 25% once and have an invite to an election debate.
Is it appropriate for Cameron to use his personal experience to justify the governments performance on helping the disabled ? Not very many children with disabilities have parents who are multi-millionaires, even if they used state services. So I don't think it is relevant for Cameron to cite his experience when asked about government performance. It is surely about disabled people across the country, some who have parents who are not as fortunate as the Camerons.
One would have thought that speaking from a position of personnel experience, eminently qualifies any MP to speak out on such matters – wealth doesn’t come into it.
I've sort of lost track of what Kippers want at this point. A while ago I thought most would be happy with the referendum that Cameron is promising, but just don't trust him to follow through. Now, though, it seems more like they'd be unhappy with even that because they don't like the idea of the renegotiation and they don't like that the three main parties would all be campaigning to stay in.
So, er, what exactly do they want? If renegotiation is on the table, then I think most people would be unhappy with not doing so, and as I understand it the polls back this up. Likewise I don't see how even an influential UKIP could prevent parties- or their members/donors- campaigning in a referendum for the result they want. Would that even be fair or democratic?
Well, quite.
UKIP at this point remind me of nothing so much as HAL9000 in 2001. HAL was programmed both to achieve the goals of the mission reliably, but also to dissemble to the crew about the goals of the mission. He resolved this dilemma by killing off the crew. He justified this by telling himself the stupid crew were only jeopardising the mission anyway.
UKIP both wants a referendum but does not because they know they'll lose it. They resolve this dilemma by killing off the referendum by assisting Ed Miliband into power. They justify this by telling themselves that the stupid electors will only jeopardise the referendum result by voting wrong anyway.
I tried to come up with an analogy involving Carthage but I lack the erudition.
You are mixing up 2001 and Alien. HAL went mad, Mother in Alien was programmed to dissemble to the crew.
No I'm not!
HAL was told of the mission's purpose but the crew were not, until after he wigged out and the one survivor switched him off.
In Alien MUTHR just ran the ship. The science officer, Ash the android, was the one in receipt of Special Order 937, which said Gather specimen, crew expendable.
HAL's goals were to be reliable but also to lie, hence paranoid fugue. Ash's goal was to protect the alien, "all other priorities rescinded", so there was never any conflict of objectives. Bummer for everyone else of course.
Lord Freud was responding to a question from David Scott, a Tory councillor from Tunbridge Wells, according to a transcript obtained by PoliticsHome.com.
Mr Scott said: "I have a number of mentally damaged individuals, who to be quite frank aren’t worth the Minimum Wage, but want to work. And we have been trying to support them in work, but you can’t find people who are willing to pay the Minimum Wage.
"We had a young man who was keen to do gardening; now the only way we managed to get him to work was actually setting up a company for him, because as a director in a company we didn’t have to pay the Minimum Wage, we could actually give him the earnings from that," he said, adding: "How do you deal with those sort of cases?"
In cases like that, employers shouldn't have to fund the minimum wage. If they do, the inevitable result is that the people won't be employed and they'll be left to rot without work that they're willing to do.
A much better option would be for the government to provide a subsidy related to their disability, to be paid to the employer, to enable the individual to receive (at least) the minimum wage. Someone mentioned Philip Davies downthread. I put this idea to him when the issue was last under debate and he was open to it.
The point is that there is a market rate for any individual in any job. If some, due to disability, cannot do any to a point where their value to an employer is greater than the min wage, they won't be employed. That leaves four options: (1) leave things as they are and give them benefits, which seems to be Labour's preferred solution, (2) set up state-run and -subsidised 'businesses' that can employ them, which has been done but smacks of institutionalism, (3) link the subsidy to the individual, and (4) amend the min wage. None is ideal but to pretend that because the defects of one do not exist in another it means that that other doesn't have defects of its own is disingenuous.
The faux outrage/deliberate misunderstanding of Tristram Hunt on Daily Politics is absolutely sickening. Everything that I hate about politics
Just in, US Retail sales fell 0.3% in September. So far not looking good for the american economy. Coupled with the bad eurozone news, I again raise the question, what happens if the economy tanks before the next GE?
And your suggestion is that we fold the party and tell our voters, most of whom are not ex Tories, to vote for Cameron Isn't it?
If you want the chance to leave the EU, yes, of course. If you don't, and are happy for the progress on the economy and employment to be reversed, and don't mind ever-closer-union, then by all means vote UKIP and thus help Ed into No 10.
Depending on your seat, a vote for UKIP could well reduce the Labour majority. Any vote for UKIP will also mean they are more likely to hold the balance of power in the election after next, after which an EU referendum has a decent chance of actually happening.
Anyway, the fact that the main argument the Tories have against UKIP is "the electoral system we lobbied hard to keep means you shouldn't vote for your preferred party" shows how intellectually bankrupt they are.
Given that UKIP take disproportionately from the Tories (3:1 wasn't it). Then voting UKIP in a Labour seat is unlikely to let the Tories win it. They're also unlikely to win it themselves. Voting UKIP in a Tory seat makes it more likely that Labour would win. So how does voting UKIP reduce the Labour majority, it's surely more likely to increase it. This looks like wishful thinking on your part. Maybe there are a few seats where UKIP could win themselves rather than just affect the result but, unless they hit the mid twenties, it's unlikely to be more than a handful. Twas the same for the LibDems, on 24% they get under 60 and they have had decades to build up a more 'lumpy' support.
If you don't vote for UKIP in Thurrock, Labour will gain a seat from the Tories
... and if you do vote UKIP and they take 3:1 from Tory:Labour then Labour will gain a seat from the Tories with a bigger majority. Please point out if my maths is wrong, because I just don't understand yours.
They wont take 3:1 Tory/Labour in Thurrock
You're assuming that they will take more Labour than Tory?
What? Where do you get that from?
We can discuss the ratios if you like, but the bottom line is that Thurrock is a two horse race between Labour and UKIP... voting Tory is a way of making losing the seat score -2 rather than -1 overall
OK, so your assumption is that the sitting MP is not in the running, that it's between the 2010 2nd placed Party (Labour) and the 2010 5th placed party (UKIP) - almost 30% behind. If you are basing your assumptions on the Euros or Locals, then that's a bit dangerous, General Elections are different.
Just in, US Retail sales fell 0.3% in September. So far not looking good for the american economy. Coupled with the bad eurozone news, I again raise the question, what happens if the economy tanks before the next GE?
Has Labour ever been elected when the economy is in the doldrums?
Just in, US Retail sales fell 0.3% in September. So far not looking good for the american economy. Coupled with the bad eurozone news, I again raise the question, what happens if the economy tanks before the next GE?
Has Labour ever been elected when the economy is in the doldrums?
Has any government been re-elected with the economy in the doldrums?
And don't tell me 1992 because the economy was trying to recover after the 1990-91 recession, not slumping into a recession.
Just in, US Retail sales fell 0.3% in September. So far not looking good for the american economy. Coupled with the bad eurozone news, I again raise the question, what happens if the economy tanks before the next GE?
Has Labour ever been elected when the economy is in the doldrums?
Has any government been re-elected with the economy in the doldrums?
And don't tell me 1992 because the economy was trying to recover after the 1990-91 recession, not slumping into a recession.
1983, 1987.
EDIT: Massive umemployment, but GDP rising. Depends on definition of 'doldrum'.
Just in, US Retail sales fell 0.3% in September. So far not looking good for the american economy. Coupled with the bad eurozone news, I again raise the question, what happens if the economy tanks before the next GE?
Has Labour ever been elected when the economy is in the doldrums?
Has any government been re-elected with the economy in the doldrums?
And don't tell me 1992 because the economy was trying to recover after the 1990-91 recession, not slumping into a recession.
1983, 1987.
1983, 1987 when the economy was up is not an economy in the doldrums. (1987? with 4-5% GDP growth economic doldrums? Get serious.)
Just in, US Retail sales fell 0.3% in September. So far not looking good for the american economy. Coupled with the bad eurozone news, I again raise the question, what happens if the economy tanks before the next GE?
The mood was noticeably more downbeat than it has been for a while among the folk I saw last week when I was in San Francisco and New York. Not despondent, but not bubbling.
Just in, US Retail sales fell 0.3% in September. So far not looking good for the american economy. Coupled with the bad eurozone news, I again raise the question, what happens if the economy tanks before the next GE?
Has Labour ever been elected when the economy is in the doldrums?
Has any government been re-elected with the economy in the doldrums?
And don't tell me 1992 because the economy was trying to recover after the 1990-91 recession, not slumping into a recession.
1983, 1987.
1983, 1987 when the economy was up is not an economy in the doldrums. (1987? with 4-5% GDP growth economic doldrums? Get serious.)
I've edited my post. It's not as black-and-white as you make out.
And your suggestion is that we fold the party and tell our voters, most of whom are not ex Tories, to vote for Cameron Isn't it?
.
.
.
You're assuming that they will take more Labour than Tory?
What? Where do you get that from?
We can discuss the ratios if you like, but the bottom line is that Thurrock is a two horse race between Labour and UKIP... voting Tory is a way of making losing the seat score -2 rather than -1 overall
OK, so your assumption is that the sitting MP is not in the running, that it's between the 2010 2nd placed Party (Labour) and the 2010 5th placed party (UKIP) - almost 30% behind. If you are basing your assumptions on the Euros or Locals, then that's a bit dangerous, General Elections are different.
As it happens the Euros and locals have been quite a good indicator of the three by elections since I think (Newark, Clacton & Heywood and Middleton)
But on this specific seat...
I live half a mile away, and know the area quite well... not necessarily a big deal, but UKIP won a ward in my constituency that is very similar to Thurrock last year so I decided to look into it more closely
I made an attempt at modelling each constituency 18 months ago based on 2010 results and it came out as one of the top 10 seats for UKIP. Doesn't really mean much, I could be mistaken . But I have been in the odds compiling game 15 years, so should know vaguely what I am doing
I backed UKIP to win the seat at 16/1, UKIP then won the Euros and local elections in the seat quite easily
Ashcroft polling (from 4 or 5 months ago when UKIP were nowhere near as strong) has them well ahead
UKIP have one of their top men (Head of policy) who is also a local lad, as the candidate, and have been canvassing the area extensively for 6 months already
I have spoken with the UKIP people in the area and they say its a two horse race.. the Tories aren't even really trying
UKIP are now 5/4 to win the seat, and I think its still value
If they win Thursdays by election, it is more or less all over
Feel free to disagree, but I am pretty confident that voting Tory in Thurrock makes a Tory government less likely
Most commentators do give Miliband the win, and certainly he's established the political story of the day rather than anything else Cameron might have liked it to be:
Given the intensity of comments from Cameron down it's hard to see Freud not resigning - though they're unsure if he's actually in the country. Perhaps he's joined Assange in the Embassy...
Comments
Your assumption makes your argument, which makes your argument rubbish.
The opinion poll gave UKIP and the Tories 71% of the vote. You cant just pluck numbers out of the air then argue as if they mean something more than that
http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/106453/fresh_freudian_slip?.html
The Tories weren't embarrassed to campaign for the system which produces such results.
Stop whining.
Mr. Farage 39% Approve, 43% Disapprove
Mr. Cameron 38%, 55%.
Mr. Miliband 25%, 59%.
Mr. Clegg 25%, 62%.
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that UKIP and the Tories end up with 71% of the vote, the only way the handicap pays and the outright doesn't is if the Tories finish between 33% and 35.5%.
Please point out if my maths is wrong, because I just don't understand yours.
Of course some other Tory MPs agree, Philip Davies for example stands by his view that those with disabilities might be more able to get a job by working for less than the minimum wage.
I'm still pretty chipper about the Tories prospects for GE2015 too.
Glad I'm not a Yellow Peril supporter.
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/474874525629558784
Unless I receive confirmation they will decimate defence.
Go ahead and tell us what the handicap should be then
What a nipple.
UKIP at this point remind me of nothing so much as HAL9000 in 2001. HAL was programmed both to achieve the goals of the mission reliably, but also to dissemble to the crew about the goals of the mission. He resolved this dilemma by killing off the crew. He justified this by telling himself the stupid crew were only jeopardising the mission anyway.
UKIP both wants a referendum but does not because they know they'll lose it. They resolve this dilemma by killing off the referendum by assisting Ed Miliband into power. They justify this by telling themselves that the stupid electors will only jeopardise the referendum result by voting wrong anyway.
I tried to come up with an analogy involving Carthage but I lack the erudition.
David Aaronovitch @DAaronovitch
I am all for kicking ministers, but as I understand it Lord Freud was proposing precisely nothing.
A 10 point handicap and I'd be interested at evens.
"Incidentally, Scottish Labour are worried Scottish Greens will have more members soon."
Thay may already have more members than Slab. At the end of their Conference on Sunday, SGP had 7,057 members. Last known SLab figures were 13,135 in September 2010, and there has been considerable hemorrhaging since then.
Mr Scott said: "I have a number of mentally damaged individuals, who to be quite frank aren’t worth the Minimum Wage, but want to work. And we have been trying to support them in work, but you can’t find people who are willing to pay the Minimum Wage.
"We had a young man who was keen to do gardening; now the only way we managed to get him to work was actually setting up a company for him, because as a director in a company we didn’t have to pay the Minimum Wage, we could actually give him the earnings from that," he said, adding: "How do you deal with those sort of cases?"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11164121/David-Cameron-invokes-dead-son-to-slap-down-minister-who-said-disabled-not-worth-minimum-wage.html
I'll get my coat....
Conservatives win by 13 or UKIP win by 3
Several people, who have been listing many reasons why UKIP wont win this seat easily(Hatred of Reckless, Reckless "No Carswell", Open Primaries, Euro result flakiness, Survation poll bias) heaped hearty praise on Richard for his methodology and conclusions
Mike is saying anything bigger than 6/4 is value, best bookie price is 11/4 (BF 4.3 for £100)
Given that both his conclusions would be winners (with at least 2% to spare) on the terms I offered, I thought it reasonable to assume that they are not as confident as they make out
So if you were making a spread price on UKIP winning percentage margin (can make up negative) you would be 9-10?
Thinking there may an odd poll that put UKIP ahead of the Tories, but would expect 100/1 as it is pretty unlikely. I can't see the Tories ever polling below say 28% and UKIP will never get anywhere near that.
Its nowhere near 100/1 I wouldn't think its a all that near a double figure price
If I were making a spread, I'd want to allow for bigger risk on the Tory win side than on the UKIP landslide. Maybe UKIP by 6.5-8.5, given the rest of the market. I certainly wouldn't be opening up with a 1 point middle!
I'm not sold on the need for full time Councillors. I'd see the role as one for the executive (service delivery) with direction and accountability provided by elected representatives. What do the "effectively full time" councillors do all day that really adds value?
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/tauntondeane/
Also, the idea that we'd have to have free labour to get a trade deal outside the EU is complete and utter nonsense. Korea already, and Canada shortly, will have 95% of the trade access with out any of that.
We can discuss the ratios if you like, but the bottom line is that Thurrock is a two horse race between Labour and UKIP... voting Tory is a way of making losing the seat score -2 rather than -1 overall
Not moved yet
Satisfaction with the government has slumped to its lowest in more than a year, and economic optimism has also slumped to its worse since the summer of 2013.
What happens if the economy slumps before the election?
Tories and LD gets the blame but who benefits, especially if it's another eurocrisis?
Miliband's a millionaire too. Following your logic, by being so rich, he has no right to say anything about the NHS.
Given that everyone on this forum who thinks that UKIP voters should vote Conservative in order to secure an EU Referendum wants the UK to remain in the EU, and believes that would be the outcome of the vote, why should UKIP voters be impressed by such an offer?
A much better option would be for the government to provide a subsidy related to their disability, to be paid to the employer, to enable the individual to receive (at least) the minimum wage. Someone mentioned Philip Davies downthread. I put this idea to him when the issue was last under debate and he was open to it.
The point is that there is a market rate for any individual in any job. If some, due to disability, cannot do any to a point where their value to an employer is greater than the min wage, they won't be employed. That leaves four options: (1) leave things as they are and give them benefits, which seems to be Labour's preferred solution, (2) set up state-run and -subsidised 'businesses' that can employ them, which has been done but smacks of institutionalism, (3) link the subsidy to the individual, and (4) amend the min wage. None is ideal but to pretend that because the defects of one do not exist in another it means that that other doesn't have defects of its own is disingenuous.
Astonished btw that guardian gave "easy win" to cameron. I thought they were both embarrassingly bad but ed possibly edged it with the freud stuff.
This actually highlights the more fundamental problem with the Minimum Wage: if the work isn't worth it then the business won't employ.
I spoke to someone recently who used to get their supplies from a manufacturer in the UK. But that manufacturer is now merely an importer as it is cheaper to get them made in China. The manufacturing jobs have left the country, and our balance of payments is worse.
Another example, I stayed in a hotel overnight recently, and the breakfast had changed. Before there would be young people getting their first job taking orders and bringing you the food. Now it was all self-service; just one person directing customers on what to do and one bringing out food to the central area. Actually, I preferred it, but jobs have gone to reduce the costs.
The Minimum Wage (whatever the benefits) has a negative impact too, and not only on Mr Scott's young man who just wanted to work.
Mirror Hacking Good, New International Bad....
CON 34
LD 30
UKIP 15
LAB 14
Freud used the term 'not worth' the minimum wage' rather than 'person for whom people are not prepared to pay the minimum wage'
Jeremy Browne becomes the 10th LibDem to announce intentions to stand down in 2015 GE.
Oh dear, Carswell on R4 just referred to "Osbrowne Economics"..........and I thought he was a grown up....
HAL was told of the mission's purpose but the crew were not, until after he wigged out and the one survivor switched him off.
In Alien MUTHR just ran the ship. The science officer, Ash the android, was the one in receipt of Special Order 937, which said Gather specimen, crew expendable.
HAL's goals were to be reliable but also to lie, hence paranoid fugue. Ash's goal was to protect the alien, "all other priorities rescinded", so there was never any conflict of objectives. Bummer for everyone else of course.
Freud used the term 'not worth' the minimum wage' rather than 'person for whom people are not prepared to pay the minimum wage'
Yup - but Labour are trying to spin it that the nasty party wants secretly to pay ALL the disabled £2 per hour....
6 are over 65 year old. 2 are between 60 and 65. 2 are young (Teather and Browne).
In terms of lenght of service
pre 1997: 4 (Ming, Beith, Bruce, Foster)
1997: 2 (Heath and Stunell)
2001: Brooke
2003: Teather
2005: Browne
2010: Swales from Redcar
Piers Morgan was Mirror editor between 1996 – 2004
Hmm, I wonder if the Guardian will do a ‘Coulson’ on him?...
So far not looking good for the american economy.
Coupled with the bad eurozone news, I again raise the question, what happens if the economy tanks before the next GE?
If you are basing your assumptions on the Euros or Locals, then that's a bit dangerous, General Elections are different.
And don't tell me 1992 because the economy was trying to recover after the 1990-91 recession, not slumping into a recession.
EDIT: Massive umemployment, but GDP rising. Depends on definition of 'doldrum'.
Mr Browne, who was sacked in the last Liberal Democrat reshuffle, has insisted he will not defect to another party."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberaldemocrats/11164432/Ex-Liberal-Democrat-Home-Office-minister-Jeremy-Browne-to-quit-as-MP.html
But on this specific seat...
I live half a mile away, and know the area quite well... not necessarily a big deal, but UKIP won a ward in my constituency that is very similar to Thurrock last year so I decided to look into it more closely
I made an attempt at modelling each constituency 18 months ago based on 2010 results and it came out as one of the top 10 seats for UKIP. Doesn't really mean much, I could be mistaken . But I have been in the odds compiling game 15 years, so should know vaguely what I am doing
I backed UKIP to win the seat at 16/1, UKIP then won the Euros and local elections in the seat quite easily
Ashcroft polling (from 4 or 5 months ago when UKIP were nowhere near as strong) has them well ahead
UKIP have one of their top men (Head of policy) who is also a local lad, as the candidate, and have been canvassing the area extensively for 6 months already
I have spoken with the UKIP people in the area and they say its a two horse race.. the Tories aren't even really trying
UKIP are now 5/4 to win the seat, and I think its still value
If they win Thursdays by election, it is more or less all over
Feel free to disagree, but I am pretty confident that voting Tory in Thurrock makes a Tory government less likely
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2014/oct/15/cameron-and-miliband-at-pmqs-politics-live-blog
Given the intensity of comments from Cameron down it's hard to see Freud not resigning - though they're unsure if he's actually in the country. Perhaps he's joined Assange in the Embassy...