Any seat that Lord A had the LDs within 5% will probably go yellow. Lord A doesn't mention candidates' names and the polling I've seen oes shows this is a major factor.
Against LAB Simon Hughes and possibly Lynne Featherstone will hold on as will Cambridge.
Watford is an LD gain and there's an outside chance of Oxwab.
Incumbents standing again against the Tories will do okay. Where there's new candidate it will be different.
Finally watch Burnley. Individuals matter enormously and the incumbent is very strong.
I did some analysis based on the size of incumbency bonus and various swings. For a uniform 5% incumbency bonus, the Lib Dems should do around 10-14 seats better than a UNS would imply:
So apparently Anna Soubry was at the anti- Indian Kashmir rally at Trafalgar Square today. Any idea how many Indian voters there are in Broxtowe she has just lost?
I would say to this - SHITE
But since we are all aspiring writers here I will merely say-
Very Poor
Sorry what is very poor? The fact she was there or that I have asked a question?
YOU HAVE 10 POSTS AND HAVE MANAGED TO PATHETICALLY REFERENCE NPXNP AS WELL AS CONFIRMED TEAM CASIO MEMBER SUNIL IN ONE POST
You'll probably manage to wind us all up within a few months and be PB Star.
Have fun
Well you have to start somewhere.If you all find it so pathetic I don't think I'll bother - I thought this site wanted to encourage new participants or is it an old lags only affair?
Please ignore him, he seems to be over-refreshed this afternoon.
Dr. Parma, ah ha! [Sorry, I should've perhaps checked myself but I thought you might know off the top of your head].
The city where Pyrrhus was twice king (taking a liberal view of such things), and where Hannibal was thwarted, claiming the city but unable to conquer the citadel which commanded the vital harbour. Also, one of many Greek-founded cities west of Greece, alongside Marseilles (as it now is) and Syracuse.
Mr. Briskin, it may thrill you to note that I've managed to work references to certain figures of classical history into both my Saxon & Khan short stories (which are set in modern day Britain).
Equally possible as I see it is a pathetically small Conservative majority due to the Labour vote being split 1983 style by UKIP.
And UKIP is not going to spit the CON vote as is shown very sharply in Lord A's extensive poll. Ignore at your peril my friend.
Agree that his what his polls indicate. However, I think that Labour will collapse once the election nears and people have to make a decision, just as in 1992, look at Ed and decide "Not you mate", a lot of those will go to UKIP.
The tories have a "hold on to nurse for fear of something worse" advantage as a lot of people will allow their wallet to vote for them (those with assets/money to lose if Labour come in and implode the economy or implement a hard left economic agenda with wealth taxes etc, or just if they fear whether they are economically competent.
In such a situation UKIP will start picking up more Labour than tory voters in marginals and will produce a 1983 situation, handing the tories a disproportionate number of seats.
If the Tories do get a majority though, be afraid be very afraid. Once they implement things like Beecroft they will be exceptionally unpopular.
So apparently Anna Soubry was at the anti- Indian Kashmir rally at Trafalgar Square today. Any idea how many Indian voters there are in Broxtowe she has just lost?
I would say to this - SHITE
But since we are all aspiring writers here I will merely say-
Very Poor
I think Anna Soubry has already given up. Nick P will be back with reasonable margin. Lord A had 45% 2010 LDs switching to him and he's done a huge amount on the ground.
Like Nick the candidates in 10 of LAB's top 40 targets are retreads. It'll be interesting to see if they still have an incumbency benefit.
Have you any evidence, I mean any evidence at all, that Anna Soubry has "given up"?
Mike Smithson has been prophesying that Dave has had it by looking at polls most especially 2010 Lib Dems. It may have been plausible at the time , but now its all up for grabs. Mike Smithson never factored in how dire the Labour front bench is, led by a man who come across as a bit weird (to put it mildly).
All bets are off, any outcome is possible.. forget the 2010 LD's as the be all and end all.
Dr. Parma, ah ha! [Sorry, I should've perhaps checked myself but I thought you might know off the top of your head].
The city where Pyrrhus was twice king (taking a liberal view of such things), and where Hannibal was thwarted, claiming the city but unable to conquer the citadel which commanded the vital harbour. Also, one of many Greek-founded cities west of Greece, alongside Marseilles (as it now is) and Syracuse.
Mr. Briskin, it may thrill you to note that I've managed to work references to certain figures of classical history into both my Saxon & Khan short stories (which are set in modern day Britain).
Dr. Parma, ah ha! [Sorry, I should've perhaps checked myself but I thought you might know off the top of your head].
The city where Pyrrhus was twice king (taking a liberal view of such things), and where Hannibal was thwarted, claiming the city but unable to conquer the citadel which commanded the vital harbour. Also, one of many Greek-founded cities west of Greece, alongside Marseilles (as it now is) and Syracuse.
Mr. Briskin, it may thrill you to note that I've managed to work references to certain figures of classical history into both my Saxon & Khan short stories (which are set in modern day Britain).
Or it may not. But I've done it anyway.
Hang On???? Modern Day Britain???? You'll be betting on Lewis next.
Dr. Parma, ah ha! [Sorry, I should've perhaps checked myself but I thought you might know off the top of your head].
The city where Pyrrhus was twice king (taking a liberal view of such things), and where Hannibal was thwarted, claiming the city but unable to conquer the citadel which commanded the vital harbour. Also, one of many Greek-founded cities west of Greece, alongside Marseilles (as it now is) and Syracuse.
Mr. Briskin, it may thrill you to note that I've managed to work references to certain figures of classical history into both my Saxon & Khan short stories (which are set in modern day Britain).
I think it would be fair to hand all Lib Dem targets down to Berwick Upon Tweed (Not Norwich South or Bradford East though) and not Sutton and Cheam.
I make that 12 gains.
Looking at Labour's list I make it 11 gains for them.
UKIP Gain 10 seats say - 8 Tory 2 Labour
SNP gain 3 Labour perhaps ? (The Lib Dem seats surely drop more easily than the Labour targets)
So Con + 12 Lab + 11 Con -8 Lab -2 Lab -3
Yields a start point of Con +4; Lab -6 from the 2010 totals.
The main contradiction in my mind at the moment is the local Lib Dem strength in in particular the SW which made these gains TRICKY for the Tories, and the appalling Lib Dem national numbers.
I think @David Herdson of this parish said that in order for the Lib Dems to hold some seats they'd need to lose 6 out of 7 votes elsewhere, which he thought inconceivable. Perhaps it isn't.
That was from my September PB polling average piece. The relevant bits are:
The first thing to note is that the polls are a bit contradictory. While the national figures suggest a catastrophic meltdown, the Ashcroft constituency polling suggests not only that the Lib Dems are retaining strength where it matters but when voters are asked to think about their local situation – as they will be next April and May – the Lib Dem share improves further.
That’s vitally important for them because put simply, the national polls have to be wrong if they’re to keep a coachload of MPs rather than a minibus-full; there simply aren’t enough votes to go round otherwise. For example, if the Lib Dems did receive the 7.6% they scored in last month’s average, then on the same size turnout and electorate as in 2010 (to keep things simple), this would be about 2.26m votes. By contrast, their combined vote in the 57 seats they won last time was 1.23m. It’s inconceivable that they could keep the great majority of those while losing five votes in six elsewhere. Of course, if polls worded along national lines are understating them in their own seats (and perhaps elsewhere), then the overall figure will also be low. Still, that doesn’t explain the drop since April at a time when local campaigning should be having the opposite effect.
NOM rests on a fairly delicate equilibrium. It could easily swing into a decisive majority either way, but then it could just as easily swing into hung territory so deeply that the price collapses. It really depends on what happens between now and the GE.
Like Mike, I've a green book on the main events. There's nothing particularly clever about this. A green book usually denotes you've traded good value bets for bad ones. In doing so, you've accepted a small but certain profit in preference to a potentially bigger but riskier one.
On the whole, I'm an NOM man because I think the most likely trends over the remaining life of the Government are an increase in the vote percentages for UKIP, SNP, Greens, Others, and possibly the LDs. I would expect Labour and Conservative to lose support.
That would almost certainly give you NOM, but I wouldn't bet heavily on it because there are numerous perfectly plausible scenarios which would change the outlook dramatically - e.g., a UKIP or LD collapse.
So apparently Anna Soubry was at the anti- Indian Kashmir rally at Trafalgar Square today. Any idea how many Indian voters there are in Broxtowe she has just lost?
I would say to this - SHITE
But since we are all aspiring writers here I will merely say-
Very Poor
I think Anna Soubry has already given up. Nick P will be back with reasonable margin. Lord A had 45% 2010 LDs switching to him and he's done a huge amount on the ground.
Like Nick the candidates in 10 of LAB's top 40 targets are retreads. It'll be interesting to see if they still have an incumbency benefit.
From a UKIP point of view Anna Soubry I believe is public enemy number one after the Farage QT affair. What I am not sure is what they will do to help get her out but if they have anything to do with it I also think she will be a goner .
Nah. Given she was always likely to be a dead woman walking (her majority was only a few hundred) she's small fry. The one I'd nominate as public enemy number one would be her neighbour Ken Clarke by a sundry mile. He is the epitome of everything that is wrong with the liberal elite (clearly Soubry picked up some tips from him). Sadly there is little or no chance of humiliating him.
Dr. Parma, alas, I didn't take Latin at school either (I wanted to but the way the selection system was set up I had to pick either that, classical civilisation or German, and I wanted all three).
Mildly amused that you know more about British politics than me but I perhaps know bits of Italian history with which you're unfamiliar.
Mr. Briskin, writing about modern day things was difficult. I'm more comfortable with the third century BC, or fantasyland with dragons and frisky elves. [And no, Khan is an British chap called Khan].
On-topic (ish): I think no overall majority is the single likeliest result. Scotland will be very interesting. Labour are going downhill fast but the SNP need very significant swings, it seems, to make more than a handful of gains.
SNP – Inverness Bairn SNP 18.29 3.75 Seat winner Inverness SNP 6 5 Brent Central Labour 80.15 1.2222222222 Bradford East Labour 40.07 1.125 Solihull Tory 100 1.3333333333 St Ives Tory 11.79 2.25 Lib Dem Deposits Loss > 150 10 4.5 UKIP Eastleigh UKIP 18.54 4.5 Bermondsey & Old Southwark Labour 15 2.875
Bets for the Lib Dems:
Over 32.5 seats 20 1.8333333333 Lib Dem Seat bands 41-50 20 4.5 Inverness Bairn LD 32.92 2.5 Sutton and Cheam LD 10 1.8333333333 Eastleigh Lib Dem 50 1.6666666667
I have a fair idea that 41-50 seats is a loser, but the 32.5 seats is fascinating. It feels like a loser with the national poll numbers but when you look at the individual seats...
Bermondsey and Old Southwark was recommended by Peter From Putney iirc...
Gareth Thomas MP (@GarethThomasMP) 26/10/2014 17:52 Osborne knew in January UK faced a higher EU Bill but said nothing...Makes Cameron's outrage seem a little synthetic telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews…
Dr. Parma, alas, I didn't take Latin at school either (I wanted to but the way the selection system was set up I had to pick either that, classical civilisation or German, and I wanted all three).
Mildly amused that you know more about British politics than me but I perhaps know bits of Italian history with which you're unfamiliar.
Mr. Briskin, writing about modern day things was difficult. I'm more comfortable with the third century BC, or fantasyland with dragons and frisky elves. [And no, Khan is an British chap called Khan].
On-topic (ish): I think no overall majority is the single likeliest result. Scotland will be very interesting. Labour are going downhill fast but the SNP need very significant swings, it seems, to make more than a handful of gains.
Morris you genuinely terrify me in many ways-
However - to you, and to the lurkers, my pseudonym comes from a Philip K Dick book - and references a fictional African American President...
However, in a sign of the growing split in the Conservative Party over immigration, Mr Fallon’s comments were immediately undermined by Liz Truss, the Environment Minister, who said that foreign workers are needed to ensure that Britain’s farming industry remains competitive.
However, in a sign of the growing split in the Conservative Party over immigration, Mr Fallon’s comments were immediately undermined by Liz Truss, the Environment Minister, who said that foreign workers are needed to ensure that Britain’s farming industry remains competitive.
As Truss is an ex Libdem Cameroon its a classic story of divided Tories once again.
Douglas Carswell once wrote that: "I know of a farm in Essex (not in my constituency, I might add) that has for years depended on Bulgarian students to help gather in the harvest. Each year they come over, work hard, and return to Bulgaria. Without them, the farm would not cope. However unfashionable it might be to point this out, it needs pointing out."
I suspect the answer is to draw a line between a level of uncontrolled immigration, benefit tourism, and so on, and the immigration necessary to sustain certain parts of the economy. But that is an answer both to Mr Carswell's membership of UKIP and of the difference between Liz Truss and Michael Fallon.
Gareth Thomas MP (@GarethThomasMP) 26/10/2014 17:52 Osborne knew in January UK faced a higher EU Bill but said nothing...Makes Cameron's outrage seem a little synthetic telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews…
I said this had Osborne's fingerprints all over it.
Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough Labour: Harry Harpham
Former NUM rep at Clipstone Colliery during the strike David Blunkett's agent researcher for Blunkett Sheffield Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Homes and Neighbourhoods
That was from my September PB polling average piece. The relevant bits are:
The first thing to note is that the polls are a bit contradictory. While the national figures suggest a catastrophic meltdown, the Ashcroft constituency polling suggests not only that the Lib Dems are retaining strength where it matters but when voters are asked to think about their local situation – as they will be next April and May – the Lib Dem share improves further.
That’s vitally important for them because put simply, the national polls have to be wrong if they’re to keep a coachload of MPs rather than a minibus-full; there simply aren’t enough votes to go round otherwise. For example, if the Lib Dems did receive the 7.6% they scored in last month’s average, then on the same size turnout and electorate as in 2010 (to keep things simple), this would be about 2.26m votes. By contrast, their combined vote in the 57 seats they won last time was 1.23m. It’s inconceivable that they could keep the great majority of those while losing five votes in six elsewhere. Of course, if polls worded along national lines are understating them in their own seats (and perhaps elsewhere), then the overall figure will also be low. Still, that doesn’t explain the drop since April at a time when local campaigning should be having the opposite effect.
Analysing the 2014 local election results, John Curtice thought the LD incumbency theory failed to match the data.
"...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."
However, in a sign of the growing split in the Conservative Party over immigration, Mr Fallon’s comments were immediately undermined by Liz Truss, the Environment Minister, who said that foreign workers are needed to ensure that Britain’s farming industry remains competitive.
As Truss is an ex Libdem Cameroon its a classic story of divided Tories once again.
Tories addicted to maintaining a low wage economy... the classic mentality of people who can only envision a stratified society. I'm sure all those millions on low wages facing ever more competition from the flood of unskilled labour will be happy to know it's worth it so that rich landowners can make more profit off their land.
It depends, though, whether the knowledge of a higher bill was knowledge of a recalculation and the assumption was a tidying up of a few million, or knowledge of a £1.7bn bill.
Congratulations, incidentally, on a highly probable triumph at Diplomacy.
It depends, though, whether the knowledge of a higher bill was knowledge of a recalculation and the assumption was a tidying up of a few million, or knowledge of a £1.7bn bill.
Congratulations, incidentally, on a highly probable triumph at Diplomacy.
Thanks, Hoepfully it will be this year, but I'm assuming best play by my opponents...
Mr. Socrates, a lack of social mobility can be appealing if you're already at the top. It's been remarked here many times that the huge level of immigration is bad if you're at the lower end and handy if you're at the top. It depresses wages for many, but cuts costs of carpentry and conservatories for those with cash to burn.
The overuse of the race card (Roche deserves a slap with an enormo-haddock for the euracism nonsense) has meant there hasn't been a proper debate, and the membership of the EU means we can't do anything about a lot of migration, unless we leave.
However, in a sign of the growing split in the Conservative Party over immigration, Mr Fallon’s comments were immediately undermined by Liz Truss, the Environment Minister, who said that foreign workers are needed to ensure that Britain’s farming industry remains competitive.
That was from my September PB polling average piece. The relevant bits are:
The first thing to note is that the polls are a bit contradictory. While the national figures suggest a catastrophic meltdown, the Ashcroft constituency polling suggests not only that the Lib Dems are retaining strength where it matters but when voters are asked to think about their local situation – as they will be next April and May – the Lib Dem share improves further.
That’s vitally important for them because put simply, the national polls have to be wrong if they’re to keep a coachload of MPs rather than a minibus-full; there simply aren’t enough votes to go round otherwise. For example, if the Lib Dems did receive the 7.6% they scored in last month’s average, then on the same size turnout and electorate as in 2010 (to keep things simple), this would be about 2.26m votes. By contrast, their combined vote in the 57 seats they won last time was 1.23m. It’s inconceivable that they could keep the great majority of those while losing five votes in six elsewhere. Of course, if polls worded along national lines are understating them in their own seats (and perhaps elsewhere), then the overall figure will also be low. Still, that doesn’t explain the drop since April at a time when local campaigning should be having the opposite effect.
Analysing the 2014 local election results, John Curtice thought the LD incumbency theory failed to match the data.
"...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."
You keep misinterpreting the LD 2014 local election results , no doubt John Curtice did also . If in the LD wards in constituency seats the vote fell from 55 to 42% then the fall may well be the same as in a non constituency ward where it fell from 20 to 7% say but it is substantially a better performance .
Delighted to see, for the first time I've ever noticed, Southampton are a shorter price to win the league (250/1 from 400/1 last week), than they are to be relegated (500/1 from 250/1 last week, all prices from ladbrokes), and now 6/1 to finish top 4 (shorter than the 7/1 on traitorous pig Pochettino's Spurs)
So apparently Anna Soubry was at the anti- Indian Kashmir rally at Trafalgar Square today. Any idea how many Indian voters there are in Broxtowe she has just lost?
I would say to this - SHITE
But since we are all aspiring writers here I will merely say-
Very Poor
Sorry what is very poor? The fact she was there or that I have asked a question?
YOU HAVE 10 POSTS AND HAVE MANAGED TO PATHETICALLY REFERENCE NPXNP AS WELL AS CONFIRMED TEAM CASIO MEMBER SUNIL IN ONE POST
You'll probably manage to wind us all up within a few months and be PB Star.
Delighted to see, for the first time I've ever noticed, Southampton are a shorter price to win the league (250/1 from 400/1 last week), than they are to be relegated (500/1 from 250/1 last week, all prices from ladbrokes), and now 6/1 to finish top 4 (shorter than the 7/1 on traitorous pig Pochettino's Spurs)
However, in a sign of the growing split in the Conservative Party over immigration, Mr Fallon’s comments were immediately undermined by Liz Truss, the Environment Minister, who said that foreign workers are needed to ensure that Britain’s farming industry remains competitive.
As Truss is an ex Libdem Cameroon its a classic story of divided Tories once again.
Douglas Carswell once wrote that: "I know of a farm in Essex (not in my constituency, I might add) that has for years depended on Bulgarian students to help gather in the harvest. Each year they come over, work hard, and return to Bulgaria. Without them, the farm would not cope. However unfashionable it might be to point this out, it needs pointing out."
I suspect the answer is to draw a line between a level of uncontrolled immigration, benefit tourism, and so on, and the immigration necessary to sustain certain parts of the economy. But that is an answer both to Mr Carswell's membership of UKIP and of the difference between Liz Truss and Michael Fallon.
The old crops rotting in the field without immigrants canard is a very old one. Classic example of immigration suppressing potential productivity gains, low wage versus high wage economy.
Mr. Briskin, must confess I have not read anything by Philip K Dick.
I have a shelf of one bookcase for his books and similar works. Highly recommended in small doses but gets repetitive in his themes. JBriskin's name comes from The Crack In Space (or Cantata 140 for pseuds).
Delighted to see, for the first time I've ever noticed, Southampton are a shorter price to win the league (250/1 from 400/1 last week), than they are to be relegated (500/1 from 250/1 last week, all prices from ladbrokes), and now 6/1 to finish top 4 (shorter than the 7/1 on traitorous pig Pochettino's Spurs)
How about the Hammers?
Bookies not so impressed; 1000/1 to win, 18/1 to go down, 50/1 top 4
However, in a sign of the growing split in the Conservative Party over immigration, Mr Fallon’s comments were immediately undermined by Liz Truss, the Environment Minister, who said that foreign workers are needed to ensure that Britain’s farming industry remains competitive.
As Truss is an ex Libdem Cameroon its a classic story of divided Tories once again.
Douglas Carswell once wrote that: "I know of a farm in Essex (not in my constituency, I might add) that has for years depended on Bulgarian students to help gather in the harvest. Each year they come over, work hard, and return to Bulgaria. Without them, the farm would not cope. However unfashionable it might be to point this out, it needs pointing out."
I suspect the answer is to draw a line between a level of uncontrolled immigration, benefit tourism, and so on, and the immigration necessary to sustain certain parts of the economy. But that is an answer both to Mr Carswell's membership of UKIP and of the difference between Liz Truss and Michael Fallon.
Was that before Carswell wrote this in his Telegraph blog?;
Try to imagine how that family in Clacton might now feel, when they read that student loans to Bulgarians and Romanians have just been suspended.
Do you suppose my constituents are likely to be grateful that at last some chump in Whitehall has finally woken up to the fact that many of the Bulgarian and Romanian applications were, apparently, bogus?
No, my ministerial pals. They are going to be furious. Livid. Volcanic in their anger. And it will be directed at you.
What the heck are we doing, they will ask themselves and their neighbours, giving student loans to any Bulgarians or Romanians in the first place? The very month that my constituent’s daughter had to pack her things and leave university, we were apparently approving student loans to non-UK nationals. Why?
Of course it has little to do with my original point which is that two Tory ministers seem to be taking opposite views of the same thing. Even now the Tory Party is as divided as it ever was over the same old unresolved issues.
The fact that Utd are only now odds on with any bookies not to finish Top 4 bemuses me greatly. I got on at 5/4 (frankly I could have done better, should have held out for 6/4 at least) but reckon it's at least a 60% chance, maybe better. Even when they win they're looking unconvincing.
Although, they've rescued two undeserved points in two weeks.
However, in a sign of the growing split in the Conservative Party over immigration, Mr Fallon’s comments were immediately undermined by Liz Truss, the Environment Minister, who said that foreign workers are needed to ensure that Britain’s farming industry remains competitive.
As Truss is an ex Libdem Cameroon its a classic story of divided Tories once again.
Tories addicted to maintaining a low wage economy... the classic mentality of people who can only envision a stratified society. I'm sure all those millions on low wages facing ever more competition from the flood of unskilled labour will be happy to know it's worth it so that rich landowners can make more profit off their land.
The swing of middle income to ow incomes is there, it just isn't very significant.
One study showed that for every 1% increase in the immigrant population, middle incomes rose by 0.6% and lower incomes fell by 0.5%, a swing over the 1997-2005 period of about two pence per hour (the immigrant population rose by 3 percentage points). However, overall "there is hardly any effect of immigration on the wage distribution above the median".
More importantly, "the graph of wage effects ... is strikingly similar to the distribution of immigrants along the native wage distribution", in other words, it is likely that existing immigrants were most badly hit. That in itself implies that the skill sets of migrant and immigrant workers are not as interchangeable as migrants with other migrants.
However, in a sign of the growing split in the Conservative Party over immigration, Mr Fallon’s comments were immediately undermined by Liz Truss, the Environment Minister, who said that foreign workers are needed to ensure that Britain’s farming industry remains competitive.
Delighted to see, for the first time I've ever noticed, Southampton are a shorter price to win the league (250/1 from 400/1 last week), than they are to be relegated (500/1 from 250/1 last week, all prices from ladbrokes), and now 6/1 to finish top 4 (shorter than the 7/1 on traitorous pig Pochettino's Spurs)
How about the Hammers?
Bookies not so impressed; 1000/1 to win, 18/1 to go down, 50/1 top 4
Even though we're in the top 4 at the moment? Oh well.
Mike Smithson - I think you may be over-rating incumbency. Do you really think the people of north London will be asking themselves whether they want Lynne Featherstone or AN Other Labour candidate to represent them? Everyone knew what the overall result would be in '97, 01 and 05. In 2010 we seemed to be headed for a messy hung parliament whatever happened.
I'm going to make a bold claim. Individual MPs and their reputation will matter less this time than at any election since 1992. Both Tories and Labour have lined up the ammo at each other and a fair few Lib Dems will be massacred in the crossfire, in the case of some decent ones, perhaps unfairly. It's also much harder to run on personal reputation when you are part of the government.
Delighted to see, for the first time I've ever noticed, Southampton are a shorter price to win the league (250/1 from 400/1 last week), than they are to be relegated (500/1 from 250/1 last week, all prices from ladbrokes), and now 6/1 to finish top 4 (shorter than the 7/1 on traitorous pig Pochettino's Spurs)
How about the Hammers?
Bookies not so impressed; 1000/1 to win, 18/1 to go down, 50/1 top 4
Even though we're in the top 4 at the moment? Oh well.
Still another 29 games to go Sunil!
But a small bet on top 4 @ 50/1 (or prob better, that's Ladbrokes price) could be a good trading bet at least if you think, like Big Sam does, that he's a better manager than Pelligrini
Just amazed at OGH's last line on this post. Only backing the Green Party? Kind of incredible when you look at the polls. Everyone must agree they have no hope of winning the election?
However, in a sign of the growing split in the Conservative Party over immigration, Mr Fallon’s comments were immediately undermined by Liz Truss, the Environment Minister, who said that foreign workers are needed to ensure that Britain’s farming industry remains competitive.
Re LibDem seats, my friends in Cambridge - who are by no means Hubbert fans - think he'll hang on - probably on the back of a chronically divided opposition and a fairly useless local Labour party.
I have no view on Watford (ask JackW...), and I think the LibDems are likely be only distant challengers in Oxwab.
In London, Brent is obviously a big loss. Hornsey & Wood Green a likely one (although I know some Highgate Conservatives who will vote tactically for her, so she may be a surprise hold). Kingston has to be a likely (60%+ prob) loss, Twickenham is likely to be a narrower hold than most people think.
I'd reckon on Simon Hughes holding on in Southwalk, but he is by no means a certainty. Sutton & Cheam is a likely hold. Carshalton is a toss-up, but I think it's probably a Conservative gain.
So: there are three London seats which are likely (i.e 66+% chance: Southwalk, Sutton & Cheam and Twickenham), two 40% shots (Carshalton and Kingston), one 20% shot (Hornsey & Wood Green), and one 0% shot (Brent).
Most likely outcome for the Libs in the capital: three seats, but could be as few as two, and as many as five.
Just amazed at OGH's last line on this post. Only backing the Green Party? Kind of incredible when you look at the polls. Everyone must agree they have no hope of winning the election?
He means that he wins whatever the outcome. On a Betfair market, your potential winnings or losses display for each outcome, profitable ones in green and losers in red. An 'all-green' book is one where you win whichever one comes in.
Just amazed at OGH's last line on this post. Only backing the Green Party? Kind of incredible when you look at the polls. Everyone must agree they have no hope of winning the election?
He means that he wins whatever the outcome. On a Betfair market, your potential winnings or losses display for each outcome, profitable ones in green and losers in red. An 'all-green' book is one where you win whichever one comes in.
Thanks for the explanation, but if you look at the first letter of each sentence in my post, you'll probably see I was hoping for a more excitable reaction!
Just amazed at OGH's last line on this post. Only backing the Green Party? Kind of incredible when you look at the polls. Everyone must agree they have no hope of winning the election?
He means that he wins whatever the outcome. On a Betfair market, your potential winnings or losses display for each outcome, profitable ones in green and losers in red. An 'all-green' book is one where you win whichever one comes in.
Thanks for the explanation, but if you look at the first letter of each sentence in my post, you'll probably see I was hoping for a more excitable reaction!
My God, we'll all have to read the postings much more carefully. There's enough misunderstanding on this site without having to look for codes!
Summary: I dunno lol. Neither opinion poll that has been taken in the constituency is particularly satisfactory. My hunch is that the Lib Dems will hold on and that's how I'm betting.
Just amazed at OGH's last line on this post. Only backing the Green Party? Kind of incredible when you look at the polls. Everyone must agree they have no hope of winning the election?
He means that he wins whatever the outcome. On a Betfair market, your potential winnings or losses display for each outcome, profitable ones in green and losers in red. An 'all-green' book is one where you win whichever one comes in.
Thanks for the explanation, but if you look at the first letter of each sentence in my post, you'll probably see I was hoping for a more excitable reaction!
My God, we'll all have to read the postings much more carefully. There's enough misunderstanding on this site without having to look for codes!
rcs - the magnificent Lord Oakeshott's private polling seems to show Tories in Cambridge (who rumour has it may be a rather wet, museli eating bunch) could be prepared to vote Lib Dem to stop Labour. However there was little evidence that the proper northern Tories in Sheffield Hallam would do likewise. LOL.
The fact that Utd are only now odds on with any bookies not to finish Top 4 bemuses me greatly. I got on at 5/4 (frankly I could have done better, should have held out for 6/4 at least) but reckon it's at least a 60% chance, maybe better. Even when they win they're looking unconvincing.
Although, they've rescued two undeserved points in two weeks.
Well I'm a Chelsea fan and gutted as I was with the late equalizer even I thought they deserved a draw on their first half performance. They will definitely finish top four, one reason is they have no European games this season. I backed them to finish above Liverpool and also Liverpool not to finish in the top four.
Just amazed at OGH's last line on this post. Only backing the Green Party? Kind of incredible when you look at the polls. Everyone must agree they have no hope of winning the election?
He means that he wins whatever the outcome. On a Betfair market, your potential winnings or losses display for each outcome, profitable ones in green and losers in red. An 'all-green' book is one where you win whichever one comes in.
Thanks for the explanation, but if you look at the first letter of each sentence in my post, you'll probably see I was hoping for a more excitable reaction!
Does anyone have a theory as to how and why Gordo managed to rake back the Tory lead in 2010?
I ask this because if, and it's a big if, Labour merely benefitted from a swing towards 'no change' then the Tories are going to romp home in 2015.
We know without doubt that there was a big move, and we know without doubt that Gordo and his merry men did nothing to deserve it. Cameron didn't obviously blow it either.
I've bet a little against Labour next year. That's partly due to Ed, partly due to Scotland, and partly due to UKIP. I wonder though if there's a bigger picture that's passed me (and others) by. Will the Tories get the Gordo swing?
Delighted to see, for the first time I've ever noticed, Southampton are a shorter price to win the league (250/1 from 400/1 last week), than they are to be relegated (500/1 from 250/1 last week, all prices from ladbrokes), and now 6/1 to finish top 4 (shorter than the 7/1 on traitorous pig Pochettino's Spurs)
How about the Hammers?
Bookies not so impressed; 1000/1 to win, 18/1 to go down, 50/1 top 4
Even though we're in the top 4 at the moment? Oh well.
Still another 29 games to go Sunil!
But a small bet on top 4 @ 50/1 (or prob better, that's Ladbrokes price) could be a good trading bet at least if you think, like Big Sam does, that he's a better manager than Pelligrini
Daves "anger" was all a big act it seems... But surely they couldn't be so naive to think no one would tumble?
Lord Ashcroft (@LordAshcroft) 26/10/2014 20:15 Surely the Treasury had the numbers to roughly work out that the £1.7b demand from the EU would be on its way. If not why not?
Totally O/T and just to complain. It`s horrible to live in a country with more than one timezone. Waiting for the presidential result in Brazil but have to wait for 3 hours because of two states.
"Parts of the UK could be "swamped" by EU migrants unless rules change, the defence secretary has claimed.
Michael Fallon said it was vital to impose some restrictions on the free movement of people in the EU, as many towns feel "under siege" by workers and those claiming benefits.
His language attracted criticism, with Labour saying it was "desperate".
A Downing Street source later said Mr Fallon "accepts he should have chosen his words better."
Does anyone have a theory as to how and why Gordo managed to rake back the Tory lead in 2010?
I ask this because if, and it's a big if, Labour merely benefitted from a swing towards 'no change' then the Tories are going to romp home in 2015.
We know without doubt that there was a big move, and we know without doubt that Gordo and his merry men did nothing to deserve it. Cameron didn't obviously blow it either.
I've bet a little against Labour next year. That's partly due to Ed, partly due to Scotland, and partly due to UKIP. I wonder though if there's a bigger picture that's passed me (and others) by. Will the Tories get the Gordo swing?
Cameron did blow it, mostly.
Brown's masterstroke was bringing back Mandelson. Labour's rebuttal game increased very markedly thereafter. The Tories sought to dominate the agenda from early 2010 with a whole series of policy initiatives but Labour successfully attacked them one after another, picking holes in each. Often these were minor details but it was enough to sustain a narrative that the manifesto was falling apart. It also took the focus away from Labour, in whom the media had lost interest as it looked like they were on the way out and were, in any case, old news. Combined with the airbrushed poster fiasco, the momentum completely went out of the Tories' campaign and though it did get going again, never recovered to its former level.
Does anyone have a theory as to how and why Gordo managed to rake back the Tory lead in 2010?
I ask this because if, and it's a big if, Labour merely benefitted from a swing towards 'no change' then the Tories are going to romp home in 2015.
We know without doubt that there was a big move, and we know without doubt that Gordo and his merry men did nothing to deserve it. Cameron didn't obviously blow it either.
I've bet a little against Labour next year. That's partly due to Ed, partly due to Scotland, and partly due to UKIP. I wonder though if there's a bigger picture that's passed me (and others) by. Will the Tories get the Gordo swing?
I'm not sure he did. What happened IMO was that following the debates the Tories lost crucial support to the LDs.
Daves "anger" was all a big act it seems... But surely they couldn't be so naive to think no one would tumble?
Lord Ashcroft (@LordAshcroft) 26/10/2014 20:15 Surely the Treasury had the numbers to roughly work out that the £1.7b demand from the EU would be on its way. If not why not?
Because this way he can describe it as an unreasonable demand from the EU and have a tubthumping victory when he flatly refuses to pay it.
I still don't know why the EU is pursuing this correction anyway, they could have made up the shortfall much more discretely by slightly adjusting contributions for the next few years, much the same way PAYE works.
One study showed that for every 1% increase in the immigrant population, middle incomes rose by 0.6% and lower incomes fell by 0.5%, a swing over the 1997-2005 period of about two pence per hour (the immigrant population rose by 3 percentage points). However, overall "there is hardly any effect of immigration on the wage distribution above the median".
More importantly, "the graph of wage effects ... is strikingly similar to the distribution of immigrants along the native wage distribution", in other words, it is likely that existing immigrants were most badly hit. That in itself implies that the skill sets of migrant and immigrant workers are not as interchangeable as migrants with other migrants.
There's two effects here in making us a more unequal society: (1) reducing the wages of those already here, and (2) simply increasing the share of the population on low wages by adding more at the bottom. A certain breed of Tory might think that economic success is built on the backs of having low wage people to take advantage of, but there is another way. We don't need to maintain low wage jobs if the only way to get there is to bring in new low wage earners to fill them. We should instead be focused on increasing jobs at the top end, and improving the general culture of professionalism and economic success in the country. Reducing the supply of low wage labour will also cause their wages to increase, boosting national well-being all round.
The fact that Utd are only now odds on with any bookies not to finish Top 4 bemuses me greatly. I got on at 5/4 (frankly I could have done better, should have held out for 6/4 at least) but reckon it's at least a 60% chance, maybe better. Even when they win they're looking unconvincing.
Although, they've rescued two undeserved points in two weeks.
Well I'm a Chelsea fan and gutted as I was with the late equalizer even I thought they deserved a draw on their first half performance. They will definitely finish top four, one reason is they have no European games this season. I backed them to finish above Liverpool and also Liverpool not to finish in the top four.
If you think it is definite, would you be interested in a small wager at the bookies prices? Betvictor are still offering 5/4*, would you offer £25 to my £20?
Re LibDem seats, my friends in Cambridge - who are by no means Hubbert fans - think he'll hang on - probably on the back of a chronically divided opposition and a fairly useless local Labour party.
I have no view on Watford (ask JackW...), and I think the LibDems are likely be only distant challengers in Oxwab.
In London, Brent is obviously a big loss. Hornsey & Wood Green a likely one (although I know some Highgate Conservatives who will vote tactically for her, so she may be a surprise hold). Kingston has to be a likely (60%+ prob) loss, Twickenham is likely to be a narrower hold than most people think.
I'd reckon on Simon Hughes holding on in Southwalk, but he is by no means a certainty. Sutton & Cheam is a likely hold. Carshalton is a toss-up, but I think it's probably a Conservative gain.
So: there are three London seats which are likely (i.e 66+% chance: Southwalk, Sutton & Cheam and Twickenham), two 40% shots (Carshalton and Kingston), one 20% shot (Hornsey & Wood Green), and one 0% shot (Brent).
Most likely outcome for the Libs in the capital: three seats, but could be as few as two, and as many as five.
Carshalton is a safer LD seat than Sutton and Cheam and the local election results in the wards making up Carshalton were also better
The fact that Utd are only now odds on with any bookies not to finish Top 4 bemuses me greatly. I got on at 5/4 (frankly I could have done better, should have held out for 6/4 at least) but reckon it's at least a 60% chance, maybe better. Even when they win they're looking unconvincing.
Although, they've rescued two undeserved points in two weeks.
Well I'm a Chelsea fan and gutted as I was with the late equalizer even I thought they deserved a draw on their first half performance. They will definitely finish top four, one reason is they have no European games this season. I backed them to finish above Liverpool and also Liverpool not to finish in the top four.
If you think it is definite, would you be interested in a small wager at the bookies prices? Betvictor are still offering 5/4*, would you offer £25 to my £20?
*And best odds on them being Top 4 is 4/5 (WH).
Just to be clear you are backing them to not finish in the top four?
My three card bets all won at 5/2, 2/1 and 2/1 ish.
Who said this isn't a betting site any more!
Great stuff Nigel ..... I've never previously had a bet on a football player being carded but took your advice this afternoon, successfully backing both Fellaini at 21/10 and Ivanovic at 2/1. Food on the table as they say, many thanks!
Lots of EU/immigration commentary, but come May many with a bit of money and a reasonably decent job with be more concerned with "Labour's taxes" and their interest rates, than immigration.
It will be Labour's target vote - insecure job, insecure housing - that will carry on thinking about the adverse impacts of immigration because they can't get away from it.
People with good incomes or capital can always buy their selves out of a situation - so long as the government doesn't grab their money.
Does anyone have a theory as to how and why Gordo managed to rake back the Tory lead in 2010?
I ask this because if, and it's a big if, Labour merely benefitted from a swing towards 'no change' then the Tories are going to romp home in 2015.
We know without doubt that there was a big move, and we know without doubt that Gordo and his merry men did nothing to deserve it. Cameron didn't obviously blow it either.
I've bet a little against Labour next year. That's partly due to Ed, partly due to Scotland, and partly due to UKIP. I wonder though if there's a bigger picture that's passed me (and others) by. Will the Tories get the Gordo swing?
Cameron is crap. Failed to put the boot in, time and time again.
Does anyone have a theory as to how and why Gordo managed to rake back the Tory lead in 2010?
Tory under-performance (or rather Gordon outperformance) in Scotland. Doubt it will be replicated by EdM + ??
A very effective series of PPB's - pushing the heartless Tories taking away middle class benefits line. Probably switched enough votes in key marginals.
Does anyone have a theory as to how and why Gordo managed to rake back the Tory lead in 2010?
I ask this because if, and it's a big if, Labour merely benefitted from a swing towards 'no change' then the Tories are going to romp home in 2015.
We know without doubt that there was a big move, and we know without doubt that Gordo and his merry men did nothing to deserve it. Cameron didn't obviously blow it either.
I've bet a little against Labour next year. That's partly due to Ed, partly due to Scotland, and partly due to UKIP. I wonder though if there's a bigger picture that's passed me (and others) by. Will the Tories get the Gordo swing?
One theory might be that the public took a closer look at Cam & Osb and didn't like what they saw as much as they thought they would. Arguably the two eds are already better known to the public so a similar effect won't occur. OTOH I think the possibility is that miliband personally is going to crumble before our eyes over the next 6 months: his conf speech disclosed hitherto unguessed-at depths of crapness, and it can only get worse. That could make a real difference.
Cheers. The LD surge probably was important., and the wiley Mandelson too. There was perhaps some relief that the economy wasn't unrecoverable as well. There's certainly an unexplained gap though I feel.
The betting problem is Ed - he's awful.. but he's not that awful. The electorate have him pegged right at the low end, and even the faintest hint of adequacy could change all that.
The fact that Utd are only now odds on with any bookies not to finish Top 4 bemuses me greatly. I got on at 5/4 (frankly I could have done better, should have held out for 6/4 at least) but reckon it's at least a 60% chance, maybe better. Even when they win they're looking unconvincing.
Although, they've rescued two undeserved points in two weeks.
Well I'm a Chelsea fan and gutted as I was with the late equalizer even I thought they deserved a draw on their first half performance. They will definitely finish top four, one reason is they have no European games this season. I backed them to finish above Liverpool and also Liverpool not to finish in the top four.
If you think it is definite, would you be interested in a small wager at the bookies prices? Betvictor are still offering 5/4*, would you offer £25 to my £20?
*And best odds on them being Top 4 is 4/5 (WH).
Just to be clear you are backing them to not finish in the top four?
Yeah. Just to make perfectly clear:
Utd finish top 4: I pay you £20 Utd finish outside top 4: You pay me £25
The big Conservative lead was down to small numbers by February/March, 2010. If anything, they clawed back some ground between then and the election, largely thanks to a stronger recovery from the TV debates. An explanation of the vanishing opposition lead needs to account for those time facts.
I remember the news a few months ago about the inclusion of certain illicit activities in the national GDP calculation, I presume that activity was to do with this recalculation?
Re LibDem seats, my friends in Cambridge - who are by no means Hubbert fans - think he'll hang on - probably on the back of a chronically divided opposition and a fairly useless local Labour party.
I have no view on Watford (ask JackW...), and I think the LibDems are likely be only distant challengers in Oxwab.
In London, Brent is obviously a big loss. Hornsey & Wood Green a likely one (although I know some Highgate Conservatives who will vote tactically for her, so she may be a surprise hold). Kingston has to be a likely (60%+ prob) loss, Twickenham is likely to be a narrower hold than most people think.
I'd reckon on Simon Hughes holding on in Southwalk, but he is by no means a certainty. Sutton & Cheam is a likely hold. Carshalton is a toss-up, but I think it's probably a Conservative gain.
So: there are three London seats which are likely (i.e 66+% chance: Southwalk, Sutton & Cheam and Twickenham), two 40% shots (Carshalton and Kingston), one 20% shot (Hornsey & Wood Green), and one 0% shot (Brent).
Most likely outcome for the Libs in the capital: three seats, but could be as few as two, and as many as five.
Carshalton is a safer LD seat than Sutton and Cheam and the local election results in the wards making up Carshalton were also better
Re LibDem seats, my friends in Cambridge - who are by no means Hubbert fans - think he'll hang on - probably on the back of a chronically divided opposition and a fairly useless local Labour party.
I have no view on Watford (ask JackW...), and I think the LibDems are likely be only distant challengers in Oxwab.
In London, Brent is obviously a big loss. Hornsey & Wood Green a likely one (although I know some Highgate Conservatives who will vote tactically for her, so she may be a surprise hold). Kingston has to be a likely (60%+ prob) loss, Twickenham is likely to be a narrower hold than most people think.
I'd reckon on Simon Hughes holding on in Southwalk, but he is by no means a certainty. Sutton & Cheam is a likely hold. Carshalton is a toss-up, but I think it's probably a Conservative gain.
So: there are three London seats which are likely (i.e 66+% chance: Southwalk, Sutton & Cheam and Twickenham), two 40% shots (Carshalton and Kingston), one 20% shot (Hornsey & Wood Green), and one 0% shot (Brent).
Most likely outcome for the Libs in the capital: three seats, but could be as few as two, and as many as five.
Carshalton is a safer LD seat than Sutton and Cheam and the local election results in the wards making up Carshalton were also better
Voting for proven competent local government candidates where opinions on Europe and immigration are immaterial is very different to voting for national candidates.
Does anyone have a theory as to how and why Gordo managed to rake back the Tory lead in 2010?
I ask this because if, and it's a big if, Labour merely benefitted from a swing towards 'no change' then the Tories are going to romp home in 2015.
We know without doubt that there was a big move, and we know without doubt that Gordo and his merry men did nothing to deserve it. Cameron didn't obviously blow it either.
I've bet a little against Labour next year. That's partly due to Ed, partly due to Scotland, and partly due to UKIP. I wonder though if there's a bigger picture that's passed me (and others) by. Will the Tories get the Gordo swing?
Fear of change.
Blair's landslide of 12.5% was over 30% just seven months before the election.
The current government hasn't delivered a Winter of Discontent, an ERM fiasco or a banking crisis.
What's the big - and I mean, big - reason for sacking them and thinking the next bloke/Mrs T must be better?
The Tories will be ahead next May, barring events.
They've actually been ahead in 3 of the last 4 Yougovs on a 2010:2014 vote ratio when applied to 2010 shares. Labour went sub 30 today for the first time.
Does anyone have a theory as to how and why Gordo managed to rake back the Tory lead in 2010?
I ask this because if, and it's a big if, Labour merely benefitted from a swing towards 'no change' then the Tories are going to romp home in 2015.
We know without doubt that there was a big move, and we know without doubt that Gordo and his merry men did nothing to deserve it. Cameron didn't obviously blow it either.
I've bet a little against Labour next year. That's partly due to Ed, partly due to Scotland, and partly due to UKIP. I wonder though if there's a bigger picture that's passed me (and others) by. Will the Tories get the Gordo swing?
Fear of change.
Blair's landslide of 12.5% was over 30% just seven months before the election.
The current government hasn't delivered a Winter of Discontent, an ERM fiasco or a banking crisis.
What's the big - and I mean, big - reason for sacking them and thinking the next bloke/Mrs T must be better?
Cutting the 50p tax rate whilst simultaneously preaching austerity
The fact that Utd are only now odds on with any bookies not to finish Top 4 bemuses me greatly. I got on at 5/4 (frankly I could have done better, should have held out for 6/4 at least) but reckon it's at least a 60% chance, maybe better. Even when they win they're looking unconvincing.
Although, they've rescued two undeserved points in two weeks.
Well I'm a Chelsea fan and gutted as I was with the late equalizer even I thought they deserved a draw on their first half performance. They will definitely finish top four, one reason is they have no European games this season. I backed them to finish above Liverpool and also Liverpool not to finish in the top four.
If you think it is definite, would you be interested in a small wager at the bookies prices? Betvictor are still offering 5/4*, would you offer £25 to my £20?
*And best odds on them being Top 4 is 4/5 (WH).
Just to be clear you are backing them to not finish in the top four?
Yeah. Just to make perfectly clear:
Utd finish top 4: I pay you £20 Utd finish outside top 4: You pay me £25
That's good for me, done!
I feel that with Everton, Spurs and Liverpool sidetracked with European football then fourth is up for grabs, presuming Arsenal finish third. Much as I'd like to see West Ham or Southampton get fourth I don't think their respective squads are strong enough.
If I lose then the effect on United's finances of going two years without Champions League football will be £25 well spent!
I think it would be fair to hand all Lib Dem targets down to Berwick Upon Tweed (Not Norwich South or Bradford East though) and not Sutton and Cheam.
I make that 12 gains.
Looking at Labour's list I make it 11 gains for them.
UKIP Gain 10 seats say - 8 Tory 2 Labour
SNP gain 3 Labour perhaps ? (The Lib Dem seats surely drop more easily than the Labour targets)
So Con + 12 Lab + 11 Con -8 Lab -2 Lab -3
Yields a start point of Con +4; Lab -6 from the 2010 totals.
The main contradiction in my mind at the moment is the local Lib Dem strength in in particular the SW which made these gains TRICKY for the Tories, and the appalling Lib Dem national numbers.
I think @David Herdson of this parish said that in order for the Lib Dems to hold some seats they'd need to lose 6 out of 7 votes elsewhere, which he thought inconceivable. Perhaps it isn't.
Any seat that Lord A had the LDs within 5% will probably go yellow. Lord A doesn't mention candidates' names and the polling I've seen oes shows this is a major factor.
Against LAB Simon Hughes and possibly Lynne Featherstone will hold on as will Cambridge.
Watford is an LD gain and there's an outside chance of Oxwab.
Incumbents standing again against the Tories will do okay. Where there's new candidate it will be different.
Finally watch Burnley. Individuals matter enormously and the incumbent is very strong.
Sounds like you're predicting a bit more than the 20 seats your son has gone for !
I've only placed 1 decent bet for Tory vs Lib Dem (Solihull)
I don't think my son has access to the same data that I have.
My gut feel is LDs on 33 seats +/-3 Just don't ask me to justify it!
Re LibDem seats, my friends in Cambridge - who are by no means Hubbert fans - think he'll hang on - probably on the back of a chronically divided opposition and a fairly useless local Labour party.
I have no view on Watford (ask JackW...), and I think the LibDems are likely be only distant challengers in Oxwab.
In London, Brent is obviously a big loss. Hornsey & Wood Green a likely one (although I know some Highgate Conservatives who will vote tactically for her, so she may be a surprise hold). Kingston has to be a likely (60%+ prob) loss, Twickenham is likely to be a narrower hold than most people think.
I'd reckon on Simon Hughes holding on in Southwalk, but he is by no means a certainty. Sutton & Cheam is a likely hold. Carshalton is a toss-up, but I think it's probably a Conservative gain.
So: there are three London seats which are likely (i.e 66+% chance: Southwalk, Sutton & Cheam and Twickenham), two 40% shots (Carshalton and Kingston), one 20% shot (Hornsey & Wood Green), and one 0% shot (Brent).
Most likely outcome for the Libs in the capital: three seats, but could be as few as two, and as many as five.
Carshalton is a safer LD seat than Sutton and Cheam and the local election results in the wards making up Carshalton were also better
Re LibDem seats, my friends in Cambridge - who are by no means Hubbert fans - think he'll hang on - probably on the back of a chronically divided opposition and a fairly useless local Labour party.
I have no view on Watford (ask JackW...), and I think the LibDems are likely be only distant challengers in Oxwab.
In London, Brent is obviously a big loss. Hornsey & Wood Green a likely one (although I know some Highgate Conservatives who will vote tactically for her, so she may be a surprise hold). Kingston has to be a likely (60%+ prob) loss, Twickenham is likely to be a narrower hold than most people think.
Most likely outcome for the Libs in the capital: three seats, but could be as few as two, and as many as five.
Carshalton is a safer LD seat than Sutton and Cheam and the local election results in the wards making up Carshalton were also better
Voting for proven competent local government candidates where opinions on Europe and immigration are immaterial is very different to voting for national candidates.
Timmy was on here before the local elections saying how the Lib Dems would lose control of Sutton council as many of their experienced councillors were retiring .
So apparently Anna Soubry was at the anti- Indian Kashmir rally at Trafalgar Square today. Any idea how many Indian voters there are in Broxtowe she has just lost?
I would say to this - SHITE
But since we are all aspiring writers here I will merely say-
Very Poor
I think Anna Soubry has already given up. Nick P will be back with reasonable margin. Lord A had 45% 2010 LDs switching to him and he's done a huge amount on the ground.
Like Nick the candidates in 10 of LAB's top 40 targets are retreads. It'll be interesting to see if they still have an incumbency benefit.
Have you any evidence, I mean any evidence at all, that Anna Soubry has "given up"?
I don't think she's given up, but she's probably realistic about the position. The arithmetic is intimidating (0.7% majority, 17% LibDems, no LibDem candidate yet, and that's before you start thinking about UKIP), her local party has been nearly moribund and she has a high-profile quarrel with the main non-partisan local paper. There's quite a big anti-incumbent vote as a result of this and other spats, though a lot of that will go UKIP.
Comments
http://numbercruncheruk.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/the-lib-dem-incumbency-bonus-how-many.html
Though obviously there'll be local variations...
Always the infamous criticism of PB - Not enough historical military references...
Ed Is Crap
The city where Pyrrhus was twice king (taking a liberal view of such things), and where Hannibal was thwarted, claiming the city but unable to conquer the citadel which commanded the vital harbour. Also, one of many Greek-founded cities west of Greece, alongside Marseilles (as it now is) and Syracuse.
Mr. Briskin, it may thrill you to note that I've managed to work references to certain figures of classical history into both my Saxon & Khan short stories (which are set in modern day Britain).
Or it may not. But I've done it anyway.
All bets are off, any outcome is possible.. forget the 2010 LD's as the be all and end all.
Nowadays better known because they have a pollutting big company!
The first thing to note is that the polls are a bit contradictory. While the national figures suggest a catastrophic meltdown, the Ashcroft constituency polling suggests not only that the Lib Dems are retaining strength where it matters but when voters are asked to think about their local situation – as they will be next April and May – the Lib Dem share improves further.
That’s vitally important for them because put simply, the national polls have to be wrong if they’re to keep a coachload of MPs rather than a minibus-full; there simply aren’t enough votes to go round otherwise. For example, if the Lib Dems did receive the 7.6% they scored in last month’s average, then on the same size turnout and electorate as in 2010 (to keep things simple), this would be about 2.26m votes. By contrast, their combined vote in the 57 seats they won last time was 1.23m. It’s inconceivable that they could keep the great majority of those while losing five votes in six elsewhere. Of course, if polls worded along national lines are understating them in their own seats (and perhaps elsewhere), then the overall figure will also be low. Still, that doesn’t explain the drop since April at a time when local campaigning should be having the opposite effect.
NOM rests on a fairly delicate equilibrium. It could easily swing into a decisive majority either way, but then it could just as easily swing into hung territory so deeply that the price collapses. It really depends on what happens between now and the GE.
Like Mike, I've a green book on the main events. There's nothing particularly clever about this. A green book usually denotes you've traded good value bets for bad ones. In doing so, you've accepted a small but certain profit in preference to a potentially bigger but riskier one.
On the whole, I'm an NOM man because I think the most likely trends over the remaining life of the Government are an increase in the vote percentages for UKIP, SNP, Greens, Others, and possibly the LDs. I would expect Labour and Conservative to lose support.
That would almost certainly give you NOM, but I wouldn't bet heavily on it because there are numerous perfectly plausible scenarios which would change the outlook dramatically - e.g., a UKIP or LD collapse.
I'm definitely keeping stakes small at present.
" are the conservatives trying to outkip Ukip?
http://news.sky.com/story/1360747/are-the-conservatives-trying-to-out-ukip-ukip
Mildly amused that you know more about British politics than me but I perhaps know bits of Italian history with which you're unfamiliar.
Mr. Briskin, writing about modern day things was difficult. I'm more comfortable with the third century BC, or fantasyland with dragons and frisky elves. [And no, Khan is an British chap called Khan].
On-topic (ish): I think no overall majority is the single likeliest result. Scotland will be very interesting. Labour are going downhill fast but the SNP need very significant swings, it seems, to make more than a handful of gains.
Hmm
Bets against the Lib Dems:
SNP – Inverness Bairn SNP 18.29 3.75
Seat winner Inverness SNP 6 5
Brent Central Labour 80.15 1.2222222222
Bradford East Labour 40.07 1.125
Solihull Tory 100 1.3333333333
St Ives Tory 11.79 2.25
Lib Dem Deposits Loss > 150 10 4.5
UKIP Eastleigh UKIP 18.54 4.5
Bermondsey & Old Southwark Labour 15 2.875
Bets for the Lib Dems:
Over 32.5 seats 20 1.8333333333
Lib Dem Seat bands 41-50 20 4.5
Inverness Bairn LD 32.92 2.5
Sutton and Cheam LD 10 1.8333333333
Eastleigh Lib Dem 50 1.6666666667
I have a fair idea that 41-50 seats is a loser, but the 32.5 seats is fascinating. It feels like a loser with the national poll numbers but when you look at the individual seats...
Bermondsey and Old Southwark was recommended by Peter From Putney iirc...
yes, I bet you know about Italian classic history than me
26/10/2014 17:52
Osborne knew in January UK faced a higher EU Bill but said nothing...Makes Cameron's outrage seem a little synthetic telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews…
However - to you, and to the lurkers, my pseudonym comes from a Philip K Dick book - and references a fictional African American President...
However, in a sign of the growing split in the Conservative Party over immigration, Mr Fallon’s comments were immediately undermined by Liz Truss, the Environment Minister, who said that foreign workers are needed to ensure that Britain’s farming industry remains competitive.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11188602/Towns-in-the-UK-are-swamped-by-EU-migrants-Cabinet-minister-warns.html
As Truss is an ex Libdem Cameroon its a classic story of divided Tories once again.
And yes, I am terrifying.
Mr. 2014, worth also pointing out her job covers farming and the seasonal work is largely done by immigrant labour.
I suspect the answer is to draw a line between a level of uncontrolled immigration, benefit tourism, and so on, and the immigration necessary to sustain certain parts of the economy. But that is an answer both to Mr Carswell's membership of UKIP and of the difference between Liz Truss and Michael Fallon.
He is far too clever for his own good I think.
Former NUM rep at Clipstone Colliery during the strike
David Blunkett's agent
researcher for Blunkett
Sheffield Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Homes and Neighbourhoods
www.harryharpham.com/
"...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."
http://www.ippr.org/juncture/messages-from-the-voters-the-2014-local-and-european-elections
It depends, though, whether the knowledge of a higher bill was knowledge of a recalculation and the assumption was a tidying up of a few million, or knowledge of a £1.7bn bill.
Congratulations, incidentally, on a highly probable triumph at Diplomacy.
http://bramcotetoday.org.uk/2013/07/02/anna-soubry-re-selected/
Is a hung parliament 50 percent?
Mr. Socrates, a lack of social mobility can be appealing if you're already at the top. It's been remarked here many times that the huge level of immigration is bad if you're at the lower end and handy if you're at the top. It depresses wages for many, but cuts costs of carpentry and conservatories for those with cash to burn.
The overuse of the race card (Roche deserves a slap with an enormo-haddock for the euracism nonsense) has meant there hasn't been a proper debate, and the membership of the EU means we can't do anything about a lot of migration, unless we leave.
And they agree with each other. Everyone happy except Farage?
If in the LD wards in constituency seats the vote fell from 55 to 42% then the fall may well be the same as in a non constituency ward where it fell from 20 to 7% say but it is substantially a better performance .
WTF is TEAM CASIO?
http://anepigone.blogspot.co.uk/2007/09/advances-in-farm-mechanization-seen-as.html
http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_5463510
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/robots-revolutionize-farming-ease-labor-woes-142756655.html
I think UKIP will regret letting Carswell save his skin by jumping ship to them.
Highly recommended in small doses but gets repetitive in his themes.
JBriskin's name comes from The Crack In Space (or Cantata 140 for pseuds).
Try to imagine how that family in Clacton might now feel, when they read that student loans to Bulgarians and Romanians have just been suspended.
Do you suppose my constituents are likely to be grateful that at last some chump in Whitehall has finally woken up to the fact that many of the Bulgarian and Romanian applications were, apparently, bogus?
No, my ministerial pals. They are going to be furious. Livid. Volcanic in their anger. And it will be directed at you.
What the heck are we doing, they will ask themselves and their neighbours, giving student loans to any Bulgarians or Romanians in the first place? The very month that my constituent’s daughter had to pack her things and leave university, we were apparently approving student loans to non-UK nationals. Why?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/douglascarswellmp/100246605/when-it-comes-to-europe-weve-been-mugged/
Of course it has little to do with my original point which is that two Tory ministers seem to be taking opposite views of the same thing. Even now the Tory Party is as divided as it ever was over the same old unresolved issues.
Although, they've rescued two undeserved points in two weeks.
One study showed that for every 1% increase in the immigrant population, middle incomes rose by 0.6% and lower incomes fell by 0.5%, a swing over the 1997-2005 period of about two pence per hour (the immigrant population rose by 3 percentage points). However, overall "there is hardly any effect of immigration on the wage distribution above the median".
More importantly, "the graph of wage effects ... is strikingly similar to the distribution of
immigrants along the native wage distribution", in other words, it is likely that existing immigrants were most badly hit. That in itself implies that the skill sets of migrant and immigrant workers are not as interchangeable as migrants with other migrants.
Sweetest Taboo by Sade on Radio 2 now.
Clacton's most famous former resident.
I'm going to make a bold claim. Individual MPs and their reputation will matter less this time than at any election since 1992. Both Tories and Labour have lined up the ammo at each other and a fair few Lib Dems will be massacred in the crossfire, in the case of some decent ones, perhaps unfairly. It's also much harder to run on personal reputation when you are part of the government.
But a small bet on top 4 @ 50/1 (or prob better, that's Ladbrokes price) could be a good trading bet at least if you think, like Big Sam does, that he's a better manager than Pelligrini
I have no view on Watford (ask JackW...), and I think the LibDems are likely be only distant challengers in Oxwab.
In London, Brent is obviously a big loss. Hornsey & Wood Green a likely one (although I know some Highgate Conservatives who will vote tactically for her, so she may be a surprise hold). Kingston has to be a likely (60%+ prob) loss, Twickenham is likely to be a narrower hold than most people think.
I'd reckon on Simon Hughes holding on in Southwalk, but he is by no means a certainty. Sutton & Cheam is a likely hold. Carshalton is a toss-up, but I think it's probably a Conservative gain.
So: there are three London seats which are likely (i.e 66+% chance: Southwalk, Sutton & Cheam and Twickenham), two 40% shots (Carshalton and Kingston), one 20% shot (Hornsey & Wood Green), and one 0% shot (Brent).
Most likely outcome for the Libs in the capital: three seats, but could be as few as two, and as many as five.
There's enough misunderstanding on this site without having to look for codes!
http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/environmentally-unfriendly-who-loses.html
Summary: I dunno lol. Neither opinion poll that has been taken in the constituency is particularly satisfactory. My hunch is that the Lib Dems will hold on and that's how I'm betting.
I ask this because if, and it's a big if, Labour merely benefitted from a swing towards 'no change' then the Tories are going to romp home in 2015.
We know without doubt that there was a big move, and we know without doubt that Gordo and his merry men did nothing to deserve it. Cameron didn't obviously blow it either.
I've bet a little against Labour next year. That's partly due to Ed, partly due to Scotland, and partly due to UKIP. I wonder though if there's a bigger picture that's passed me (and others) by. Will the Tories get the Gordo swing?
Lord Ashcroft (@LordAshcroft)
26/10/2014 20:15
Surely the Treasury had the numbers to roughly work out that the £1.7b demand from the EU would be on its way. If not why not?
I presume it is OK to put up bets that have nothing to do with politics, no-one has told me otherwise.
Michael Fallon said it was vital to impose some restrictions on the free movement of people in the EU, as many towns feel "under siege" by workers and those claiming benefits.
His language attracted criticism, with Labour saying it was "desperate".
A Downing Street source later said Mr Fallon "accepts he should have chosen his words better."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29776970
Brown's masterstroke was bringing back Mandelson. Labour's rebuttal game increased very markedly thereafter. The Tories sought to dominate the agenda from early 2010 with a whole series of policy initiatives but Labour successfully attacked them one after another, picking holes in each. Often these were minor details but it was enough to sustain a narrative that the manifesto was falling apart. It also took the focus away from Labour, in whom the media had lost interest as it looked like they were on the way out and were, in any case, old news. Combined with the airbrushed poster fiasco, the momentum completely went out of the Tories' campaign and though it did get going again, never recovered to its former level.
I still don't know why the EU is pursuing this correction anyway, they could have made up the shortfall much more discretely by slightly adjusting contributions for the next few years, much the same way PAYE works.
*And best odds on them being Top 4 is 4/5 (WH).
Wondering what time and date a particular BBC programme was broadcast between 1923 and 2009?
http://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/
Food on the table as they say, many thanks!
It will be Labour's target vote - insecure job, insecure housing - that will carry on thinking about the adverse impacts of immigration because they can't get away from it.
People with good incomes or capital can always buy their selves out of a situation - so long as the government doesn't grab their money.
But Gordon saved the world...
'Does anyone have a theory as to how and why Gordo managed to rake back the Tory lead in 2010?'
By saying that benefits would be scrapped if the Tories won.
A very effective series of PPB's - pushing the heartless Tories taking away middle class benefits line. Probably switched enough votes in key marginals.
Cheers. The LD surge probably was important., and the wiley Mandelson too. There was perhaps some relief that the economy wasn't unrecoverable as well. There's certainly an unexplained gap though I feel.
The betting problem is Ed - he's awful.. but he's not that awful. The electorate have him pegged right at the low end, and even the faintest hint of adequacy could change all that.
I hate betting with my political views too.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-eu-29776473
It's not just Cameron who didn't know.
Utd finish top 4: I pay you £20
Utd finish outside top 4: You pay me £25
Blair's landslide of 12.5% was over 30% just seven months before the election.
The current government hasn't delivered a Winter of Discontent, an ERM fiasco or a banking crisis.
What's the big - and I mean, big - reason for sacking them and thinking the next bloke/Mrs T must be better?
The Tories will be ahead next May, barring events.
They've actually been ahead in 3 of the last 4 Yougovs on a 2010:2014 vote ratio when applied to 2010 shares. Labour went sub 30 today for the first time.
I feel that with Everton, Spurs and Liverpool sidetracked with European football then fourth is up for grabs, presuming Arsenal finish third. Much as I'd like to see West Ham or Southampton get fourth I don't think their respective squads are strong enough.
If I lose then the effect on United's finances of going two years without Champions League football will be £25 well spent!
Just don't ask me to justify it!