politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The “any other” government option on this new Betfair mark

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The “any other” government option on this new Betfair market is worth a punt

I’m betting on the final option on Betfair’s post GE2015 government market simply because of the massive uncertainty and how unlikely it is that either the red or blue teams will be able to govern on their own.

Read the full story here

Gadfly

First!

audreyanne

David Lammy thinks Labour won't win:
http://order-order.com/2014/11/11/lammy-labour-wont-win-in-2015/

I will be betting in this market after Rochester when I think I'll have the best value for what I'm convinced will be the result.

DecrepitJohnL

No liquidity according to that screenshot (and why are the stakes shown in Euros?). In any case, we must distinguish between formal coalitions and confidence and supply agreements which are surely more likely with Scots and NI parties.

anotherDave

audreyanne said:

I will be betting in this market after Rochester when I think I'll have the best value for what I'm convinced will be the result.

UKIP-SNP-DUP coalition?

DavidL

As someone unfamiliar with this market can someone please explain to me why there are such variations in the spreads. For example a Con Lib Dem coalition can be backed at 6.8 but can be laid at 18. In contrast a Labour majority has a spread of 0.2.

Can anything be read into this other than liquidity? Does the width of the spread have any correlation to perceived probability?

Casino_Royale

A coalition with the DUP is too risky for the NI peace process. UKIP have said they won't do anymore than confidence & supply. SNP I imagine would be the same - they would look a tad hypocritical if they formed part of the official UK government. At current prices, I'm not tempted by the 'any other' option.

The minority government options look best. Conservative Minority being far more likely.

I got on at 10/1 with Ladbrokes over a month ago.

OblitusSumMe

The SNP/DUP are unlikely to enter a formal coalition. How does Betfair classify a "confidence and supply" agreement? If that comes under Lab or Con minority government then the bet looks like a loser.

Innocent_Abroad

There is more to forming a Government than House of Commons arithmetic. There is the vexed question of a "mandate". Consider: what proportion of the electorate are likely to have supported the "winner" of the election? I doubt even the most partisan Peebie could make a convincing case for that to be above 35%. How high will the poll be? Given the widespread scepticism "out there" as to the ability of politicians to deliver, I doubt it will be above 70%.
So if we have a single-party government it will start with the confidence of one voter in four (35 x 70)/100), a fraction that can surely only diminish.

That is because the Government will, by common consent, have to address the deficit. The real meaning of this is something that we have all been pussyfooting around, whether "we" are civil servants talking of "low-hanging fruit" or politicians talking in hundreds of billions of pounds. The cost of the deficit is £5,000 per household, per year. It is time to stop pretending that this can be paid by other people.

Let me give two examples of the scale of measures which will be necessary. First, the abolition of public (and voluntary) sector employment and its replacement by self-employment on short-term rolling contracts. HR function to be off-shore by default. Second, a substantial cut in state and public sector occupational pensions - say 30%.

These measures are unfair and unreasonable - unless you're an idiotic sadist of the Paul Staines type. But if "the shit hits the fan" no payments will be made at all, and with no warning.

They cannot be made by a Government, of whatever colour, with the support of one voter in four. They can only be made by a Grand Coalition - and even that will only be supported, notionally, by one voter in two - but this is the biggest crisis the country has faced since 1940 and a proportionate response is required.

anotherDave

Matthew Goodwin on Rochester.

http://www.matthewjgoodwin.com/2014/11/where-things-stand-rochester-and-strood.html

Financier

Innocent_Abroad said:

There is more to forming a Government than House of Commons arithmetic. There is the vexed question of a "mandate". Consider: what proportion of the electorate are likely to have supported the "winner" of the election? I doubt even the most partisan Peebie could make a convincing case for that to be above 35%. How high will the poll be? Given the widespread scepticism "out there" as to the ability of politicians to deliver, I doubt it will be above 70%.
So if we have a single-party government it will start with the confidence of one voter in four (35 x 70)/100), a fraction that can surely only diminish.

That is because the Government will, by common consent, have to address the deficit. The real meaning of this is something that we have all been pussyfooting around, whether "we" are civil servants talking of "low-hanging fruit" or politicians talking in hundreds of billions of pounds. The cost of the deficit is £5,000 per household, per year. It is time to stop pretending that this can be paid by other people.

Let me give two examples of the scale of measures which will be necessary. First, the abolition of public (and voluntary) sector employment and its replacement by self-employment on short-term rolling contracts. HR function to be off-shore by default. Second, a substantial cut in state and public sector occupational pensions - say 30%.

These measures are unfair and unreasonable - unless you're an idiotic sadist of the Paul Staines type. But if "the shit hits the fan" no payments will be made at all, and with no warning.

They cannot be made by a Government, of whatever colour, with the support of one voter in four. They can only be made by a Grand Coalition - and even that will only be supported, notionally, by one voter in two - but this is the biggest crisis the country has faced since 1940 and a proportionate response is required.

I believe that cuts of a similar severity were made in Ireland which is now doing better. But I do not know the politcal implications at the time.

DavidL

I certainly agree that the next government faces very severe challenges. This government has been impeded in deficit reduction by the very profound underlying weakness of the economy largely caused by a lack of bank credit and very poor external demand in the EU. This has still not ended as the recent comments by the Governor of the BoE made clear: banks will need to find hundreds of billions yet of additional capital to reduce the risk of their operation to taxpayers. What I don't get is those who think this is a choice without severe consequences: have we learnt nothing from the last 6 years?

The government have made some progress in deficit reduction , largely through tax increases such as the increase in VAT. But the underlying weakness of an economy that still seems to need such a gargantuan deficit to grow even modestly has meant that tax revenues have consistently disappointed and in work benefits have grown at least as quickly as employment and PAYE.

We also have to accept that the even uglier sister of the deficit is the trade gap. Running a deficit of £100bn a year artificially boosts demand in the UK sucking in imports. These imports have to be balanced by selling our assets to foreigners. The result of this is that our very long term and highly beneficial surplus on investments abroad has now been wiped out with foreigners getting more income from their investments in the UK than we get from ours abroad. This is making our trade deficit even more intractable.

The sad fact is that even with the fall in real wages over the last 5 years we are still living substantially beyond our means and much more painful adjustment is required. A weak coalition with an inadequate mandate to take the necessary steps would be disastrous. An Ed Miliband government would be even worse in my view. We simply do not have the years to waste.

DecrepitJohnL

DavidL said:

As someone unfamiliar with this market can someone please explain to me why there are such variations in the spreads. For example a Con Lib Dem coalition can be backed at 6.8 but can be laid at 18. In contrast a Labour majority has a spread of 0.2.

Can anything be read into this other than liquidity? Does the width of the spread have any correlation to perceived probability?

Liquidity, yes. If you click on the graphs, it shows how much has been traded (times 2) and it might be that someone has just taken all the money at a particular price, which has widened the spread, but in a liquid market, the spread would quickly narrow, so we are back where we started.

Innocent_Abroad

DavidL said:

I certainly agree that the next government faces very severe challenges. This government has been impeded in deficit reduction by the very profound underlying weakness of the economy largely caused by a lack of bank credit and very poor external demand in the EU. This has still not ended as the recent comments by the Governor of the BoE made clear: banks will need to find hundreds of billions yet of additional capital to reduce the risk of their operation to taxpayers. What I don't get is those who think this is a choice without severe consequences: have we learnt nothing from the last 6 years?

The government have made some progress in deficit reduction , largely through tax increases such as the increase in VAT. But the underlying weakness of an economy that still seems to need such a gargantuan deficit to grow even modestly has meant that tax revenues have consistently disappointed and in work benefits have grown at least as quickly as employment and PAYE.

We also have to accept that the even uglier sister of the deficit is the trade gap. Running a deficit of £100bn a year artificially boosts demand in the UK sucking in imports. These imports have to be balanced by selling our assets to foreigners. The result of this is that our very long term and highly beneficial surplus on investments abroad has now been wiped out with foreigners getting more income from their investments in the UK than we get from ours abroad. This is making our trade deficit even more intractable.

The sad fact is that even with the fall in real wages over the last 5 years we are still living substantially beyond our means and much more painful adjustment is required. A weak coalition with an inadequate mandate to take the necessary steps would be disastrous. An Ed Miliband government would be even worse in my view. We simply do not have the years to waste.

David, let's suppose that the next election produces an unstable hung Parliament. It abolishes the 5-year Act and there's a fresh election which produces the same result. Would you accept a Grand Coalition in that case, or does "we simply do not have the years to waste" imply that you can foresee a scenario in which you would support the suspension of representative democracy?

DavidL

DecrepitJohnL said:

DavidL said:

As someone unfamiliar with this market can someone please explain to me why there are such variations in the spreads. For example a Con Lib Dem coalition can be backed at 6.8 but can be laid at 18. In contrast a Labour majority has a spread of 0.2.

Can anything be read into this other than liquidity? Does the width of the spread have any correlation to perceived probability?

Liquidity, yes. If you click on the graphs, it shows how much has been traded (times 2) and it might be that someone has just taken all the money at a particular price, which has widened the spread, but in a liquid market, the spread would quickly narrow, so we are back where we started.

Thanks. It seems a surprisingly tiny market even for political betting. 5,800 euros matched? Barely a championship game I would have thought.

another_richard

Eleven weeks after the Rotherham report and still these questions remain unanswered:

When is Home Secretary Theresa May going to take action against the South Yorkshire police after the widespread media reports of its collaboration with child rapists.

When is Childrens Minister Edward Timpson going to place Rotherham's Childrens Services into special measures.

What action is Policing Minister Mike Penning taking to ensure that the police's much hyped 'day of reckoning' with its 'wave after wave of arrests' takes place.

How much did the locally well connected former Communities Minister Sayeeda Warsi know about what was happening and what did she chose to do about it.

Why has Prime Minister David Cameron shown no interest despite his emphasis on 'Broken Britain' while Leader of the Opposition.

MarqueeMark

I see our Chancellor has another £1.1 billion in FOREX fines on the banks to dispense in his autumn statement.

"This, along with the savings we negotiated down on the additional bill from the EU, means that today I am able to make available to the NHS an additional £2 billion - considerably more than the Labour opposition would provide with their much derided Mansion Tax proposal...."

another_richard

Do PB's Conservative supporters think the government's response to the Rotherham report has been acceptable or not ?

Yes ? No ? Or will there be a deafening response of silence ?

david_herdson

On topic, while I accept that there are many theoretical options, I'm not sure of what practical ones merit a 7/1 'lay' price, never mind an 11/2 'back' one.

I very much doubt that the DUP or SNP will want to form part of a potentially unpopular UK government: both are happy to be currently dominant in their respective back yards and taking a formal role at Westminster would jeapordise that (and undermine their core message in the case of the SNP). They may come to a formal or informal Confidence and Supply arrangement but if it's only Con or Lab ministers in government then it'd count as a Con-minority or Lab-minority, so wouldn't be within the scope of Other.

For Other to pay out, it needs one of two things to happen: either a party other the Con or Lab to lead the government or for a smaller party to join it, excluding a Con-UKIP combo.

That first option is at best long double figures. I wouldn't price the Lib Dems to form a government at less than 500/1 but UKIP do stand a very outside chance if they can make some sort of national next-step breakthrough, which is conceivable but very unlikely: 66/1? 80/1? Something like that.

The second option is more plausible but still improbable. As mentioned, the DUP and SNP are unlikely to take an active role; similarly Plaid, for the same reason. UKIP too have to be outsiders for government, and even more so in combination with Labour (Con-UKIP already being catered for). The Greens aren't likely to have enough MPs to make a difference and again, why would they (or she) accept the restrictions and discipline of office when there's at least as much power for a small party to act on an ad hoc basis outside?

So who then? The only possible coalition options I can think of that would trigger Other are if the SDLP went in with Labour or the UUP took office with the Tories (and possibly LD or whoever in both cases, but it's the minor party which triggers the Other option). Again, the intricacies of N Ireland politics weigh against this but both NI parties have long associations with their bigger Westminster brothers and may be more amenable to. Still, I don't think it's a single-figures bet.

Financier

DavidL said:

I certainly agree that the next government faces very severe challenges. This government has been impeded in deficit reduction by the very profound underlying weakness of the economy largely caused by a lack of bank credit and very poor external demand in the EU. This has still not ended as the recent comments by the Governor of the BoE made clear: banks will need to find hundreds of billions yet of additional capital to reduce the risk of their operation to taxpayers. : have we learnt nothing from the last 6 years?

The government have made some progress in deficit reduction , largely through tax increases such as the increase in VAT. But the underlying weakness of an economy that still seems to need such a gargantuan deficit to grow even modestly has meant that tax revenues have consistently disappointed and in work benefits have grown at least as quickly as employment and PAYE.

We also have to accept that the even uglier sister of the deficit is the trade gap. Running a deficit of £100bn a year artificially boosts demand in the UK sucking in imports. These imports have to be balanced by selling our assets to foreigners. The result of this is that our very long term and highly beneficial surplus on investments abroad has now been wiped out with foreigners getting more income from their investments in the UK than we get from ours abroad. This is making our trade deficit even more intractable.

The sad fact is that even with the fall in real wages over the last 5 years we are still living substantially beyond our means and much more painful adjustment is required. A weak coalition with an inadequate mandate to take the necessary steps would be disastrous. An Ed Miliband government would be even worse in my view. We simply do not have the years to waste.

@DavidL

Totally agree, but more and deeper cuts could and should have been made in 2010, but for the LDs dropping the anchor at every opportunity and them chosing to focus on political reform rather then economic reform.

The opportunity may have been lost as the electorate are more likely to agree to hard initial cuts rather then continuing slower and more shallow cuts which do not solve the problem. One major operation under full anesthetic is far preferable to years of operations under local anesthetic.

Agree, we are living far beyond our means and have been so doing for over 30 years and unless we improve on innovative technology, we shall be joining the rest of Europe in the race to the bottom of the economic pile. At one time balance of payments deficit brought down governments, now we seem to be living on Chinese credit. Perhaps when China owns the world we will come to our senses - too late.

Neither EdM or NC or even NF have a clue of how to improve our economic health beyond highly taxing the rich - which Ed's mentor in France has shown to be a losing game.

[Deleted User]

another_richard said:

Do PB's Conservative supporters think the government's response to the Rotherham report has been acceptable or not ?

Yes ? No ? Or will there be a deafening response of silence ?

NO!

...and I can't for the life of me understand why they aren't making hay in this area - all the councils with this type of abuse seem to be Labour. Maybe we'll alot more in the run up to May.

Anyway, the victims and their families have been let down by a thoroughly inadequate response from the authorities.

DavidL

Innocent_Abroad said:

DavidL said:

We also have to accept that the even uglier sister of the deficit is the trade gap. Running a deficit of £100bn a year artificially boosts demand in the UK sucking in imports. These imports have to be balanced by selling our assets to foreigners. The result of this is that our very long term and highly beneficial surplus on investments abroad has now been wiped out with foreigners getting more income from their investments in the UK than we get from ours abroad. This is making our trade deficit even more intractable.

The sad fact is that even with the fall in real wages over the last 5 years we are still living substantially beyond our means and much more painful adjustment is required. A weak coalition with an inadequate mandate to take the necessary steps would be disastrous. An Ed Miliband government would be even worse in my view. We simply do not have the years to waste.

David, let's suppose that the next election produces an unstable hung Parliament. It abolishes the 5-year Act and there's a fresh election which produces the same result. Would you accept a Grand Coalition in that case, or does "we simply do not have the years to waste" imply that you can foresee a scenario in which you would support the suspension of representative democracy?

I am a democrat but I also believe that Maggie was right in saying you can't buck the market, at least not for long. Our elected representatives will eventually be driven to take the necessary action even if their supporters do not want them to in the same way as happened to the Lib Dems in 2010.

The scale of the deficit that Ed forgot about is such that we have very little time to make big changes. If the markets do not see credible progress towards some sort of stability in the next Parliament I really fear the consequences. Look at the misery and hardship endured by the people of Greece. It can and will happen here if we do not take responsibility ourselves.

rottenborough

anotherDave said:

Matthew Goodwin on Rochester.

http://www.matthewjgoodwin.com/2014/11/where-things-stand-rochester-and-strood.html

Morning all,

This post makes interesting reading, especially the following:

"By essentially withdrawing from this battle Labour is again easing the rise of Ukip. Were Labour taking the contest more seriously then Ukip's lead would be significantly diminished and the race would be far more competitive. But they are not."

When are Labour going to wake up and take the fight to UKIP?

peter_from_putney

A couple of weeks ago, I mentioned the attractions of backing a Labour + SNP coalition at Ladbrokes' then seemingly generous price of 25/1. Generous in the sense that the SNP look likely to win up to 20 seats, maybe a tad more and were Labour to win close on 300 seats which appears possible, then this actually looks to be the most probable pairing.

Laddies have since trimmed their odds to 20/1, but this still looks like decent value to me.
DYOR

Innocent_Abroad

David Herdson [7.52] I think "other" is a euphemism for a Grand Coalition of the kind I am now hoping for.

David L [7.57] Of course! Everything that's less than perfect is due to the Tories not having secured an outright majority last time! Naughty voters!

Presumably the answer to Patrick's questions is the same: the Liberal Democrats!

MarqueeMark

another_richard said:

Do PB's Conservative supporters think the government's response to the Rotherham report has been acceptable or not ?

Yes ? No ? Or will there be a deafening response of silence ?

This is a Coalition Govt. Your question should be equally put to the LibDems on this site.

Personally? Of course it is unacceptable. But as I have mentioned before, I will not be at all surprised to find the waters have been muddied by the intelligence community blackmailing some of these suspects to monitor Muslim extremists - something that would have started under the last Government, been continued by this, and causing general panic in the Establishment about how to address it.

I also find it rather vomit-inducing to have Ed Miliband in his Conference speech laud the Manchester Council for now being exclusively a Labour fiefdom - no opposition at all - and then to have a report (in the Guardian, no less) saying that child sexual exploitation is now "normal" in parts of that city.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/oct/30/child-sexual-exploitation-norm-greater-manchester-ann-coffey-report

A deafening silence from Labour on that one I note....

MikeSmithson

david_herdson said:

On topic, while I accept that there are many theoretical options, I'm not sure of what practical ones merit a 7/1 'lay' price, never mind an 11/2 'back' one.

I very much doubt that the DUP or SNP will want to form part of a potentially unpopular UK government: both are happy to be currently dominant in their respective back yards and taking a formal role at Westminster would jeapordise that (and undermine their core message in the case of the SNP). They may come to a formal or informal Confidence and Supply arrangement but if it's only Con or Lab ministers in government then it'd count as a Con-minority or Lab-minority, so wouldn't be within the scope of Other.

For Other to pay out, it needs one of two things to happen: either a party other the Con or Lab to lead the government or for a smaller party to join it, excluding a Con-UKIP combo.

That first option is at best long double figures. I wouldn't price the Lib Dems to form a government at less than 500/1 but UKIP do stand a very outside chance if they can make some sort of national next-step breakthrough, which is conceivable but very unlikely: 66/1? 80/1? Something like that.

The second option is more plausible but still improbable. As mentioned, the DUP and SNP are unlikely to take an active role; similarly Plaid, for the same reason. UKIP too have to be outsiders for government, and even more so in combination with Labour (Con-UKIP already being catered for). The Greens aren't likely to have enough MPs to make a difference and again, why would they (or she) accept the restrictions and discipline of office when there's at least as much power for a small party to act on an ad hoc basis outside?

So who then? The only possible coalition options I can think of that would trigger Other are if the SDLP went in with Labour or the UUP took office with the Tories (and possibly LD or whoever in both cases, but it's the minor party which triggers the Other option). Again, the intricacies of N Ireland politics weigh against this but both NI parties have long associations with their bigger Westminster brothers and may be more amenable to. Still, I don't think it's a single-figures bet.

I remember well when you rubbished my 33/1 Galloway Bradford W by-election bet.

The DUP could be very serious players and will have 8+ MPs. The SDLP would almost certainly go in with a LAB coalition and there is the possibility of a grand coalition. Use your imagination David. Remember Mr Galloway.

DavidL

peter_from_putney said:

A couple of weeks ago, I mentioned the attractions of backing a Labour + SNP coalition at Ladbrokes' then seemingly generous price of 25/1. Generous in the sense that the SNP look likely to win up to 20 seats, maybe a tad more and were Labour to win close on 300 seats which appears possible, then this actually looks to be the most probable pairing.

Laddies have since trimmed their odds to 20/1, but this still looks like decent value to me.
DYOR

The problem I would see with that theory is that the SNP and Labour make the Tories and UKIP look like best mates ready for a night in the pub. They loathe each other. And the SNP have no vested interest in a stable Westminster, quite the reverse.

Politicians are notoriously flexible when it comes to getting power but this is not going to happen.

malcolmg

david_herdson said:

On topic, while I accept that there are many theoretical options, I'm not sure of what practical ones merit a 7/1 'lay' price, never mind an 11/2 'back' one.

I very much doubt that the DUP or SNP will want to form part of a potentially unpopular UK government: both are happy to be currently dominant in their respective back yards and taking a formal role at Westminster would jeapordise that (and undermine their core message in the case of the SNP). They may come to a formal or informal Confidence and Supply arrangement but if it's only Con or Lab ministers in government then it'd count as a Con-minority or Lab-minority, so wouldn't be within the scope of Other.

For Other to pay out, it needs one of two things to happen: either a party other the Con or Lab to lead the government or for a smaller party to join it, excluding a Con-UKIP combo.

That first option is at best long double figures. I wouldn't price the Lib Dems to form a government at less than 500/1 but UKIP do stand a very outside chance if they can make some sort of national next-step breakthrough, which is conceivable but very unlikely: 66/1? 80/1? Something like that.

The second option is more plausible but still improbable. As mentioned, the DUP and SNP are unlikely to take an active role; similarly Plaid, for the same reason. UKIP too have to be outsiders for government, and even more so in combination with Labour (Con-UKIP already being catered for). The Greens aren't likely to have enough MPs to make a difference and again, why would they (or she) accept the restrictions and discipline of office when there's at least as much power for a small party to act on an ad hoc basis outside?

So who then? The only possible coalition options I can think of that would trigger Other are if the SDLP went in with Labour or the UUP took office with the Tories (and possibly LD or whoever in both cases, but it's the minor party which triggers the Other option). Again, the intricacies of N Ireland politics weigh against this but both NI parties have long associations with their bigger Westminster brothers and may be more amenable to. Still, I don't think it's a single-figures bet.

Labour - SNP would not be impossible

Financier

MikeSmithson said:

david_herdson said:

On topic, while I accept that there are many theoretical options, I'm not sure of what practical ones merit a 7/1 'lay' price, never mind an 11/2 'back' one.

I very much doubt that the DUP or SNP will want to form part of a potentially unpopular UK government: both are happy to be currently dominant in their respective back yards and taking a formal role at Westminster would jeapordise that (and undermine their core message in the case of the SNP). They may come to a formal or informal Confidence and Supply arrangement but if it's only Con or Lab ministers in government then it'd count as a Con-minority or Lab-minority, so wouldn't be within the scope of Other.

For Other to pay out, it needs one of two things to happen: either a party other the Con or Lab to lead the government or for a smaller party to join it, excluding a Con-UKIP combo.

That first option is at best long double figures. I wouldn't price the Lib Dems to form a government at less than 500/1 but UKIP do stand a very outside chance if they can make some sort of national next-step breakthrough, which is conceivable but very unlikely: 66/1? 80/1? Something like that.

The second option is more plausible but still improbable. As mentioned, the DUP and SNP are unlikely to take an active role; similarly Plaid, for the same reason. UKIP too have to be outsiders for government, and even more so in combination with Labour (Con-UKIP already being catered for). The Greens aren't likely to have enough MPs to make a difference and again, why would they (or she) accept the restrictions and discipline of office when there's at least as much power for a small party to act on an ad hoc basis outside?

So who then? The only possible coalition options I can think of that would trigger Other are if the SDLP went in with Labour or the UUP took office with the Tories (and possibly LD or whoever in both cases, but it's the minor party which triggers the Other option). Again, the intricacies of N Ireland politics weigh against this but both NI parties have long associations with their bigger Westminster brothers and may be more amenable to. Still, I don't think it's a single-figures bet.

I remember well when you rubbished my 33/1 Galloway Bradford W by-election bet.

The DUP could be very serious players and will have 8+ MPs. The SDLP would almost certainly go in with a LAB coalition and there is the possibility of a grand coalition. Use your imagination David. Remember Mr Galloway.

@MikeSmithson
Mike, are you forecasting or viewing as a strong likelihood that the remaining LD MPs after the 2015 GE could split into two parties: one SDLP and the other old fashioned Liberals?

DavidL

Innocent_Abroad said:

David Herdson [7.52] I think "other" is a euphemism for a Grand Coalition of the kind I am now hoping for.

David L [7.57] Of course! Everything that's less than perfect is due to the Tories not having secured an outright majority last time! Naughty voters!

Presumably the answer to Patrick's questions is the same: the Liberal Democrats!

That is not what I am saying. In fact your original point is valid. The steps this Coalition have taken may have been insufficient but since its members got more than 50% of the votes between them they have had an indisputable mandate to do what they have done. This Coalition has been much stronger than a very small Tory majority would have been.

Imagine the effect of the defections to UKIP if the Tories had won 330 seats. It would have been 1978 all over again. As it is the Coalition has brushed it off and not been excessively bullied by the Europhobes, much to their frustration.

CD13

The response to Rotherham clearly looks inadequate. Unless, like a duck swimming, they are paddling away underwater.

But it's difficult for both main parties. Labour have already apologised thorough some of their MPs, agreeing with the author of the report, that political correctness played a part. I suspect that modern Tories are also guilty of this, and they are also fearful that going heavy on this will look like hypocrisy and naked politicking. Plus the main beneficiaries are UkIp.

As for the guilty still walking around, are there are any records left that haven't been swallowed by floods, been lost in the system, or taken by selective burglars with a key?

Far better to concentrate your resources on a dead DJ who is beyond retribution and to "learn lessons and move on."

AlastairMeeks

How would a Labour/Lib Dem coalition that commanded only a minority (but which had supply and confidence support from say the DUP) pay out in this market?

Innocent_Abroad

(Slightly O/T) If we really are going to have 6 months of LibDem bashing from the Peebietories, it does rather raise the question of why Cameron went into coalition with them in the first place. Presumably it was to secure for himself five years in Downing Street and to prevent his activists mounting a putsch against him. One thing's for sure: if he doesn't get an outright majority next May, he'll have damn few friends on here.

Casino_Royale

An interesting scenario: Labour has a 'mare in May. They pick up only 6-7 of the most hypermarginals from the Tories. Meanwhile, the Tories drop only 4-5 seats to UKIP but pick up 17 seats: 16 Lib Dem and 1 Labour (Itchen)

In that case, you would get something like 311 seats for the Tories. With losses to the SNP, Labour would be only slightly up on 2010GE, notwithstanding Lib Dem gains themselves. Say, mid-260s for seats. The Lib Dems would be around the mid-20s.

In that case, the Tories would have 2 x options: a second coalition (wafer-thin overall majority of around 10) or they could do a confidence & supply deal with the DUP/UKIP.

Why the latter over the former? The House of Commons would have an effective eurosceptic majority: 311 Tory + 9 DUP + 5 UKIP = 325 seats. Sans Sinn Fein that could pass an EU referendum bill without any Lib Dem assistance.

So, if Cameron wants to aid his party management and guarantee its passage, he could conceivably go for that. But it would still count as 'Con Min' IMHO.

Financier

OT

Some very interesting data maps for London and the SE.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29915801

chestnut

rottenborough said:

When are Labour going to wake up and take the fight to UKIP?

It may be that they've already surrendered on the notion of a majority and of being able to fight effectively in SE,SW and eastern England.

Perhaps they are now pinning their hopes on most seats and first shot at forming an alliance?

The idea that they go into alliance with the SNP is a slightly curious one. The current devolution offer from Labour is the worst one on the table, while they would never be forgiven by England if they rolled over and had their tummy tickled by Sturgeon.

There will surely be a lot of pre-election dialogue about who alliances would be formed with, red lines and non-negotiable demands.

Being too vague on these subjects will lose votes beforehand, and shed them by the bucket load afterwards if promises were broken.

Pulpstar

antifrank said:

How would a Labour/Lib Dem coalition that commanded only a minority (but which had supply and confidence support from say the DUP) pay out in this market?

Dunno but its a market ripe for double payouts/middle "fall throughs" if you lay here and then back at another bookies.

Financier

After a few days of a bit more strength, Brent Crude is now just below $81 - will it test the $80 barrier today?

MarqueeMark

Casino_Royale said:

An interesting scenario: Labour has a 'mare in May. They pick up only 6-7 of the most hypermarginals from the Tories. Meanwhile, the Tories drop only 4-5 seats to UKIP but pick up 17 seats: 16 Lib Dem and 1 Labour (Itchen)

In that case, you would get something like 311 seats for the Tories. With losses to the SNP, Labour would be only slightly up on 2010GE, notwithstanding Lib Dem gains themselves. Say, mid-260s for seats. The Lib Dems would be around the mid-20s.

In that case, the Tories would have 2 x options: a second coalition (wafer-thin overall majority of around 10) or they could do a confidence & supply deal with the DUP/UKIP.

Why the latter over the former? The House of Commons would have an effective eurosceptic majority: 311 Tory + 9 DUP + 5 UKIP = 325 seats. Sans Sinn Fein that could pass an EU referendum bill without any Lib Dem assistance.

So, if Cameron wants to aid his party management and guarantee its passage, he could conceivably go for that. But it would still count as 'Con Min' IMHO.

If we assume that UKIP gets say 15% of the vote in May but ends up with say 4 MP's...although those 4 MPs could make the difference in getting the Referendum bill passed. Are UKIP going to pass that bill - but risk being stuck with a YES vote going into the next election that leaves them on the wrong side of public opinion? Or do they scupper the bill - and get exposed to the ensuing ridicule?

logical_song

Casino_Royale said:

An interesting scenario: Labour has a 'mare in May. They pick up only 6-7 of the most hypermarginals from the Tories. Meanwhile, the Tories drop only 4-5 seats to UKIP but pick up 17 seats: 16 Lib Dem and 1 Labour (Itchen)

In that case, you would get something like 311 seats for the Tories. With losses to the SNP, Labour would be only slightly up on 2010GE, notwithstanding Lib Dem gains themselves. Say, mid-260s for seats. The Lib Dems would be around the mid-20s.

In that case, the Tories would have 2 x options: a second coalition (wafer-thin overall majority of around 10) or they could do a confidence & supply deal with the DUP/UKIP.

Why the latter over the former? The House of Commons would have an effective eurosceptic majority: 311 Tory + 9 DUP + 5 UKIP = 325 seats. Sans Sinn Fein that could pass an EU referendum bill without any Lib Dem assistance.

So, if Cameron wants to aid his party management and guarantee its passage, he could conceivably go for that. But it would still count as 'Con Min' IMHO.

Cloud - cuckoo land.
But giving it credence for a moment, it would depend on the makeup of Tory MPs and how far Cameron is prepared to compromise principles for power.
Would the Tories want to move to the right and off the centre ground? Would Cameron accept that / would the Tory MPs replace him.
I'm all for counterfactuals but this one stretches things a bit too far.

MarqueeMark

Innocent_Abroad said:

(Slightly O/T) If we really are going to have 6 months of LibDem bashing from the Peebietories, it does rather raise the question of why Cameron went into coalition with them in the first place. Presumably it was to secure for himself five years in Downing Street and to prevent his activists mounting a putsch against him. One thing's for sure: if he doesn't get an outright majority next May, he'll have damn few friends on here.

If Cameron keeps Ed out of Downing Street, he'll have friends enough on here...

Pulpstar

Financier said:

After a few days of a bit more strength, Brent Crude is now just below $81 - will it test the $80 barrier today?

Oooh shi* so it is too.

chestnut

Casino_Royale said:

In that case, the Tories would have 2 x options: a second coalition (wafer-thin overall majority of around 10) or they could do a confidence & supply deal with the DUP/UKIP.

Option 3: Hyper-charged Devo-max offer contingent on EV4EL between the Tories and SNP. A carve up, rather than a coalition.

Scott_P

Mary Riddell has outdone herself this time.

Mr Miliband, who will promise to address the rise of populism by tackling despair, will brush aside his problems of presentation as irrelevant. It is true that voters would prefer politicians (Miliband included) to have foreseen the financial crash and the rise of Islamic radicalism, rather than the potential hazards of bacon sandwiches.

But in an age of fallibility, potential prime ministers found wanting on great issues are likely to be judged on small ones. While Mr Miliband will offer no mea culpas, he is likely to promise explicitly or implicitly tomorrow that he will not “leave decency at the door of Downing Street”. When trust in politics has turned to ashes, such simple offers are a welcome change.

The paradox of Ed Miliband is that the more unpopular he gets, the more certain it becomes that Britain needs him.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11223571/Labour-agitators-bear-the-stink-of-failure-not-Ed-Miliband.html

DavidL

Financier said:

OT

Some very interesting data maps for London and the SE.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29915801

They are great. The married/single/cohabiting charts are a brilliant illustration of City life.

Innocent_Abroad

To return to David L's earlier point that "Maggie was right in saying you can't buck the market, at least not for long".

It depends, of course, what you mean by "buck" and "long". And if she meant that Parliamentary democracy forms what Walter Bagehot called the "dignified" as opposed to the "efficient" part of Government - why, every Trotskyist in the 1980s agreed with her entirely. They only took issue with her over the moral implications.

stodge

Morning all

The formation of the 2010 Coalition took place in a unique set of circumstances. Having a junior partner of 57 MPs isn't the same as having odd ones of 6-8 - what would you offer them, one whole Ministry or bits of others ?

The SNP are the conundrum on this in that they could return a substantial (more than 10) number of MPs but none of the other potential partners (if we're excluding the LDs) are going to get to that mark.

The two scenarios then become - either Lab/Con (or Con/Lab) are at 280-290 each in which case it gets interesting or they are at 310-260 (or 300-270) in which case it could be akin to the NZ situation where the small parties simply provide Confidence & Supply for a Government which is frankly not going to lose a Commons vote except through its own mismanagement.

In the 280-290 scenario, even the reduced LDs and the SNP might not be able to provide a majority Government but that doesn't matter as long as they don't vote against you. The question then becomes - who would seek to prop up David Cameron and would the Conservatives accept another five years of being hamstrung by minorities (as they would see it) just to stay in office ?

BenM

Spectators should stock up on lots of Popcorn as Europe delivers the Tory schism we've long been expecting.

MarqueeMark

Scott_P said:

Mary Riddell has outdone herself this time.

Mr Miliband, who will promise to address the rise of populism by tackling despair, will brush aside his problems of presentation as irrelevant. It is true that voters would prefer politicians (Miliband included) to have foreseen the financial crash and the rise of Islamic radicalism, rather than the potential hazards of bacon sandwiches.

But in an age of fallibility, potential prime ministers found wanting on great issues are likely to be judged on small ones. While Mr Miliband will offer no mea culpas, he is likely to promise explicitly or implicitly tomorrow that he will not “leave decency at the door of Downing Street”. When trust in politics has turned to ashes, such simple offers are a welcome change.

The paradox of Ed Miliband is that the more unpopular he gets, the more certain it becomes that Britain needs him.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11223571/Labour-agitators-bear-the-stink-of-failure-not-Ed-Miliband.html

She must have written that piece for a bet? Nothing else makes any sense...

So if Ed gets more unpopular for refusing to give a mea culpa for Labour's previous feck ups to which he was a party, the MORE certain it becomes that Britain needs him?

Using her logic, the patron saint of England should be wearing a gold tracksuit and white wig and a Jim'll Fix It badge....

Step. Away. From. The. Keyboard. Mary....

Luckyguy1983

rottenborough said:

anotherDave said:

Matthew Goodwin on Rochester.

http://www.matthewjgoodwin.com/2014/11/where-things-stand-rochester-and-strood.html

Morning all,

This post makes interesting reading, especially the following:

"By essentially withdrawing from this battle Labour is again easing the rise of Ukip. Were Labour taking the contest more seriously then Ukip's lead would be significantly diminished and the race would be far more competitive. But they are not."

When are Labour going to wake up and take the fight to UKIP?

When they have a chance of winning?

OldKingCole

Why doesn’t anyone else find the idea of the DUP with a significant influence in Government alarming?

CarlottaVance

Innocent_Abroad said:

(Slightly O/T) If we really are going to have 6 months of LibDem bashing from the Peebietories

After four and a half years of Tory bashing from the Lib Dems?

I think on May the 6th we should list all the predicted dates for the demise of the coalition and the clear certainty of some Labour supporters that a grateful populace would return Labour to Downing Street.....

What ever its ups and downs, the coalition has been skilfully led from the top by both parties - outlasting numerous predictions of its demise easily......

SquareRoot

You cant buck the market but you can well and truly f*ck the market. Ask Gordon Brown, he knew how to do it.

david_herdson

MikeSmithson said:

david_herdson said:

On topic, while I accept that there are many theoretical options, I'm not sure of what practical ones merit a 7/1 'lay' price, never mind an 11/2 'back' one.

...

I remember well when you rubbished my 33/1 Galloway Bradford W by-election bet.

The DUP could be very serious players and will have 8+ MPs. The SDLP would almost certainly go in with a LAB coalition and there is the possibility of a grand coalition. Use your imagination David. Remember Mr Galloway.

I didn't rubbish your Galloway bet; I just didn't think it was value, which was obviously wrong but isn't quite the same.

I wouldn't back the DUP to take ministerial office south of 100/1. It isn't their style and would play badly in NI, which is where it matters to them. They would undoubtedly 'extract a high price' for their co-operation but that price would not include ministerial office, which is not necessarily a passport to serious power across the board: you can't necessarily pressure a government in the same way as you can when they need you vote by vote, and you can't credibly threaten to resign from the govt every time.

There's no chance of a grand coalition after the election. Neither major party would wear it. There's a small chance it might happen after a second election. There's also (as in 1931) a small chance it might happen outside of an election aftermath. Mentioning 1931, however, should raise memories within Labour and that alone may be enough to prevent it.

Would the SDLP 'almost certainly go in with a LAB coalition'? They would almost certainly support a Labour government but 'go in'? That's a very different matter and a step they've never taken so far.

NickPalmer

I can see lots of scenarios with a confidence and supply arrangement, but I actually can't imagine one in 2015 with Ministers who come from a different party than Lab/Con/LD. The Con/DUP and Lab/SNP pacts look possible, but would the SNP want Ministries in London, and would the Tories want DUP ministers?

Everyone with a chance of winning is doing badly, but in the end someone will win, and my guess remains that it'll be by an overall majority with a surprisingly small number of third party MPs.

david_herdson

malcolmg said:

david_herdson said:

On topic, while I accept that there are many theoretical options, I'm not sure of what practical ones merit a 7/1 'lay' price, never mind an 11/2 'back' one.

I very much doubt that the DUP or SNP will want to form part of a potentially unpopular UK government: both are happy to be currently dominant in their respective back yards and taking a formal role at Westminster would jeapordise that (and undermine their core message in the case of the SNP). They may come to a formal or informal Confidence and Supply arrangement but if it's only Con or Lab ministers in government then it'd count as a Con-minority or Lab-minority, so wouldn't be within the scope of Other.

For Other to pay out, it needs one of two things to happen: either a party other the Con or Lab to lead the government or for a smaller party to join it, excluding a Con-UKIP combo.

That first option is at best long double figures. I wouldn't price the Lib Dems to form a government at less than 500/1 but UKIP do stand a very outside chance if they can make some sort of national next-step breakthrough, which is conceivable but very unlikely: 66/1? 80/1? Something like that.

The second option is more plausible but still improbable. As mentioned, the DUP and SNP are unlikely to take an active role; similarly Plaid, for the same reason. UKIP too have to be outsiders for government, and even more so in combination with Labour (Con-UKIP already being catered for). The Greens aren't likely to have enough MPs to make a difference and again, why would they (or she) accept the restrictions and discipline of office when there's at least as much power for a small party to act on an ad hoc basis outside?

So who then? The only possible coalition options I can think of that would trigger Other are if the SDLP went in with Labour or the UUP took office with the Tories (and possibly LD or whoever in both cases, but it's the minor party which triggers the Other option). Again, the intricacies of N Ireland politics weigh against this but both NI parties have long associations with their bigger Westminster brothers and may be more amenable to. Still, I don't think it's a single-figures bet.

Labour - SNP would not be impossible

Seriously? A year before the Holyrood elections?

Swiss_Bob

CD13 said:

The response to Rotherham clearly looks inadequate. Unless, like a duck swimming, they are paddling away underwater.

But it's difficult for both main parties. Labour have already apologised thorough some of their MPs, agreeing with the author of the report, that political correctness played a part. I suspect that modern Tories are also guilty of this, and they are also fearful that going heavy on this will look like hypocrisy and naked politicking. Plus the main beneficiaries are UkIp.

As for the guilty still walking around, are there are any records left that haven't been swallowed by floods, been lost in the system, or taken by selective burglars with a key?

Far better to concentrate your resources on a dead DJ who is beyond retribution and to "learn lessons and move on."

Plod concentrates its resources on not arresting those chucking them bungs, collecting road taxes and occasionally making some high profile arrests of easy targets ie those no longer protected.

The Met is so bent they burnt the latest report outlining the fact that they are pretty much all bent and/or owned by gangsters.

CarlottaVance

BenM said:

Spectators should stock up on lots of Popcorn as Europe delivers the Tory schism we've long been expecting.

Get some from Hugh - he must have mountains of the stuff from his frequent prediction misfires......

Carnyx

O/T: forgive me if this has been mentioned, but so much has been discussed about poppies and politicians being photographed with them, that it seems worth raising this issue allegedly affecting another, and very important, national memorial arising from the Great War:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturenews/11220249/Imperial-War-Museum-library-petition-gathers-strength.html

anotherDave

stooge said:

...would the Conservatives accept another five years of being hamstrung by minorities (as they would see it) just to stay in office ?

The Conservatives don't seem to have any goals other than to stay in office, so I think they'd take whatever they could get.

Neil

david_herdson said:

I wouldn't back the DUP to take ministerial office south of 100/1.

The DUP are in office where it matters - in Northern Ireland. What interest does the DUP have in running GB (or Eng + Wales or Eng only) ministries? (They might be interested in saving GB from Sodomy but that's a different matter.) They can hardly be given the NI Office (or Defence and as for FO...?). The chances of a DUP minister in a UK coalition government must be exactly zero.

Financier

Neil said:

david_herdson said:

I wouldn't back the DUP to take ministerial office south of 100/1.

The DUP are in office where it matters - in Northern Ireland. What interest does the DUP have in running GB (or Eng + Wales or Eng only) ministries? (They might be interested in saving GB from Sodomy but that's a different matter.) They can hardly be given the NI Office (or Defence and as for FO...?). The chances of a DUP minister in a UK coalition government must be exactly zero.

Couldn't do worse at Energy than present and recent incumbents.

CarlottaVance

david_herdson said:

malcolmg said:

david_herdson said:

On topic, while I accept that there are many theoretical options, I'm not sure of what practical ones merit a 7/1 'lay' price, never mind an 11/2 'back' one.

I very much doubt that the DUP or SNP will want to form part of a potentially unpopular UK government: both are happy to be currently dominant in their respective back yards and taking a formal role at Westminster would jeapordise that (and undermine their core message in the case of the SNP). They may come to a formal or informal Confidence and Supply arrangement but if it's only Con or Lab ministers in government then it'd count as a Con-minority or Lab-minority, so wouldn't be within the scope of Other.

For Other to pay out, it needs one of two things to happen: either a party other the Con or Lab to lead the government or for a smaller party to join it, excluding a Con-UKIP combo.

That first option is at best long double figures. I wouldn't price the Lib Dems to form a government at less than 500/1 but UKIP do stand a very outside chance if they can make some sort of national next-step breakthrough, which is conceivable but very unlikely: 66/1? 80/1? Something like that.

The second option is more plausible but still improbable. As mentioned, the DUP and SNP are unlikely to take an active role; similarly Plaid, for the same reason. UKIP too have to be outsiders for government, and even more so in combination with Labour (Con-UKIP already being catered for). The Greens aren't likely to have enough MPs to make a difference and again, why would they (or she) accept the restrictions and discipline of office when there's at least as much power for a small party to act on an ad hoc basis outside?

So who then? The only possible coalition options I can think of that would trigger Other are if the SDLP went in with Labour or the UUP took office with the Tories (and possibly LD or whoever in both cases, but it's the minor party which triggers the Other option). Again, the intricacies of N Ireland politics weigh against this but both NI parties have long associations with their bigger Westminster brothers and may be more amenable to. Still, I don't think it's a single-figures bet.

Labour - SNP would not be impossible

Seriously? A year before the Holyrood elections?

Let alone it shoots the SNP's one-trick pony "It's all Westminster's fault"!

david_herdson

Innocent_Abroad said:

David Herdson [7.52] I think "other" is a euphemism for a Grand Coalition of the kind I am now hoping for.

David L [7.57] Of course! Everything that's less than perfect is due to the Tories not having secured an outright majority last time! Naughty voters!

Presumably the answer to Patrick's questions is the same: the Liberal Democrats!

To be fair, I should have mentioned the possibility of a Grand Coalition of Con, Lab and possibly others. Still, as I said in my reply to Mike, I just don't think the culture of the country is to accept a Grand Coalition outside of a time of evident and massive crisis. Those two conditions are not yet met. It's worth noting that there was never a Grand Coalition in WWI (as there were oppositionists in both major parties, particularly the Asquithites), and there wasn't one in WWII until May 1940.

In 1916, 1931 and 1940, the coalitions only formed *after* the crisis had hit a severe level on a political as well as military / economic level. There is without question a problem with the deficits but it's not one that's yet been that obvious to the public and nor is it so pressing that a Grand Coalition is more acceptable to politicians and public alike than a minority or more limited coalition government. Feb 1974 might be a better parallel than any of those earlier cases.

logical_song

stodge said:

Morning all

The formation of the 2010 Coalition took place in a unique set of circumstances. Having a junior partner of 57 MPs isn't the same as having odd ones of 6-8 - what would you offer them, one whole Ministry or bits of others ?

The SNP are the conundrum on this in that they could return a substantial (more than 10) number of MPs but none of the other potential partners (if we're excluding the LDs) are going to get to that mark.

The two scenarios then become - either Lab/Con (or Con/Lab) are at 280-290 each in which case it gets interesting or they are at 310-260 (or 300-270) in which case it could be akin to the NZ situation where the small parties simply provide Confidence & Supply for a Government which is frankly not going to lose a Commons vote except through its own mismanagement.

In the 280-290 scenario, even the reduced LDs and the SNP might not be able to provide a majority Government but that doesn't matter as long as they don't vote against you. The question then becomes - who would seek to prop up David Cameron and would the Conservatives accept another five years of being hamstrung by minorities (as they would see it) just to stay in office ?

JUST to stay in office?

Neil

Financier said:

Neil said:

david_herdson said:

I wouldn't back the DUP to take ministerial office south of 100/1.

The DUP are in office where it matters - in Northern Ireland. What interest does the DUP have in running GB (or Eng + Wales or Eng only) ministries? (They might be interested in saving GB from Sodomy but that's a different matter.) They can hardly be given the NI Office (or Defence and as for FO...?). The chances of a DUP minister in a UK coalition government must be exactly zero.

Couldn't do worse at Energy than present and recent incumbents.

I think you are being unfair on Michael Fallon and Matthew Hancock. I think the DUP could be a lot worse.

Innocent_Abroad

Right, I'm off. See you all to-morrow, God willing...

BenM

SquareRoot said:

You cant buck the market but you can well and truly f*ck the market. Ask Gordon Brown, he knew how to do it.

Yes you can. And if you get caught you get fined $3.2bn - a price worth paying. Probably.

Financial Services are rotten to the core. A Financial Transaction Tax is sorely needed and could have headed off the latest scandal.

Scrapheap_as_was

Every time I see Chris Leslie, I picture him as a Blue Peter presenter or maybe Play School.

Lateral.

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

I said a little while ago a Con-SNP not-quite-a-coalition was not beyond the realms of possibility. Scotland gets DevoMax, England gets English votes for English laws [still not far enough but better than what we have now].

Casino_Royale

logical_song said:

Casino_Royale said:

An interesting scenario: Labour has a 'mare in May. They pick up only 6-7 of the most hypermarginals from the Tories. Meanwhile, the Tories drop only 4-5 seats to UKIP but pick up 17 seats: 16 Lib Dem and 1 Labour (Itchen)

In that case, you would get something like 311 seats for the Tories. With losses to the SNP, Labour would be only slightly up on 2010GE, notwithstanding Lib Dem gains themselves. Say, mid-260s for seats. The Lib Dems would be around the mid-20s.

In that case, the Tories would have 2 x options: a second coalition (wafer-thin overall majority of around 10) or they could do a confidence & supply deal with the DUP/UKIP.

Why the latter over the former? The House of Commons would have an effective eurosceptic majority: 311 Tory + 9 DUP + 5 UKIP = 325 seats. Sans Sinn Fein that could pass an EU referendum bill without any Lib Dem assistance.

So, if Cameron wants to aid his party management and guarantee its passage, he could conceivably go for that. But it would still count as 'Con Min' IMHO.

Cloud - cuckoo land.
But giving it credence for a moment, it would depend on the makeup of Tory MPs and how far Cameron is prepared to compromise principles for power.
Would the Tories want to move to the right and off the centre ground? Would Cameron accept that / would the Tory MPs replace him.
I'm all for counterfactuals but this one stretches things a bit too far.

I don't think so. It's a perfectly plausible scenario for next May.

Financier

Neil said:

Financier said:

Neil said:

david_herdson said:

I wouldn't back the DUP to take ministerial office south of 100/1.

The DUP are in office where it matters - in Northern Ireland. What interest does the DUP have in running GB (or Eng + Wales or Eng only) ministries? (They might be interested in saving GB from Sodomy but that's a different matter.) They can hardly be given the NI Office (or Defence and as for FO...?). The chances of a DUP minister in a UK coalition government must be exactly zero.

Couldn't do worse at Energy than present and recent incumbents.

I think you are being unfair on Michael Fallon and Matthew Hancock. I think the DUP could be a lot worse.

I was thinking more of Davey, Huhne and EdM.

Casino_Royale

MarqueeMark said:

Casino_Royale said:

An interesting scenario: Labour has a 'mare in May. They pick up only 6-7 of the most hypermarginals from the Tories. Meanwhile, the Tories drop only 4-5 seats to UKIP but pick up 17 seats: 16 Lib Dem and 1 Labour (Itchen)

In that case, you would get something like 311 seats for the Tories. With losses to the SNP, Labour would be only slightly up on 2010GE, notwithstanding Lib Dem gains themselves. Say, mid-260s for seats. The Lib Dems would be around the mid-20s.

In that case, the Tories would have 2 x options: a second coalition (wafer-thin overall majority of around 10) or they could do a confidence & supply deal with the DUP/UKIP.

Why the latter over the former? The House of Commons would have an effective eurosceptic majority: 311 Tory + 9 DUP + 5 UKIP = 325 seats. Sans Sinn Fein that could pass an EU referendum bill without any Lib Dem assistance.

So, if Cameron wants to aid his party management and guarantee its passage, he could conceivably go for that. But it would still count as 'Con Min' IMHO.

If we assume that UKIP gets say 15% of the vote in May but ends up with say 4 MP's...although those 4 MPs could make the difference in getting the Referendum bill passed. Are UKIP going to pass that bill - but risk being stuck with a YES vote going into the next election that leaves them on the wrong side of public opinion? Or do they scupper the bill - and get exposed to the ensuing ridicule?

I can't see any circumstances in which UKIP would vote to scupper an in/out referendum on our membership of the EU. It might not be as early as they want, or the exact question they want, but it they opposed it that could split their party.

If it's on the floor of the house, they will vote for it. Even if with a lot of moaning and gnashing of teeth.

bigjohnowls

another_richard said:

Eleven weeks after the Rotherham report and still these questions remain unanswered:

When is Home Secretary Theresa May going to take action against the South Yorkshire police after the widespread media reports of its collaboration with child rapists.

When is Childrens Minister Edward Timpson going to place Rotherham's Childrens Services into special measures.

What action is Policing Minister Mike Penning taking to ensure that the police's much hyped 'day of reckoning' with its 'wave after wave of arrests' takes place.

How much did the locally well connected former Communities Minister Sayeeda Warsi know about what was happening and what did she chose to do about it.

Why has Prime Minister David Cameron shown no interest despite his emphasis on 'Broken Britain' while Leader of the Opposition.

Perhaps she is having problems finding an enquiry chair or her suggestion of Paul Gadd is being scrutinised.

Casino_Royale

antifrank said:

How would a Labour/Lib Dem coalition that commanded only a minority (but which had supply and confidence support from say the DUP) pay out in this market?

It would pay out as a Labour-Lib Dem coalition. Nowhere does the bet say the coalition has to command an absolute majority in the House to pay out. Any extra support on confidence & supply votes from minor parties - which didn't take ministerial seats - wouldn't count as being part of that government.

Financier

david_herdson said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

David Herdson [7.52] I think "other" is a euphemism for a Grand Coalition of the kind I am now hoping for.

David L [7.57] Of course! Everything that's less than perfect is due to the Tories not having secured an outright majority last time! Naughty voters!

Presumably the answer to Patrick's questions is the same: the Liberal Democrats!

To be fair, I should have mentioned the possibility of a Grand Coalition of Con, Lab and possibly others. Still, as I said in my reply to Mike, I just don't think the culture of the country is to accept a Grand Coalition outside of a time of evident and massive crisis. Those two conditions are not yet met. It's worth noting that there was never a Grand Coalition in WWI (as there were oppositionists in both major parties, particularly the Asquithites), and there wasn't one in WWII until May 1940.

In 1916, 1931 and 1940, the coalitions only formed *after* the crisis had hit a severe level on a political as well as military / economic level. There is without question a problem with the deficits but it's not one that's yet been that obvious to the public and nor is it so pressing that a Grand Coalition is more acceptable to politicians and public alike than a minority or more limited coalition government. Feb 1974 might be a better parallel than any of those earlier cases.

@DavidHerdson

Grand Coalitions rely on having enough competent people who are able to agree on the policy required to effect an action, even if politically they are not really happy with that policy.

The problem is that there are very few competent people in the HoC. There may be one or two LDs, a few more from Labour (but not their front bench who would want a piece of the action) and some from the Cons. Are there enough competent MPs to form a Cabinet - seems like the voters think not.

stodge

CarlottaVance said:

After four and a half years of Tory bashing from the Lib Dems?

I think on May the 6th we should list all the predicted dates for the demise of the coalition and the clear certainty of some Labour supporters that a grateful populace would return Labour to Downing Street.....

What ever its ups and downs, the coalition has been skilfully led from the top by both parties - outlasting numerous predictions of its demise easily......

Please, Carlotta, we know there are Conservatives who have never wanted or liked the Coalition but not one of them had the Ed B's to leave the Party or stand against the Prime Minister.

There's been a bit of knockabout on both sides but it's broadly worked reasonably well though it now seems to be fairly semi-detached with the Home Office a Tory fiefdom. I think both Steve Webb and Danny Alexander have done very well as Ministers and as a Party member, the experience of Government cannot and must not be lost from the party.

That said, there are lessons to be learned (on both sides, I think) and I suspect there will be little or no desire within the Party to go back into a formal Coalition with anyone given the likely reduced numbers after May.

I simply don't know what will happen next May and neither (with respect) do you. A reduced Party may have limited or indeed no options with other players being involved. Could we offer C&S to either a minority Labour or Conservative Government ? I don't know is the only answer I have at this point. Personally, I wouldn't but that's not how politics operates.

stodge

david_herdson said:

To be fair, I should have mentioned the possibility of a Grand Coalition of Con, Lab and possibly others. Still, as I said in my reply to Mike, I just don't think the culture of the country is to accept a Grand Coalition outside of a time of evident and massive crisis. Those two conditions are not yet met. It's worth noting that there was never a Grand Coalition in WWI (as there were oppositionists in both major parties, particularly the Asquithites), and there wasn't one in WWII until May 1940.

In 1916, 1931 and 1940, the coalitions only formed *after* the crisis had hit a severe level on a political as well as military / economic level. There is without question a problem with the deficits but it's not one that's yet been that obvious to the public and nor is it so pressing that a Grand Coalition is more acceptable to politicians and public alike than a minority or more limited coalition government. Feb 1974 might be a better parallel than any of those earlier cases.

Labour was of course never part of the WW1 Coalition either. I've long argued that next May could be February 1974 redux with both the Conservative and Labour parties losing vote share (and note the Labour party can gain seats on a reduced vote share simply if the Tory share falls more than theirs). For example, Con 30 Lab 28 would represent a 2.5% swing from Con to Lab which would move seats.

UKIP would play the role of the Liberals with a huge rise in vote share and not much in the way of seats while the SNP would play the role of the SNP (oddly enough). Pockets of LD and Green support would complicate matters but the truth would remain that Con-Lab would win the overwhelming majority of seats.

John_M

OT Rosetta comet landing today. I am agog.

dr_spyn

O /t . What's the point of rehabilitation and early release of prisoners if the BBC gets on to a high horse attacking a convicted rapist. Ched Evans ought to be allowed to at least try to train again. He was tried and sentenced, it looks as if justice has been done unless the BBC know otherwise.

isam

another_richard said:

Eleven weeks after the Rotherham report and still these questions remain unanswered:

When is Home Secretary Theresa May going to take action against the South Yorkshire police after the widespread media reports of its collaboration with child rapists.

When is Childrens Minister Edward Timpson going to place Rotherham's Childrens Services into special measures.

What action is Policing Minister Mike Penning taking to ensure that the police's much hyped 'day of reckoning' with its 'wave after wave of arrests' takes place.

How much did the locally well connected former Communities Minister Sayeeda Warsi know about what was happening and what did she chose to do about it.

Why has Prime Minister David Cameron shown no interest despite his emphasis on 'Broken Britain' while Leader of the Opposition.

What has happened to Jahangir Akhtar?

DecrepitJohnL

Carnyx said:

O/T: forgive me if this has been mentioned, but so much has been discussed about poppies and politicians being photographed with them, that it seems worth raising this issue allegedly affecting another, and very important, national memorial arising from the Great War:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturenews/11220249/Imperial-War-Museum-library-petition-gathers-strength.html

The photo caption seems to imply we had Spitfires in the First World War.

Financier

Sir Charlie Mayfield, chairman of the John Lewis Partnership, has said that Britain’s workforce must undergo radical change if the nation is to achieve a much-needed overhaul of its productivity....

“Over the past 20 years, Britain has created something like 2.3m more jobs in higher-skilled technology-enabled roles but at the same time, for the people in the middle, there’s been a 1.2m reduction in the number of jobs, while at the bottom we’ve created about another 2m jobs,” he said. “All the signs are that this is a pretty big shift in the anatomy of the workplace and that it’s going to accelerate.”

He added: “Possibly the career ladder may just become a little bit harder to climb and it may become a little bit more difficult for the workplace to facilitate social mobility just at a time when we need more of that, not less.” .....

It’s basically been a job-rich and wages-poor recovery to date,” he said. “But in terms of productivity, the UK lags some of our competitors, such as the US, Germany and France, by as much as 30pc.”

He said that 22pc of British jobs require only the academic educational attainment expected of an 11-year-old. The equivalent percentages in the US and Germany are 10pc and 5pc respectively.

On education, Sir Charlie said 272,000 students started undergraduate courses in the UK this year, against only 3,000 people starting higher apprenticeships - a ratio of 90-1. “That gives us every reason to look for a step change in the number of people earning and learning,” he said.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/festival-of-business/11224322/UK-workforce-must-change-radically-says-John-Lewis-chairman-Sir-Charlie-Mayfield.html

BenM

As we wait to see how many more burgers are being flipped in Osborne's jobs 'miracle'...

anotherDave

Rochester - EAW
"...the Opposition will stand by their undertaking to use their Supply Day (when they can choose the subject for debate) next Wednesday for the [EAW] debate which should have taken place on Monday night.

The timing would be perfect for them if they wish to maximise the Ukip vote in the by-election the following day."

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/normantebbit/100289976/the-european-arrest-warrant-shambles-is-the-worst-i-have-seen-in-40-years-in-parliament/

dr_spyn

BenM said:

SquareRoot said:

You cant buck the market but you can well and truly f*ck the market. Ask Gordon Brown, he knew how to do it.

Yes you can. And if you get caught you get fined $3.2bn - a price worth paying. Probably.

Financial Services are rotten to the core. A Financial Transaction Tax is sorely needed and could have headed off the latest scandal.

I was wondering if the LIBOR market rigging had a longer dishonourable history than just the recent activities of a few rogue traders.

Financier

OT

J Sainsbury has reported a pre-tax loss of £290m after warning that sales in supermarkets will be falling for the "next few years" and writing off the value of its stores.

Mike Coupe, who replaced Justin King as chief executive in the summer, said that Britain’s grocery market is undergoing a “once-in-a-generation” change.

Sainsbury's slumped into the red for the 28 weeks to September 27 after writing off the value of stores and mothballing 40 proposed developments.

The company's underlying pre-tax profits profit fell 6pc to £375m, which was a better performance than expected in challenging market conditions and following a 2.1pc fall in like-for-like sales.

However, Sainsbury's booked a one-off impairment charge of £628m on the value of its supermarkets and the developments it will no longer build.

Britain's third largest supermarket retailer said that only 75pc of its supermarkets were in the "right locations and are of the right size for our food and non-food offer", while the remaining 25pc will have "under-utilised space". Sainsbury's will look at installing concessions into the under-utilised stores - such as Jessops camera shops - which number more than 100 across the UK.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/11224956/

TGOHF

BenM said:

As we wait to see how many more burgers are being flipped in Osborne's jobs 'miracle'...

Ooh hark at the job snob.

BBC Breaking News ‏@BBCBreaking 1m1 minute ago
UK unemployment fell by 115,000 between July and September to 1.96 million, official figures show http://bbc.in/1EAfvC3

TGOHF

norman smith ‏@BBCNormanS 1m1 minute ago
Pay (excluding bonuses) now outstripping inflation say ONS. 1.3% increase in pay. Inflation at 1.2%

NickPalmer

Financier said:

The problem is that there are very few competent people in the HoC. There may be one or two LDs, a few more from Labour (but not their front bench who would want a piece of the action) and some from the Cons. Are there enough competent MPs to form a Cabinet - seems like the voters think not.

The problem IMO is not competence, it's the electoral and media climate. There are lots of senior people who see the difficulties clearly and would be willing to tackle them one way or another, but much of the electorate doesn't appear to be willing to entertain anything unpleasant and the media will certainly exaggerate anything, so anyone who suggests any non-trivial kind of saving or tax rise is slaughtered at once.

felix

BenM said:

As we wait to see how many more burgers are being flipped in Osborne's jobs 'miracle'...

Lol -cost of living crisis over? There really is nothing left for Labour to say on the economy.

Barnesian

Like the market, I think it is unlikely there will be an overall majority for Labour or Tory and that Labour will have more seats than the Tories.

It will be a very messy situation with perhaps 60 seats or more splintered between the minority parties. It will take time to sort out a coalition. The LibDems will be split between Clegg wanting a coalition with the Tories and other LibDem MPs favouring a coalition with Labour. It won't be a done deal like last time. Cameron may not be willing to grant Cabinet positions to UKIP particularly if they have only a handful of MPs. SNP may not want to take Cabinet positions with Labour.

So the value is in either a Tory or a Labour minority government which would govern for a short time while a possible coalition deal is thrashed out, possibly after leadership changes.

Cameron will have first crack at forming a minority government but I'm assuming the arithmetic will be less favourable for him than Labour. If he fails, i.e. cannot survive a confidence motion on his Queen's Speech, then it will pass to Labour to form a minority government. I think Labour could survive a confidence vote supported by some if not all LibDems, SNP, Green, PC and SDLP.

So I think the value bet is a Labour minority government - currently available on Betfair at 8.6.

TGOHF

felix said:

BenM said:

As we wait to see how many more burgers are being flipped in Osborne's jobs 'miracle'...

Lol -cost of living crisis over? There really is nothing left for Labour to say on the economy.

Yes.

norman smith ‏@BBCNormanS 3m3 minutes ago
Earnings for those who have been in work for more than a year increasing by 3.7 per cent a year

logical_song

Casino_Royale said:

logical_song said:

Casino_Royale said:

An interesting scenario: Labour has a 'mare in May. They pick up only 6-7 of the most hypermarginals from the Tories. Meanwhile, the Tories drop only 4-5 seats to UKIP but pick up 17 seats: 16 Lib Dem and 1 Labour (Itchen)

In that case, you would get something like 311 seats for the Tories. With losses to the SNP, Labour would be only slightly up on 2010GE, notwithstanding Lib Dem gains themselves. Say, mid-260s for seats. The Lib Dems would be around the mid-20s.

In that case, the Tories would have 2 x options: a second coalition (wafer-thin overall majority of around 10) or they could do a confidence & supply deal with the DUP/UKIP.

Why the latter over the former? The House of Commons would have an effective eurosceptic majority: 311 Tory + 9 DUP + 5 UKIP = 325 seats. Sans Sinn Fein that could pass an EU referendum bill without any Lib Dem assistance.

So, if Cameron wants to aid his party management and guarantee its passage, he could conceivably go for that. But it would still count as 'Con Min' IMHO.

Cloud - cuckoo land.
But giving it credence for a moment, it would depend on the makeup of Tory MPs and how far Cameron is prepared to compromise principles for power.
Would the Tories want to move to the right and off the centre ground? Would Cameron accept that / would the Tory MPs replace him.
I'm all for counterfactuals but this one stretches things a bit too far.

I don't think so. It's a perfectly plausible scenario for next May.

"311 Tory + 9 DUP + 5 UKIP = 325 seats. Sans Sinn Fein that could pass an EU referendum bill without any Lib Dem assistance."

Leaving aside your assumptions on how this comes about, which I think would repay consideration, we have a minority Tory government with DUP plus UKIP in supply and confidence.

What about the 30 plus pro Europe Tory MPs?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2266446/More-30-pro-European-Tories-vow-break-silence-Cameron-prepares-promise-vote-leaving-EU.html

Morris_Dancer

Mr. M, I hope the comet landing comes off. Tricky, though.

Carnyx

DecrepitJohnL said:

Carnyx said:

O/T: forgive me if this has been mentioned, but so much has been discussed about poppies and politicians being photographed with them, that it seems worth raising this issue allegedly affecting another, and very important, national memorial arising from the Great War:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturenews/11220249/Imperial-War-Museum-library-petition-gathers-strength.html

The photo caption seems to imply we had Spitfires in the First World War.

Quite so, not to mention the A4, aka V2, presumably in the Kaiser's artillery arm, for that matter. Though I have no idea what the crumpled rusty metal is. To be fair, there is an artillery limber and presumably, hidden by the Spit's wing, a 13 or 18 pdr gun of Great War vintage.

isam

Kieron Dyer and Titus Bramble getting stuck into the nonsense idea that is the Rooney Rule

Like them, I would consider it an insult

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/11224598/Ipswich-Town-coaches-Kieron-Dyer-and-Titus-Bramble-slam-Rooney-Rule.html

SimonStClare

BBC - UK unemployment falls by 115,000

Surely they can't all be 'burger flippers' as some likes to describe them?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30019259

john_zims

@BenM

'As we wait to see how many more burgers are being flipped in Osborne's jobs 'miracle'...'

A tad sour because David Blanchflower's 4 million unemployed didn't happen?

Pulpstar

Financier said:

OT

J Sainsbury has reported a pre-tax loss of £290m after warning that sales in supermarkets will be falling for the "next few years" and writing off the value of its stores.

Mike Coupe, who replaced Justin King as chief executive in the summer, said that Britain’s grocery market is undergoing a “once-in-a-generation” change.

Sainsbury's slumped into the red for the 28 weeks to September 27 after writing off the value of stores and mothballing 40 proposed developments.

The company's underlying pre-tax profits profit fell 6pc to £375m, which was a better performance than expected in challenging market conditions and following a 2.1pc fall in like-for-like sales.

However, Sainsbury's booked a one-off impairment charge of £628m on the value of its supermarkets and the developments it will no longer build.

Britain's third largest supermarket retailer said that only 75pc of its supermarkets were in the "right locations and are of the right size for our food and non-food offer", while the remaining 25pc will have "under-utilised space". Sainsbury's will look at installing concessions into the under-utilised stores - such as Jessops camera shops - which number more than 100 across the UK.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/11224956/

Sainsburys can't recoup tax (Due to the impairment) until the written off stores/land are sold... if my memory of impairment is correct

Lots of stores/land to be sold off soon ?