politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » For the Tories defending what they won in England in 2010 i

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » For the Tories defending what they won in England in 2010 is the overwhelming objective

The above is the result for England at the last election and shows how well the Tories did there and the scale of the challenge defending their position in May.

Read the full story here

DecrepitJohnL

Yeah but what were the answers to HH's constituency quiz?

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

I hope you all got nice Christmas presents.

I broadly agree with Mr. Smithson, but would add some other points:
1) It'll be interesting to see how UKIP do in Wales and (to a lesser degree) in Scotland
2) The English result may have implications for English devolution. If Labour get fewer votes than the blues then inflict unwanted regionalisation whilst permitting Scottish votes for English laws it may go down very badly

peter_from_putney

At the moment I find hard to see how the Tories can get more than 280 seats overall which is the current sell level on the spread markets.

So you're a seller of the Tories at 280 then Mike, no ifs, no buts, no maybes?

(PfP stands by with bated breath for definitive betting view from OGH)

MikeSmithson

peter_from_putney said:

At the moment I find hard to see how the Tories can get more than 280 seats overall which is the current sell level on the spread markets.

So you're a seller of the Tories at 280 then Mike, no ifs, no buts, no maybes?

(PfP stands by with bated breath for definitive betting view from OGH)

I have a small sell position with SPIN on the Tories at 280 seats. I'm a buyer on the LDs at 29. Not touching LAB because it is impossible to read.

peter_from_putney

MikeSmithson said:

peter_from_putney said:

At the moment I find hard to see how the Tories can get more than 280 seats overall which is the current sell level on the spread markets.

So you're a seller of the Tories at 280 then Mike, no ifs, no buts, no maybes?

(PfP stands by with bated breath for definitive betting view from OGH)

I have a small sell position with SPIN on the Tories at 280 seats. I'm a buyer on the LDs at 29. Not touching LAB because it is impossible to read.

Thanks for that Mike ...... I'm with you on SELLING the Tories at 280 seats where I see limited upside of around 20 seats (i.e. 300 seats) and a possible downside of around double that (i.e. 240 seats). I don't see the attraction though of buying the Lib Dems at 29 seats where I see their likely range as being between 25 - 33 seats .... very little to go for therefore imho and with an approximately equal downside potential.

MikeK

FPT.

FluffyThoughts said:
» show previous quotes
Bibi is an ass-hat: He is still stealing the land of the Christian and Mohameddian Palestinian people. Time to return to 'Sixty-Seven!

-------------------------------------------------
Another bit of light hearted anti-semitism to start the Boxing Day, Fluffy.
And after that you'd want the Jews to return to 1948?
You do realise that if the Arabs had won in 1967 there would have been now no Jewish problem there, they would either have been killed or expelled. The Christian populations are now being expelled or killed by Muslims in all the countries of the Middle-East. Israel is now their only hope.

FluffyThoughts

According to Guido I have - base upon my current voting tendency - this guy as my second-preferred choice in my neck of Bedfordshire:

Yasin Rehman @Yasinrehman

UKIP WISHES YOU A VERY MERRY CHRISTMAS AND HAPPY 2015 DR. YASIN REHMAN UKIP CANDIDATE FOR LUTON SOUTH

Must pi5h-orf the Scots' born, plastic Yorkshireman who spins so many tales that Scheheraza would have self-immolated herself from the git-go.....

FluffyThoughts

MikeK said:

FPT.

FluffyThoughts said:
» show previous quotes
Bibi is an ass-hat: He is still stealing the land of the Christian and Mohameddian Palestinian people. Time to return to 'Sixty-Seven!

-------------------------------------------------
Another bit of light hearted anti-semitism to start the Boxing Day, Fluffy.
And after that you'd want the Jews to return to 1948?
You do realise that if the Arabs had won in 1967 there would have been now no Jewish problem there, they would either have been killed or expelled. The Christian populations are now being expelled or killed by Muslims in all the countries of the Middle-East. Israel is now their only hope.

Hmmm,

Grumpy: I know which side we will be on if there is any agression towards Israel. I do not have to agree with Zionism to accept Israel's right to exist (c.f. the State of Lebanon).

P.S. Give 'The Farms' back to Lebanon. Golan-Hieghts I will accept; they are a simile for the Czeck's Sudetenland....

dr_spyn

Bit early to end the Christmas Truce.

Happy Christmas.

MikeSmithson

peter_from_putney said:

MikeSmithson said:

peter_from_putney said:

At the moment I find hard to see how the Tories can get more than 280 seats overall which is the current sell level on the spread markets.

So you're a seller of the Tories at 280 then Mike, no ifs, no buts, no maybes?

(PfP stands by with bated breath for definitive betting view from OGH)

I have a small sell position with SPIN on the Tories at 280 seats. I'm a buyer on the LDs at 29. Not touching LAB because it is impossible to read.

Thanks for that Mike ...... I'm with you on SELLING the Tories at 280 seats where I see limited upside of around 20 seats (i.e. 300 seats) and a possible downside of around double that (i.e. 240 seats). I don't see the attraction though of buying the Lib Dems at 29 seats where I see their likely range as being between 25 - 33 seats .... very little to go for therefore imho and with an approximately equal downside potential.

The hard bet is LAB at 283-289 seats. You can make a case for it being between 240 and 325+. Either way there's too much risk.

I'm also a seller of SNP ar 21. This is basically on what I understand of private party polling when the name of the incumbent is mentioned. For some reason this has bigger impact in Scotland than elsewhere.

richardDodd

O/T The Judge..fantastic..as is St Vincent...stunning performances all round.

kle4

It's hard to conceive of how the Tories will maintain their previous level of lead in England, and they actually need to increase it given it seems improbable they will make massive sweeping gains anywhere else. With UKIP surging to some degree, even if they fall back quite a bit for May 2015, and Labour still doing better in England than previously, if hardly great, then it seems impossible for the Tories to come out of things with a majority, and highly improbable they have most seats.

Quincel

MikeSmithson said:

peter_from_putney said:

MikeSmithson said:

peter_from_putney said:

At the moment I find hard to see how the Tories can get more than 280 seats overall which is the current sell level on the spread markets.

So you're a seller of the Tories at 280 then Mike, no ifs, no buts, no maybes?

(PfP stands by with bated breath for definitive betting view from OGH)

I have a small sell position with SPIN on the Tories at 280 seats. I'm a buyer on the LDs at 29. Not touching LAB because it is impossible to read.

Thanks for that Mike ...... I'm with you on SELLING the Tories at 280 seats where I see limited upside of around 20 seats (i.e. 300 seats) and a possible downside of around double that (i.e. 240 seats). I don't see the attraction though of buying the Lib Dems at 29 seats where I see their likely range as being between 25 - 33 seats .... very little to go for therefore imho and with an approximately equal downside potential.

The hard bet is LAB at 283-289 seats. You can make a case for it being between 240 and 325+. Either way there's too much risk.

I'm also a seller of SNP ar 21. This is basically on what I understand of private party polling when the name of the incumbent is mentioned. For some reason this has bigger impact in Scotland than elsewhere.

I must admit to being skeptical of incumbency affect changing the results of significant number of seats. Every election there is talk of it letting the incumbent parties hold on despite national swings, and every election it makes the difference in a very few seats only. The national picture tends to be borne out.

AlastairMeeks

If today is a state of the campaign assessment, I agree with our host that 280 looks challenging for the Conservatives. More than 300 looks unlikely. Given that the Conservatives probably need 300 to stay in power (given that the SNP will strongly prefer a Labour-led government and the Lib Dems may well feel it's time for a change of allegiance), we should be preparing for a Labour-led government.

I am always concerned when I reach the opposite conclusion to our host, but I do on Scotland. When I look at the state of the current polls, I ask myself "is it more likely than not that the SNP will get most seats?" and I answer yes it is. I can see routes back for Labour in Scotland, but they seem firmly odds-against at present. I'm betting accordingly. Any incumbency bounce to overcome that would need to be on pogo sticks.

Quincel

On a related note, the Survation England only polling shows a swing of about 5%, right? On a national scale that would be a Labour lead of 4%. Which given that isn't far from the polling consensus, suggests that the most likely situation is the swing in England is roughly the same as in the UK overall (this being just one poll).

CD13

I'm not a real fan of politics (I expect it shows) but thanks to Christmas telly, we watched a bit of Vernon Bog-something or other lecturing on the 1945 election. He made it sound interesting - especially the stuff about Atlee and the Labour in-fighting. Herbert Morrison came out of it badly, a real plotter. Wasn't Mandy a relative?

I can understand the feeling for change that brought in the Labour party at the election but I see Churchill played the Red-Clem card. Never going to work against someone so ... well, ordinary.

Perhaps EdM is basing himself on that - I'm just a regular sort of nerd, completely harmless, and my cuts won't hurt.

isam

MikeSmithson said:

peter_from_putney said:

MikeSmithson said:

peter_from_putney said:

At the moment I find hard to see how the Tories can get more than 280 seats overall which is the current sell level on the spread markets.

So you're a seller of the Tories at 280 then Mike, no ifs, no buts, no maybes?

(PfP stands by with bated breath for definitive betting view from OGH)

I have a small sell position with SPIN on the Tories at 280 seats. I'm a buyer on the LDs at 29. Not touching LAB because it is impossible to read.

Thanks for that Mike ...... I'm with you on SELLING the Tories at 280 seats where I see limited upside of around 20 seats (i.e. 300 seats) and a possible downside of around double that (i.e. 240 seats). I don't see the attraction though of buying the Lib Dems at 29 seats where I see their likely range as being between 25 - 33 seats .... very little to go for therefore imho and with an approximately equal downside potential.

The hard bet is LAB at 283-289 seats. You can make a case for it being between 240 and 325+. Either way there's too much risk.

I'm also a seller of SNP ar 21. This is basically on what I understand of private party polling when the name of the incumbent is mentioned. For some reason this has bigger impact in Scotland than elsewhere.

If you are a seller of Conservatives and SNP and a buyer of Lib Dems, surely you are making a judgement on Labour and UKIP?!

FluffyThoughts

antifrank said:

If today is a state of the campaign assessment, I agree with our host that 280 looks challenging for the Conservatives. More than 300 looks unlikely. Given that the Conservatives probably need 300 to stay in power (given that the SNP will strongly prefer a Labour-led government and the Lib Dems may well feel it's time for a change of allegiance), we should be preparing for a Labour-led government.

I am always concerned when I reach the opposite conclusion to our host, but I do on Scotland. When I look at the state of the current polls, I ask myself "is it more likely than not that the SNP will get most seats?" and I answer yes it is. I can see routes back for Labour in Scotland, but they seem firmly odds-against at present. I'm betting accordingly. Any incumbency bounce to overcome that would need to be on pogo sticks.

Hmmm,

Not quite what the Economist/EIU are predicting:

'The World in 2015: Coalition, the Sequal'*

Their research is dated but your opinions are tainted. My upcoming 2015 bets are unlikely to be with you (as I would like you - amongst others - to adjudicate) so it is of no consequences to either of us financially.

A word of thought-and-reflection: Whom, four months ago, would have guesstimated the current $-barrel price of Brent-Crude. Even I - albeit fifteen months ago - only foresaw the price in Sterling terms....

* Get your free access to The World in 2015 app.

Your unique access code: AANAAAAANA.**

** This is not a legal code....

AlastairMeeks

FluffyThoughts said:

antifrank said:

If today is a state of the campaign assessment, I agree with our host that 280 looks challenging for the Conservatives. More than 300 looks unlikely. Given that the Conservatives probably need 300 to stay in power (given that the SNP will strongly prefer a Labour-led government and the Lib Dems may well feel it's time for a change of allegiance), we should be preparing for a Labour-led government.

I am always concerned when I reach the opposite conclusion to our host, but I do on Scotland. When I look at the state of the current polls, I ask myself "is it more likely than not that the SNP will get most seats?" and I answer yes it is. I can see routes back for Labour in Scotland, but they seem firmly odds-against at present. I'm betting accordingly. Any incumbency bounce to overcome that would need to be on pogo sticks.

Hmmm,

Not quite what the Economist/EIU are predicting:

'The World in 2015: Coalition, the Sequal'*

Their research is dated but your opinions are tainted. My upcoming 2015 bets are unlikely to be with you (as I would like you - amongst others - to adjudicate) so it is of no consequences to either of us financially.

A word of thought-and-reflection: Whom, four months ago, would have guesstimated the current $-barrel price of Brent-Crude. Even I - albeit fifteen months ago - only foresaw the price in Sterling terms....

* Get your free access to The World in 2015 app.

Your unique access code: AANAAAAANA.**

** This is not a legal code....

For another coalition that the Lib Dems participate in, first the Lib Dem negotiating team would need to reach agreement, then MPs would need to endorse it, then the membership would need to approve it at a special conference.

The last of these three tests looks like a really serious one for any second Conservative/Lib Dem coalition. The Lib Dem membership seem to have had enough of this government.

Only 6% predict another Conservative/Lib Dem coalition and by nearly 3:1 they would prefer to work with Labour:

http://www.libdemvoice.org/hung-parliament-what-lib-dem-members-think-will-happen-and-what-you-want-to-happen-42775.html

Yes, it's a voodoo poll but it's all we have.

FluffyThoughts

antifrank said:

FluffyThoughts said:

antifrank said:

If today is a state of the campaign assessment, I agree with our host that 280 looks challenging for the Conservatives. More than 300 looks unlikely. Given that the Conservatives probably need 300 to stay in power (given that the SNP will strongly prefer a Labour-led government and the Lib Dems may well feel it's time for a change of allegiance), we should be preparing for a Labour-led government.

I am always concerned when I reach the opposite conclusion to our host, but I do on Scotland. When I look at the state of the current polls, I ask myself "is it more likely than not that the SNP will get most seats?" and I answer yes it is. I can see routes back for Labour in Scotland, but they seem firmly odds-against at present. I'm betting accordingly. Any incumbency bounce to overcome that would need to be on pogo sticks.

Hmmm,

Not quite what the Economist/EIU are predicting:

'The World in 2015: Coalition, the Sequal'*

Their research is dated but your opinions are tainted. My upcoming 2015 bets are unlikely to be with you (as I would like you - amongst others - to adjudicate) so it is of no consequences to either of us financially.

A word of thought-and-reflection: Whom, four months ago, would have guesstimated the current $-barrel price of Brent-Crude. Even I - albeit fifteen months ago - only foresaw the price in Sterling terms....

* Get your free access to The World in 2015 app.

Your unique access code: AANAAAAANA.**

** This is not a legal code....

For another coalition that the Lib Dems participate in, first the Lib Dem negotiating team would need to reach agreement, then MPs would need to endorse it, then the membership would need to approve it at a special conference.

The last of these three tests looks like a really serious one for any second Conservative/Lib Dem coalition. The Lib Dem membership seem to have had enough of this government.

Only 6% predict another Conservative/Lib Dem coalition and by nearly 3:1 they would prefer to work with Labour:

http://www.libdemvoice.org/hung-parliament-what-lib-dem-members-think-will-happen-and-what-you-want-to-happen-42775.html

Yes, it's a voodoo poll but it's all we have.

If four months are a long time in oil-futures then Harold Wilson does did not understand politics....

With Russia and 'His' Jobbik puppet* trying to undermine the EU; life could become fun. Unfortunately it may also become dangerous....

* World in 2015. No criticism of your good-self....

richardDodd

Any more Ed relaunches today?
Is the NHS still working..

EPG

Any Lib Dems still going to conference are probably not disinclined to continuing the current government.

bigjohnowls

richardDodd said:

Any more Ed relaunches today?
Is the NHS still working..

Who do you think will be PM after GE2015?

isam

Great headings from the Beeb in this article about UKIP

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30586537

SandyRentool

A belated Merry Christmas, comrades.

Apparently the Three Wise Men have been delayed - a new points based system is being used to see if they are wise enough to be given temporary visas to visit Bethlehem - if they ain't wise enough, they ain't getting in!

FluffyThoughts

The [Murdoch et, al.] Empire Fights Back...?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11305971/Tony-Benn-a-KGB-spy-No-he-was-far-too-dangerous-for-us.html

With Chilcott, Mirror-gate and Operation-Ore yet to be exposed - by news-media if not government - the fun is just beginning...!

As our local Media-moron would prophesise We all adore a....*

* Site may be underattack from Kim Yong Un's hired knuckledraggers...!

richardDodd

BJN I hope...for the sake of the country..it will be Cameron..then we can move on swiftly to the Referendum..which I think will be OUT..

stjohn

CD13 said:

I'm not a real fan of politics (I expect it shows)

CD13. Are you lost then? Did you stumble onto politicalbetting.com by accident?

:-)

Flightpath

FluffyThoughts said:

antifrank said:

FluffyThoughts said:

antifrank said:

If today is a state of the campaign assessment, I agree with our host that 280 looks challenging for the Conservatives. More than 300 looks unlikely. Given that the Conservatives probably need 300 to stay in power (given that the SNP will strongly prefer a Labour-led government and the Lib Dems may well feel it's time for a change of allegiance), we should be preparing for a Labour-led government.
.

Hmmm,

Not quite what the Economist/EIU are predicting:

'The World in 2015: Coalition, the Sequal'*

Their research is dated but your opinions are tainted. My upcoming 2015 bets are unlikely to be with you (as I would like you - amongst others - to adjudicate) so it is of no consequences to either of us financially.

A word of thought-and-reflection: Whom, four months ago, would have guesstimated the current $-barrel price of Brent-Crude. Even I - albeit fifteen months ago - only foresaw the price in Sterling terms....

* Get your free access to The World in 2015 app.

Your unique access code: AANAAAAANA.**

** This is not a legal code....

For another coalition that the Lib Dems participate in, first the Lib Dem negotiating team would need to reach agreement, then MPs would need to endorse it, then the membership would need to approve it at a special conference.

The last of these three tests looks like a really serious one for any second Conservative/Lib Dem coalition. The Lib Dem membership seem to have had enough of this government.

Only 6% predict another Conservative/Lib Dem coalition and by nearly 3:1 they would prefer to work with Labour:

http://www.libdemvoice.org/hung-parliament-what-lib-dem-members-think-will-happen-and-what-you-want-to-happen-42775.html

Yes, it's a voodoo poll but it's all we have.

If four months are a long time in oil-futures then Harold Wilson does did not understand politics....

With Russia and 'His' Jobbik puppet* trying to undermine the EU; life could become fun. Unfortunately it may also become dangerous....

* World in 2015. No criticism of your good-self....
Perhaps the tories should emphasise the Labour supporting tendency of LD members to potential LD voters. If the LDs do not see a tory coalition then voters need to realise what a LD Lab coalition means - socialism.

Flightpath

kle4 said:

It's hard to conceive of how the Tories will maintain their previous level of lead in England, and they actually need to increase it given it seems improbable they will make massive sweeping gains anywhere else. With UKIP surging to some degree, even if they fall back quite a bit for May 2015, and Labour still doing better in England than previously, if hardly great, then it seems impossible for the Tories to come out of things with a majority, and highly improbable they have most seats.

'anywhere else' does not contain that many seats. Scotland and Wales. I'not convinced Labour will be 'wiped out' in Scotland, but it seems they are likely to lose not gain. So its inevitable not somehow special or overwhelming that English seats are won or held - for all the parties.

MonikerDiCanio

Delighted to see the UK overtake France and her overseas possessions in economic might.

FluffyThoughts

Flightpath said:

Perhaps the tories should emphasise the Labour supporting tendency of LD members to potential LD voters. If the LDs do not see a tory coalition then voters need to realise what a LD Lab coalition means - socialism.

It would be very brave to define a plan before March. The idea of an 'Osborne led coalition with Michael Gove, Ed Balleaux, Thwisthwam Hwunt and David Laws' is a pipe-dream (that fits within the editorial-realms of an organisation that has Pearson/FT-Pink collaboration).

Someone has to come up with a popular - albeit not populist - message. The cretins we have lack the wit, wisdom or will to accept the funadametal flaws that undermine our economy, society and state!

A sensible person would recognise that we need to cut benefits, pensions and welfare. That same sensible person would also recognise that we should ensure basic - and only basic - health-care, education and secutiry to all. Sadly basic security is becoming no security as money is pi5hed on pet-projects and regional-supplicance...! :wtf:

And, please: Junior has a character-limit on each-and-every post. Please, all, edit out the legacy stuff when responding....

PPS: Hit colon and type a randon letter. Lots of fun is about to happen...!

DecrepitJohnL

MonikerDiCanio said:

Delighted to see the UK overtake France and her overseas possessions in economic might.

You'd have thought that happened years ago given all the Ed = Hollande spin on pb. Aside from anything else, you have to wonder what the voter on the Clapham omnibus is supposed to make of it. They've got more unemployment: we do more drugs.

PClipp

Flightpath said:

Perhaps the tories should emphasise the Labour supporting tendency of LD members to potential LD voters. If the LDs do not see a tory coalition then voters need to realise what a LD Lab coalition means - socialism.

My personal preference for after the next election would be for the Lib Dems to be in opposition - not in coalition with anybody, nor even supply and confidence.

However, Mr Path does need to recognise that one of the best governments we have had in recent years was under Jim Callaghan, when the Lib-Lab pact meant that the government was very far from "Socialist", and just governed quietly, without doing anything over-exciting. Of course, this was not fully appreciated by the Militant Tendency and other Labour extemists, who wanted the Labour Government to be as extreme as themselves; and so they worked to bring it down with the Winter of Discontent.

The next best government is the present one, again because the right-wing extremists cannot do everything they want to. Of course, some do try it on, and even get away with it, but by and large this Coalition Government is much better than most of us expected.

Like most people, I have no idea precisely what the next government will look like. But of one thing we can be sure. A Lib-Lab coalition, if that is what our inefficient electoral system throws up, will most certainly not be "Socialist". Sorry to disappoint you, Mr Path.

CD13

stjohn,

"Are you lost then? Did you stumble onto politicalbetting.com by accident?"

Sort of. I stayed for the jokes and the wit, not for the tribal nature of some of the posts.

It won't make a lot of difference to me who wins the election. We're not going to become a communist state or a fascist regime despite the hyperbole of some.

DavidL

dr_spyn said:

Bit early to end the Christmas Truce.

Happy Christmas.

That's what I have always found most interesting about the Christmas truce. When it came to Boxing Day and you had one of the men you spoke to the previous day in your sniper scope how did it feel? No longer an alien unknown but a human being as miserable as yourself missing their girl just as much. Personally I am pretty sure I would miss.

MikeK

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/magna-carta-will-be-800-years-old-next-year--the-perfect-reminder-of-the-rights-and-freedoms-we-must-hold-dear-9945030.html

Nigel Farage on Freedom.

MikeK

Simon Danczuk MP: 'Labour's militant left no better than BNP' | via @Telegraph http://fw.to/eTGXgkl

Naming the real fascists among us?

DavidL

If the Lib Dems lose 25 seats ( which I regard as pretty much a minimum so I would not be buying at 29) I think it is incredibly unlikely the survivors would be up for another Coalition. It would be so obviously against the express wishes of the great British public that it would be the end of the party. Supply and Confidence whilst rebuilding a distinctive voice under new leadership would be possible but that's it.

AndyJS

UKIP got 3.5% in England in 2010. They have a good chance of hitting 20% next time, and that's a big problem for the Tories. Probably more so than Labour.

edmundintokyo

DavidL said:

If the Lib Dems lose 25 seats ( which I regard as pretty much a minimum so I would not be buying at 29) I think it is incredibly unlikely the survivors would be up for another Coalition. It would be so obviously against the express wishes of the great British public that it would be the end of the party. Supply and Confidence whilst rebuilding a distinctive voice under new leadership would be possible but that's it.

The survivors would by definition be people who were able to get reelected after being part of a Lib-Con coalition. Assuming they enjoyed being reelected and wanted to do it again, wouldn't the obvious move be to do the same thing that had just got them reelected?

DecrepitJohnL

MikeK said:

Simon Danczuk MP: 'Labour's militant left no better than BNP' | via @Telegraph http://fw.to/eTGXgkl

Naming the real fascists among us?

Naming the real dates: article is from 9 July 2013. Hardly news.

MikeK

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/12/25/local-newspaper-admits-altering-ukip-ad-to-read-no-to-uk-blames-error/......

Could a Labour employee be the culprit?

Sunil_Prasannan

UKIP are on 15% in the final weekly ELBOW of 2014.

isam

Oh I notice the Queen didn't abdicate... what a shock!

Coral suspending betting after £200@3/1, what a joke outfit

Indigo

isam said:

Oh I notice the Queen didn't abdicate... what a shock!

Coral suspending betting after £200@3/1, what a joke outfit

Shocker, they clearly didn't read the interview with her biographer last year

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/queen-elizabeth-II/9834829/Why-the-Queen-is-never-going-to-abdicate.html

Her constancy and steadfast adherence to a job she believes is for life instils in us a nation-defining sense of confidence.

MarkSenior

AndyJS said:

UKIP got 3.5% in England in 2010. They have a good chance of hitting 20% next time, and that's a big problem for the Tories. Probably more so than Labour.

The chances of UKIP hitting 20% next time is close to zero . You have had too much Xmas spirits

Indigo

Is Chuka standing for London Mayor next time around ? The odds on him on BF are way short considering I would expect him to be looking for a cabinet job in six months.

Flightpath

Mr Clipp says ''one of the best governments we have had in recent years was under Jim Callaghan, when the Lib-Lab pact meant that the government was very far from "Socialist".

The liblab pact lasted only about 18 months from when Labour lost its majority to when it broke up in '78. The election however was still about 9 months away as Callaghan hung on. If you want to build a reputation on that good luck. There was not a single lib in the cabinet, unlike now where we have Liberal Democrats not Libs. Cable is a pink socialist, there would not be much he would stop Miliband from doing.

Did the libs stop flying pickets or wasting money on failing nationalised industries? Did the libs when in opposition to tories vote for or against privatisations?

Instead of throwing out an appalling govt the libs let them and their union paymasters get away with blue murder.

Sunil_Prasannan

Indigo said:

isam said:

Oh I notice the Queen didn't abdicate... what a shock!

Coral suspending betting after £200@3/1, what a joke outfit

Shocker, they clearly didn't read the interview with her biographer last year

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/queen-elizabeth-II/9834829/Why-the-Queen-is-never-going-to-abdicate.html

Her constancy and steadfast adherence to a job she believes is for life instils in us a nation-defining sense of confidence.

Monarchy, what a wonderful and reassuringly socialist institution!

* Jobs for life, a classically socialist paradigm!
* Hereditary principle, like those socialist dynasties such as the Benns, Kims, Kennedys and Nehru-Gandhis!
* Pomp and circumstance usually involving parades, just like North Korea!

Sunil_Prasannan

MarkSenior said:

AndyJS said:

UKIP got 3.5% in England in 2010. They have a good chance of hitting 20% next time, and that's a big problem for the Tories. Probably more so than Labour.

The chances of UKIP hitting 20% next time is close to zero . You have had too much Xmas spirits

UKIP are on 15% in the final ELBOW for 2014.

PClipp

Flightpath said:

Mr Clipp says ''one of the best governments we have had in recent years was under Jim Callaghan, when the Lib-Lab pact meant that the government was very far from "Socialist".

The liblab pact lasted only about 18 months from when Labour lost its majority to when it broke up in '78. The election however was still about 9 months away as Callaghan hung on. If you want to build a reputation on that good luck. There was not a single lib in the cabinet, unlike now where we have Liberal Democrats not Libs. Cable is a pink socialist, there would not be much he would stop Miliband from doing.

Did the libs stop flying pickets or wasting money on failing nationalised industries? Did the libs when in opposition to tories vote for or against privatisations?

Instead of throwing out an appalling govt the libs let them and their union paymasters get away with blue murder.

justin124

I expect UKIP to roughly double their 2010 vote - ie 6 - 7 %

PClipp

PClipp said:

Flightpath said:

Mr Clipp says ''one of the best governments we have had in recent years was under Jim Callaghan, when the Lib-Lab pact meant that the government was very far from "Socialist".

The liblab pact lasted only about 18 months from when Labour lost its majority to when it broke up in '78. The election however was still about 9 months away as Callaghan hung on. If you want to build a reputation on that good luck. There was not a single lib in the cabinet, unlike now where we have Liberal Democrats not Libs. Cable is a pink socialist, there would not be much he would stop Miliband from doing.

Did the libs stop flying pickets or wasting money on failing nationalised industries? Did the libs when in opposition to tories vote for or against privatisations?

Instead of throwing out an appalling govt the libs let them and their union paymasters get away with blue murder.

Groan.... Of course there was not a single Liberal in the Cabinet when Callaghan was PM, Mr Path, because it was not a coalition government: the Lib Lab pact was, effectively, a matter of confidence and supply. The Liberal MPs were merely consulted in advance and so had the power of veto.

What was going on on the ground, as it were, was a tussle between the Labour leaders and the Socialist hotheads in the Trade Unions. Everybody lost out in that one, because they underminded good governance, and allowed Thatcher to come to power.

But in the period of the Lib-Lab Pact, can you (or anybody else) point to a single piece of legislation that was passed by Parliament which could in any way shape or form be classified as "Socialist"?

That is why I say it was a period of good government. Liberals had the power of veto over government legislation. That is why the extremists of the Mlitant Tendency hated Liberals (especially in Liverpool); and why the extremists now in the Tory Party hate this Coalition Government.

But Liberal Government is good for the country (if not for you personally). I want more of it

NickPalmer

Trying to do different stuff over the break (like not posting on PB... oh well, I tried) and tried Downton Abbey for the first time for a while. One obvious period howler "Not something he'd want to see on the front page of The Times" - have you seen a copy of the front page of the Times in the 1920s, script-writer (all adverts, no news at all)? In general it felt very artificial - bringing a cliche to life rather than the real thing. I'm going at one remove - from talking to relatives who lived in that sort of world at the time, and reading people like Galsworthy who wrote then - but my impression is that the class thing was far less overt than the series suggests, and the upstairs community and the servants got on with things with only very limited interaction. Polly's piece the other day about the horrors of servant life being played down is probably right too, though the horrors of life for everyone in terms of creature comforts are non-trivial compared with today.

It's only a soap opera, of course, not a documentary. but the old Upstairs, Downstairs BBC series had a better stab at it, I think - parallel plot lines occasionally intersecting.

isam

MarkSenior said:

AndyJS said:

UKIP got 3.5% in England in 2010. They have a good chance of hitting 20% next time, and that's a big problem for the Tories. Probably more so than Labour.

The chances of UKIP hitting 20% next time is close to zero . You have had too much Xmas spirits

It is amazing that someone would write something as nonsensical as that on a betting site

Hertsmere_Pubgoer

To continue on from Nick P's comment about doing other things over the break.

BT Sport were showing last night the official FIFA video of the 66 world cup.
There was some footage of the goals being prepared for the final at Wembley.
2 blokes with step ladders was all it took and not a hi viz jacket in sight.

Monksfield

NickPalmer said:

Trying to do different stuff over the break (like not posting on PB... oh well, I tried) and tried Downton Abbey for the first time for a while. One obvious period howler "Not something he'd want to see on the front page of The Times" - have you seen a copy of the front page of the Times in the 1920s, script-writer (all adverts, no news at all)? In general it felt very artificial - bringing a cliche to life rather than the real thing. I'm going at one remove - from talking to relatives who lived in that sort of world at the time, and reading people like Galsworthy who wrote then - but my impression is that the class thing was far less overt than the series suggests, and the upstairs community and the servants got on with things with only very limited interaction. Polly's piece the other day about the horrors of servant life being played down is probably right too, though the horrors of life for everyone in terms of creature comforts are non-trivial compared with today.

It's only a soap opera, of course, not a documentary. but the old Upstairs, Downstairs BBC series had a better stab at it, I think - parallel plot lines occasionally intersecting.

#slaveryporn

GeoffM

Monksfield said:

NickPalmer said:

Trying to do different stuff over the break (like not posting on PB... oh well, I tried) and tried Downton Abbey for the first time for a while. One obvious period howler "Not something he'd want to see on the front page of The Times" - have you seen a copy of the front page of the Times in the 1920s, script-writer (all adverts, no news at all)? In general it felt very artificial - bringing a cliche to life rather than the real thing. I'm going at one remove - from talking to relatives who lived in that sort of world at the time, and reading people like Galsworthy who wrote then - but my impression is that the class thing was far less overt than the series suggests, and the upstairs community and the servants got on with things with only very limited interaction. Polly's piece the other day about the horrors of servant life being played down is probably right too, though the horrors of life for everyone in terms of creature comforts are non-trivial compared with today.

It's only a soap opera, of course, not a documentary. but the old Upstairs, Downstairs BBC series had a better stab at it, I think - parallel plot lines occasionally intersecting.

#slaveryporn

Eh? What does that mean?

Flightpath

PClipp said:

PClipp said:

Flightpath said:

Mr Clipp says ''one of the best governments we have had in recent years was under Jim Callaghan, when the Lib-Lab pact meant that the government was very far from "Socialist".

The liblab pact lasted only about 18 months from when Labour lost its majority to when it broke up in '78. The election however was still about 9 months away as Callaghan hung on. If you want to build a reputation on that good luck. There was not a single lib in the cabinet, unlike now where we have Liberal Democrats not Libs. Cable is a pink socialist, there would not be much he would stop Miliband from doing.

Did the libs stop flying pickets or wasting money on failing nationalised industries? Did the libs when in opposition to tories vote for or against privatisations?

Instead of throwing out an appalling govt the libs let them and their union paymasters get away with blue murder.

Groan.... Of course there was not a single Liberal in the Cabinet when Callaghan was PM, Mr Path, because it was not a coalition government: the Lib Lab pact was, effectively, a matter of confidence and supply. The Liberal MPs were merely consulted in advance and so had the power of veto.

What was going on on the ground, as it were, was a tussle between the Labour leaders and the Socialist hotheads in the Trade Unions. Everybody lost out in that one, because they underminded good governance, and allowed Thatcher to come to power.

But in the period of the Lib-Lab Pact, can you (or anybody else) point to a single piece of legislation that was passed by Parliament which could in any way shape or form be classified as "Socialist"?

That is why I say it was a period of good government. Liberals had the power of veto over government legislation. That is why the extremists of the Mlitant Tendency hated Liberals (especially in Liverpool); and why the extremists now in the Tory Party hate this Coalition Government.

But Liberal Government is good for the country (if not for you personally). I want more of it

As I said - your comparison with 1977-78 is bogus.

Monksfield

GeoffM said:

Monksfield said:

NickPalmer said:

Trying to do different stuff over the break (like not posting on PB... oh well, I tried) and tried Downton Abbey for the first time for a while. One obvious period howler "Not something he'd want to see on the front page of The Times" - have you seen a copy of the front page of the Times in the 1920s, script-writer (all adverts, no news at all)? In general it felt very artificial - bringing a cliche to life rather than the real thing. I'm going at one remove - from talking to relatives who lived in that sort of world at the time, and reading people like Galsworthy who wrote then - but my impression is that the class thing was far less overt than the series suggests, and the upstairs community and the servants got on with things with only very limited interaction. Polly's piece the other day about the horrors of servant life being played down is probably right too, though the horrors of life for everyone in terms of creature comforts are non-trivial compared with today.

It's only a soap opera, of course, not a documentary. but the old Upstairs, Downstairs BBC series had a better stab at it, I think - parallel plot lines occasionally intersecting.

#slaveryporn

Eh? What does that mean?

It refers to the excitement felt by a certain UK demographic as they froth at the mouth lapping up the sight of a few wealthy and hereditary toffs lording it over the plebs. They generally like to imagine themselves as the Crawleys. In reality, however, whilst a few lucky ones might have been downstairs with the Bates's most of the rest would have been down the mines wielding pick axes with their pet canary.

GeoffM

Monksfield said:

GeoffM said:

Monksfield said:

NickPalmer said:

Trying to do different stuff over the break (like not posting on PB... oh well, I tried) and tried Downton Abbey for the first time for a while. One obvious period howler "Not something he'd want to see on the front page of The Times" - have you seen a copy of the front page of the Times in the 1920s, script-writer (all adverts, no news at all)? In general it felt very artificial - bringing a cliche to life rather than the real thing. I'm going at one remove - from talking to relatives who lived in that sort of world at the time, and reading people like Galsworthy who wrote then - but my impression is that the class thing was far less overt than the series suggests, and the upstairs community and the servants got on with things with only very limited interaction. Polly's piece the other day about the horrors of servant life being played down is probably right too, though the horrors of life for everyone in terms of creature comforts are non-trivial compared with today.

It's only a soap opera, of course, not a documentary. but the old Upstairs, Downstairs BBC series had a better stab at it, I think - parallel plot lines occasionally intersecting.

#slaveryporn

Eh? What does that mean?

It refers to the excitement felt by a certain UK demographic as they froth at the mouth lapping up the sight of a few wealthy and hereditary toffs lording it over the plebs. They generally like to imagine themselves as the Crawleys. In reality, however, whilst a few lucky ones might have been downstairs with the Bates's most of the rest would have been down the mines wielding pick axes with their pet canary.

Oh right - cheers for that ray of sunshine.

MarkSenior

isam said:

MarkSenior said:

AndyJS said:

UKIP got 3.5% in England in 2010. They have a good chance of hitting 20% next time, and that's a big problem for the Tories. Probably more so than Labour.

The chances of UKIP hitting 20% next time is close to zero . You have had too much Xmas spirits

It is amazing that someone would write something as nonsensical as that on a betting site

It is even more amazing that someone who attempts to spin every political story as being favourable to UKIP should have deluded themselves into thinking they have a chance of polling 20% in next year's GE

Charles

antifrank said:

If today is a state of the campaign assessment, I agree with our host that 280 looks challenging for the Conservatives. More than 300 looks unlikely. Given that the Conservatives probably need 300 to stay in power (given that the SNP will strongly prefer a Labour-led government and the Lib Dems may well feel it's time for a change of allegiance), we should be preparing for a Labour-led government.

I am always concerned when I reach the opposite conclusion to our host, but I do on Scotland. When I look at the state of the current polls, I ask myself "is it more likely than not that the SNP will get most seats?" and I answer yes it is. I can see routes back for Labour in Scotland, but they seem firmly odds-against at present. I'm betting accordingly. Any incumbency bounce to overcome that would need to be on pogo sticks.

The way I'm looking at this is to focus on the LibDems in the first place. Round numbers, let's say they lose 30 seats: 10 of those to the Tories and 20 to Labour. If the SNP can make significant inroads to Labour, they might win up to 20 seats (unlikely to be that many, but I think it will be more than the 3-4 that crude looks at UNS suggests). Wales I don't think will make that much of a difference - may be a couple of seats one way or the other. I don't think UKIP will make much of an impact: probably Clacton, and I doubt any others. For simplicity, I'd count Carswell in the Tory-leaning group.

Net result, excluding changes in England, Labour could be up to +20 depending on the performance of the SNP, which means that pre-Tory England they have 260-280 seats. In order to get to 326 they then need to win 50-70 seats. This strikes me as a tall order. Even to form a viable coalition with the LDs (assumed to be on c. 30 seats)

Consequently, my conclusion remains Labour largest party. To form a viable coalition with the LibDems (assumed 30) they need to have 300 [majority of less than 10 not worth the pain of coalition, and don't believe a 3 way deal could work]. To do this they need to win 20-40 seats, which is much more achievable.

My base case: Labour largest party with LD S&C. In moments of sunny optimism (largely based on the EIC principle & that most people may have internalised that, but haven't really applied it to their thinking on how they will vote), I just flip the Tories and Labour in the result

(caveat: I only do fun bets on politics; this thinking is more about overall positioning)

Charles

antifrank said:

For another coalition that the Lib Dems participate in, first the Lib Dem negotiating team would need to reach agreement, then MPs would need to endorse it, then the membership would need to approve it at a special conference.

I agree a formal coalition looks difficult because too many of the members don't like the compromises that are an essential part of government.

Does anyone know the rules on LibDems rules on S&C? Is that something that can be done solely at a parliamentary level? After all it's really just a voting and whipping agreement.

Sunil_Prasannan

MarkSenior said:

isam said:

MarkSenior said:

AndyJS said:

UKIP got 3.5% in England in 2010. They have a good chance of hitting 20% next time, and that's a big problem for the Tories. Probably more so than Labour.

The chances of UKIP hitting 20% next time is close to zero . You have had too much Xmas spirits

It is amazing that someone would write something as nonsensical as that on a betting site

It is even more amazing that someone who attempts to spin every political story as being favourable to UKIP should have deluded themselves into thinking they have a chance of polling 20% in next year's GE

More chance of UKIP polling 20% than the LibDems.

Charles

CD13 said:

stjohn,

"Are you lost then? Did you stumble onto politicalbetting.com by accident?"

Sort of. I stayed for the jokes and the wit, not for the tribal nature of some of the posts.

It won't make a lot of difference to me who wins the election. We're not going to become a communist state or a fascist regime despite the hyperbole of some.

It's rare to have insights from someone who is probably much closer to the general public's attitudes than the nerds that frequent this site (myself included).

I do hope you stay

Charles

PClipp said:

But Liberal Government is good for the country (if not for you personally). I want more of it

I'd agree with you.

Unfortunately the LibDems have a strong streak of SDP, which is the antithesis of liberalism

HYUFD

The Tories clearly need to maintain most of their gains from Labour and add a few from the LDs to ensure they remain at least largest party

HYUFD

Tony Benn, a KGB spy? No, he was far too dangerous for us
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11305971/Tony-Benn-a-KGB-spy-No-he-was-far-too-dangerous-for-us.html

MarqueeMark

richardDodd said:

O/T The Judge..fantastic..as is St Vincent...stunning performances all round.

Just watched A Most Violent Year - very good, with super central performances (although the title will no doubt put off many people who would actually enjoy it because it isn't particularly violent - and piss off people who were expecting a gore-fest).

Also watched Birdman - best film of the year for me so far. An extremely assured piece of cinema. Still plenty to watch though....

Morris_Dancer

Good evening, everyone.

Mr. Charles, I could be wrong, but hasn't Mr. CD13 been here for quite a while?

richardDodd

MM.. it is a tough assignment ..thank heaven there are people willing to do it...Two eps of Homeland here tonight so the screeeners will have to wait until tomorrow..

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Dodd, there aren't two Homeland episodes on tonight, surely?

Which reminds me, Supermodels of SHIELD is on at 7pm, which makes sense (avoids clashing with Avengers Assemble at 8.30pm), but is an hour earlier than usual.

CD13

Mr Dancer,

"Mr. Charles, I could be wrong, but hasn't Mr. CD13 been here for quite a while?"

It certainly seems a long time.

I've never bet on politics but I have had one or two useful racing tips.

A happy new year to you all.

Speedy

MarkSenior said:

isam said:

MarkSenior said:

AndyJS said:

UKIP got 3.5% in England in 2010. They have a good chance of hitting 20% next time, and that's a big problem for the Tories. Probably more so than Labour.

The chances of UKIP hitting 20% next time is close to zero . You have had too much Xmas spirits

It is amazing that someone would write something as nonsensical as that on a betting site

It is even more amazing that someone who attempts to spin every political story as being favourable to UKIP should have deluded themselves into thinking they have a chance of polling 20% in next year's GE

20% perhaps but 18% is not out of the question though.

MikeSmithson

Speedy said:

MarkSenior said:

isam said:

MarkSenior said:

AndyJS said:

UKIP got 3.5% in England in 2010. They have a good chance of hitting 20% next time, and that's a big problem for the Tories. Probably more so than Labour.

The chances of UKIP hitting 20% next time is close to zero . You have had too much Xmas spirits

It is amazing that someone would write something as nonsensical as that on a betting site

It is even more amazing that someone who attempts to spin every political story as being favourable to UKIP should have deluded themselves into thinking they have a chance of polling 20% in next year's GE

20% perhaps but 18% is not out of the question though.

What does it matter? National vote shares are irrelevant. GE15 is about 650 separate seat elections each decided by FPTP. The big question for UKIP is how many of those battles it can win.

PAW

Tony Benn might have been too stupid to be a Soviet spy, but his heart was in the right place - I remember him saying "Now the people have spoken, there is no need for any more elections" - the 76 election I think.

Speedy

"There are just signs in the marginals at least that faced with the prospect of a Miliband government some will return."

About the marginals, many of them are in the Midlands and UKIP has a stronghold there. Although the theory of returning voters might apply, in the Midlands there is far less incentive for a UKIP voter, since UKIP is much closer to 1st place there than most other regions.

richardDodd

MD.. In Italy on Sky there are two eps of Homeland..popcorn and libations are already in place..if it gets boring then I have the Allan Cummings book and Boris's book on Winston..bring it on..

Charles

MikeSmithson said:

Speedy said:

MarkSenior said:

isam said:

MarkSenior said:

AndyJS said:

UKIP got 3.5% in England in 2010. They have a good chance of hitting 20% next time, and that's a big problem for the Tories. Probably more so than Labour.

The chances of UKIP hitting 20% next time is close to zero . You have had too much Xmas spirits

It is amazing that someone would write something as nonsensical as that on a betting site

It is even more amazing that someone who attempts to spin every political story as being favourable to UKIP should have deluded themselves into thinking they have a chance of polling 20% in next year's GE

20% perhaps but 18% is not out of the question though.

What does it matter? National vote shares are irrelevant. GE15 is about 650 separate seat elections each decided by FPTP. The big question for UKIP is how many of those battles it can win.

It matters because of the implications for the Tories

Speedy

MikeSmithson said:

Speedy said:

MarkSenior said:

isam said:

MarkSenior said:

AndyJS said:

UKIP got 3.5% in England in 2010. They have a good chance of hitting 20% next time, and that's a big problem for the Tories. Probably more so than Labour.

The chances of UKIP hitting 20% next time is close to zero . You have had too much Xmas spirits

It is amazing that someone would write something as nonsensical as that on a betting site

It is even more amazing that someone who attempts to spin every political story as being favourable to UKIP should have deluded themselves into thinking they have a chance of polling 20% in next year's GE

20% perhaps but 18% is not out of the question though.

What does it matter? National vote shares are irrelevant. GE15 is about 650 separate seat elections each decided by FPTP. The big question for UKIP is how many of those battles it can win.

In my estimates, anywhere from 9 to 20 seats if the election results are the same as the December opinion polls.

On the low end of 9 seats, we almost know all of them, with an almost near certainty: Boston, Thurrock, Great Yarmouth, Clacton, Castle Point, and some with a high chance: St. Austell, Camborne, Cannock Chase. Thanet North, Thanet South, Great Grimsby, Dudley North.

On the high end of 20 seats add all of the above plus those with a moderate chance:Plymouth Moor View, Rother Valley, Wyre Forest, Walsall North and another 4 seats which could pop up from those that haven't been polled yet.

PClipp

Charles said:

PClipp said:

But Liberal Government is good for the country (if not for you personally). I want more of it

I'd agree with you.

Unfortunately the LibDems have a strong streak of SDP, which is the antithesis of liberalism

Charles said:

PClipp said:

But Liberal Government is good for the country (if not for you personally). I want more of it

I'd agree with you.

Unfortunately the LibDems have a strong streak of SDP, which is the antithesis of liberalism

Do you really mean to say, Charles, that pre-1980 you would have been a Liberal?

Wonders never cease.

fitalass

Guardian - Labour set for a bloodbath in Scotland in general election, poll says
"Traditional Labour heartlands turning to SNP, which could win 45 of 59 Scottish Westminster seats, Guardian/ICM survey finds"

Artist

I think people overestimate the difficulty for the smaller parties to break through and win seats, in recent elections the Greens, Respect and National Health Action have all won seats with low resources and in close elections.

The usual problem for smaller parties nationally is that their vote is spread too evenly to win seats but UKIP do have areas of considerable strength, namely Kent, Essex and the East Midlands.

GeoffM

PClipp said:

Charles said:

PClipp said:

But Liberal Government is good for the country (if not for you personally). I want more of it

I'd agree with you.

Unfortunately the LibDems have a strong streak of SDP, which is the antithesis of liberalism

Charles said:

PClipp said:

But Liberal Government is good for the country (if not for you personally). I want more of it

I'd agree with you.

Unfortunately the LibDems have a strong streak of SDP, which is the antithesis of liberalism

Do you really mean to say, Charles, that pre-1980 you would have been a Liberal?

Wonders never cease.

In the (pre-)1980's they were a bunch of unstable nutters.
In the 1890's, perhaps, when Liberal actually meant liberal would be a very different matter.

HYUFD

Fitalass Not good for Labour, but a smaller SNP lead than recent polls, also a majority are happy with the Smith plans or think they go too far (26%+13%= 39%) while 30% think they do not go far enough suggesting once the Smith Plans are put forward in January the SNP lead may recede a little
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/dec/26/labour-bloodbath-scotland-general-election-2015-snp-westminster?CMP=twt_gu

GeoffM

Sunil_Prasannan said:

MarkSenior said:

isam said:

MarkSenior said:

AndyJS said:

UKIP got 3.5% in England in 2010. They have a good chance of hitting 20% next time, and that's a big problem for the Tories. Probably more so than Labour.

The chances of UKIP hitting 20% next time is close to zero . You have had too much Xmas spirits

It is amazing that someone would write something as nonsensical as that on a betting site

It is even more amazing that someone who attempts to spin every political story as being favourable to UKIP should have deluded themselves into thinking they have a chance of polling 20% in next year's GE

More chance of UKIP polling 20% than the LibDems.

My cat has more chance than the LibDems of polling 20%
...and it's dead.

AlastairMeeks

fitalass said:

Guardian - Labour set for a bloodbath in Scotland in general election, poll says
"Traditional Labour heartlands turning to SNP, which could win 45 of 59 Scottish Westminster seats, Guardian/ICM survey finds"

Another very chunky lead for the SNP. And a handy list of seats to bet on, courtesy of John Curtice. Fortunately, my current seat bets all look Curtice-approved.

TheScreamingEagles

SLAB members, activists and MPs must feel like Private Frazer.

AlastairMeeks

antifrank said:

fitalass said:

Guardian - Labour set for a bloodbath in Scotland in general election, poll says
"Traditional Labour heartlands turning to SNP, which could win 45 of 59 Scottish Westminster seats, Guardian/ICM survey finds"

Another very chunky lead for the SNP. And a handy list of seats to bet on, courtesy of John Curtice. Fortunately, my current seat bets all look Curtice-approved.

NB the graphic is very misleading, using uniform national swing rather than John Curtice's own analysis.

TheScreamingEagles

I thought the UKIP policy was to bar former members of the NF and BNP, but I take the view of Luke 15:7

The Ukip chairman in the Thanet South constituency where Nigel Farage is the party’s candidate at the general election has admitted being a former member of the National Front.

Martyn Heale told the BBC it was “really depressing” to be reminded that he was a member of the racist and neo-fascist NF in the 1970s. “I obviously regret what I did,” he said.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/dec/26/ukip-martyn-heale-former-national-front

TheScreamingEagles

On topic, if England votes next year the same way it did in 2010, and the current North Britain polling pans out, then we're heading for a very Balkanised country.

Time for Regional Governors.

The Governor of Scotland, the Governor of England etc.

TheScreamingEagles

A belated Happy Christmas to all PBers.

Athelwulf

Re Speedy's post, 6:12pm

Dudley North is currently at 7-2 for UKIP. Other constituencies with shorter odds: Dover at 5-2 (was 4-1); Rotherham (Lab) 11-4 (was 3-1, then 5-2); South Basildon 3-1; Louth & Horncastle 5-2 (was 3-1); Folkestone 10-3; Sittingbourne 3-1 and Eastleigh (Lib Dem) 3-1 or 10-3 (although William Hill has this seat at 4-1).

GeoffM

TheScreamingEagles said:

SLAB members, activists and MPs must feel like Private Frazer.

What? Senile and irritating?
That's a bit harsh.

fitalass

Mike, that is quite interesting, but not such a surprise when you think about the Scottish result back at the last GE. Definitely worth noting.

MikeSmithson said:

peter_from_putney said:

MikeSmithson said:

peter_from_putney said:

At the moment I find hard to see how the Tories can get more than 280 seats overall which is the current sell level on the spread markets.

So you're a seller of the Tories at 280 then Mike, no ifs, no buts, no maybes?

(PfP stands by with bated breath for definitive betting view from OGH)

I have a small sell position with SPIN on the Tories at 280 seats. I'm a buyer on the LDs at 29. Not touching LAB because it is impossible to read.

I'm also a seller of SNP ar 21. This is basically on what I understand of private party polling when the name of the incumbent is mentioned. For some reason this has bigger impact in Scotland than elsewhere.

Plato

Great recommendations

*makes mental note*

MarqueeMark said:

richardDodd said:

O/T The Judge..fantastic..as is St Vincent...stunning performances all round.

Just watched A Most Violent Year - very good, with super central performances (although the title will no doubt put off many people who would actually enjoy it because it isn't particularly violent - and piss off people who were expecting a gore-fest).

Also watched Birdman - best film of the year for me so far. An extremely assured piece of cinema. Still plenty to watch though....

TheScreamingEagles

GeoffM said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

SLAB members, activists and MPs must feel like Private Frazer.

What? Senile and irritating?
That's a bit harsh.

Doomed, we're all doomed.

Artist

The Jim Murphy article in the Guardian says Labour are targeting 35% in Scotland.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/dec/26/scottish-labour-jim-murphy-fight-poll-deficit-rival-snp

That seems ambitious as it would indicate a very narrow SNP lead. Something in the region of SNP 37 , Labour 32 seems more realistic to me, with the hope incumbency can save them a few extra seats.