Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Even though Baxter has SNP taking 47 of the 59 Scottish sea

SystemSystem Posts: 12,214
edited January 2015 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Even though Baxter has SNP taking 47 of the 59 Scottish seats his latest projection has LAB just 5 short of a majority

I can’t quite work out how Martin Baxter is handling his monthly predictions given the sharp rise of the SNP. From his latest data, out last night, he appears to have made his usual national computation and then over-ridden the Scottish seat data with his Scotland specific seat calculation.

Read the full story here


«1

Comments

  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,679
    Happy New Year to everyone
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Second!

    The Leaders' New Year Message YouTube hit - 'one take Murphy' out-takes:

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DddMEVUySE
  • "Even though Baxter has SNP taking 47 of the 59 Scottish seats his latest projection has LAB just 5 short of a majority"

    Remind us Mike, just how close was Baxter's final forecast to the actual result in 2010?

    There's no sign as yet unfortunately of Nate Silver producing a VIPER-type GE forecast, although there's still time of course.
    Who knows, we might even be provided with just such a foreceast by the great Smithson Junior himself?
  • scotslassscotslass Posts: 912
    Happy New Year to everyone from Inverness where the celebrations have gone with a swing
  • 16661666 Posts: 72
    We need strong government but will end up with with weakness vulnerable to our enemies we must stand together or be destroyed ?
  • 16661666 Posts: 72
    Politics is probably redundant? How do we survive together ?
  • old_labourold_labour Posts: 3,238
    Happy New Year everyone!
    Just over 125 days until the UK general election.
  • 16661666 Posts: 72
    We do not seem to understand that forces outside our country and probably within seek to destroy our way of life .Politics and differences are redundant . Wake up .We will be strong if we work together .
    We cannot afford to play at politics any more.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    1666 said:

    We do not seem to understand that forces outside our country and probably within seek to destroy our way of life .Politics and differences are redundant . Wake up .We will be strong if we work together .
    We cannot afford to play at politics any more.

    At what point in our history over the past thousand years has the premise of your argument been untrue?

    And yet, we have 'played at politics' and miraculously are still here......
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    1666 said:

    We do not seem to understand that forces outside our country and probably within seek to destroy our way of life .Politics and differences are redundant . Wake up .We will be strong if we work together .
    We cannot afford to play at politics any more.

    What utter bull**** on a new year's morning !

    Anyway Happy New Year to you and everyone else !
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    edited January 2015
    Mike, pure Baxterisation will give those figures. As I have repeatedly shown through the ASSS { Aggregate Sub Samples Surbitonised ], that is what the current polls with UNS are showing. The regional sub swings are less favourable to Labour but my last one was showing Labour winning 304.

    The Tories are being badly hit. In the East, SE, SW they are losing 29 seats to Labour, Midlands & Wales 16, London only 1 [ because of the Greens ]and 21 in the North & Yorks.

    The losses to the SNP [ 32 ] creates a swing of only 16 in the Con - Lab calculations. So, even winning only 9 seats in Scotland, Labour is set to win 304.

    I will make some adjustments for UKIP and LD. Pure regional UNS gives the LD's only 17 seats. But a higher figure for both UKIP and LD actually increases the Labour - Con difference.

    Of course, as you say, the Tory poll figures themselves maybe wrong. But in 2010, if I remember correctly, the pollsters were overestimating the Tory figure.

    BTW, the bookies are showing Labour winning 297.

  • audreyanneaudreyanne Posts: 1,376
    surbiton said:



    Of course, as you say, the Tory poll figures themselves maybe wrong. But in 2010, if I remember correctly, the pollsters were overestimating the Tory figure.

    Since 2010 9 out of every 10 polls has overstated Labour's share of the vote against the actual outcomes at respective by-elections and europeans. That's not wishful thinking, it's fact.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549

    surbiton said:



    Of course, as you say, the Tory poll figures themselves maybe wrong. But in 2010, if I remember correctly, the pollsters were overestimating the Tory figure.

    Since 2010 9 out of every 10 polls has overstated Labour's share of the vote against the actual outcomes at respective by-elections and europeans. That's not wishful thinking, it's fact.
    Labour voters don't turnout in Mickey Mouse polls. It is only one which matters. How many by elections have Labour lost apart from Bradford West which is Galloway's anyway whose attention span is very limited.
  • audreyanneaudreyanne Posts: 1,376
    edited January 2015
    surbiton said:

    surbiton said:



    Of course, as you say, the Tory poll figures themselves maybe wrong. But in 2010, if I remember correctly, the pollsters were overestimating the Tory figure.

    Since 2010 9 out of every 10 polls has overstated Labour's share of the vote against the actual outcomes at respective by-elections and europeans. That's not wishful thinking, it's fact.
    Labour voters don't turnout in Mickey Mouse polls. It is only one which matters. How many by elections have Labour lost apart from Bradford West which is Galloway's anyway whose attention span is very limited.
    That's a rather arrogant response and based on an anachronism. Labour in opposition should be winning by elections and should have performed better than they did at the european elections. You are basing your unsubstantiated thoughts on when Labour were in power from 1997 to 2010. Governing parties are the ones who should have difficulty getting out their vote at what you, somewhat mockingly, call mickey mouse polls. Opposition parties with pretensions to power should be galvanised and galvanising.

    The fact remains: the Labour share of the vote has been over-estimated by 9 out of every 10 polls this parliament sometimes, incidentally, by substantial margins. The last time this happened was in the run up to 1992 ...
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549

    surbiton said:

    surbiton said:



    Of course, as you say, the Tory poll figures themselves maybe wrong. But in 2010, if I remember correctly, the pollsters were overestimating the Tory figure.

    Since 2010 9 out of every 10 polls has overstated Labour's share of the vote against the actual outcomes at respective by-elections and europeans. That's not wishful thinking, it's fact.
    Labour voters don't turnout in Mickey Mouse polls. It is only one which matters. How many by elections have Labour lost apart from Bradford West which is Galloway's anyway whose attention span is very limited.
    That's a rather arrogant response and based on an anachronism. Labour in opposition should be winning by elections and should have performed better than they did at the european elections. You are basing your unsubstantiated thoughts on when Labour were in power from 1997 to 2010. Governing parties are the ones who should have difficulty getting out their vote at what you, somewhat mockingly, call mickey mouse polls. Opposition parties with pretensions to power should be galvanised and galvanising.

    The fact remains: the Labour share of the vote has been over-estimated by 9 out of every 10 polls this parliament sometimes, incidentally, by substantial margins. The last time this happened was in the run up to 1992 ...
    So you have reached your last wish. The 1992 polls. Two words spring to mind.

    1. Clutch

    2. Straw

  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    surbiton said:

    surbiton said:



    Of course, as you say, the Tory poll figures themselves maybe wrong. But in 2010, if I remember correctly, the pollsters were overestimating the Tory figure.

    Since 2010 9 out of every 10 polls has overstated Labour's share of the vote against the actual outcomes at respective by-elections and europeans. That's not wishful thinking, it's fact.
    Labour voters don't turnout in Mickey Mouse polls. It is only one which matters. How many by elections have Labour lost apart from Bradford West which is Galloway's anyway whose attention span is very limited.
    That's a rather arrogant response and based on an anachronism. Labour in opposition should be winning by elections and should have performed better than they did at the european elections. You are basing your unsubstantiated thoughts on when Labour were in power from 1997 to 2010. Governing parties are the ones who should have difficulty getting out their vote at what you, somewhat mockingly, call mickey mouse polls. Opposition parties with pretensions to power should be galvanised and galvanising.

    The fact remains: the Labour share of the vote has been over-estimated by 9 out of every 10 polls this parliament sometimes, incidentally, by substantial margins. The last time this happened was in the run up to 1992 ...
    Tell that to IDS. Iain Duncan Smith was defenestrated because of low opinion poll ratings, despite the party doing well at the ballot box. What was that guff about Tory backbenchers being the most sophisticated electorate in the world?
  • audreyanneaudreyanne Posts: 1,376
    edited January 2015
    surbiton said:

    surbiton said:

    surbiton said:



    Of course, as you say, the Tory poll figures themselves maybe wrong. But in 2010, if I remember correctly, the pollsters were overestimating the Tory figure.

    Since 2010 9 out of every 10 polls has overstated Labour's share of the vote against the actual outcomes at respective by-elections and europeans. That's not wishful thinking, it's fact.
    Labour voters don't turnout in Mickey Mouse polls. It is only one which matters. How many by elections have Labour lost apart from Bradford West which is Galloway's anyway whose attention span is very limited.
    That's a rather arrogant response and based on an anachronism. Labour in opposition should be winning by elections and should have performed better than they did at the european elections. You are basing your unsubstantiated thoughts on when Labour were in power from 1997 to 2010. Governing parties are the ones who should have difficulty getting out their vote at what you, somewhat mockingly, call mickey mouse polls. Opposition parties with pretensions to power should be galvanised and galvanising.

    The fact remains: the Labour share of the vote has been over-estimated by 9 out of every 10 polls this parliament sometimes, incidentally, by substantial margins. The last time this happened was in the run up to 1992 ...
    So you have reached your last wish. The 1992 polls. Two words spring to mind.

    1. Clutch

    2. Straw

    No, I think the Conservatives will win outright regardless of comparisons with 1992, based on a series of factors which are much more favourable to them now than back then. I was make a point of comparison, that's all, and one you have failed to address. Indeed you haven't addressed anything I wrote, presumably because you now see you weren't right.

    9 out every 10 polls this parliament have overstated the Labour share of the vote.

    DecrepitJohn no offence but I've no idea what you're talking about to be honest. IDS was removed because he was unelectable. Like EdM.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    Let's not forget that the Tories have been overstated in the majority of by-election polls this parliament. Remember Eastleigh, Corby, Oldham E, Feltham etc.

    In Eastleigh none of the polls even got that they would end up third and the final Survation had them in the lead 8% ahead of what they actually got.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,034

    "Even though Baxter has SNP taking 47 of the 59 Scottish seats his latest projection has LAB just 5 short of a majority"

    Remind us Mike, just how close was Baxter's final forecast to the actual result in 2010?

    There's no sign as yet unfortunately of Nate Silver producing a VIPER-type GE forecast, although there's still time of course.
    Who knows, we might even be provided with just such a foreceast by the great Smithson Junior himself?

    Didn't Silver get the results spectacularly wrong? I seem to recall him predicting ~100 seats for the Lib Dems!
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,034
    FPT
    Indigo said:

    Classic article in The Economist

    http://www.economist.com/node/7884654?fsrc=scn/tw/eoy14/ar/welcomeaboard

    Fear of flying
    Welcome aboard
    In-flight announcements are not entirely truthful. What might an honest one sound like?

    “GOOD morning, ladies and gentlemen. We are delighted to welcome you aboard Veritas Airways, the airline that tells it like it is. Please ensure that your seat belt is fastened, your seat back is upright and your tray-table is stowed. At Veritas Airways, your safety is our first priority. Actually, that is not quite true: if it were, our seats would be rear-facing, like those in military aircraft, since they are safer in the event of an emergency landing. But then hardly anybody would buy our tickets and we would go bust.
    Your life-jacket can be found under your seat, but please do not remove it now. In fact, do not bother to look for it at all. In the event of a landing on water, an unprecedented miracle will have occurred, because in the history of aviation the number of wide-bodied aircraft that have made successful landings on water is zero. This aircraft is equipped with inflatable slides that detach to form life rafts, not that it makes any difference. Please remove high-heeled shoes before using the slides. We might as well add that space helmets and anti-gravity belts should also be removed, since even to mention the use of the slides as rafts is to enter the realm of science fiction.

    Tell that to the people on US 1549 who crash landed on the Hudson. ;)
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,709
    Re RobD and his FPT post.

    I was, many years ago on a Eastern European plane. Around take-off from London the stewardess, while giving her little speech said “Part of this flight is over water. However, due to the excellent constrauction of thgis aircraft, you will not need life-jackets!"
  • The 2015 Bet: (Part A)

    FluffyThought's has decided - well a couple of months ago I did - that it is not fair to offer others bets that they cannot win. So, with a very important UK election approaching (well, outwith Scotland), I am willing to offer three (plus one more) bets. These bets will be guaranteed loss, simple but will fund a worthy cause. Let's start with the latter:

    All of my bets are not for personal enrichment (well, apart from when dealing with a plastic-swede). Therefore my nominated charity - subject to adjustments described below - will be:

    FATJUGS (1)

    The bet is as follows:
    I will wager that - in accordance with Al-Beeb's assessment of British (GB-only) votes - sorry Ulster-Scots - the Conservative Party will attain 34% of the vote. (2)

    For each whole rounded (natural not accountantcy/Microsoft) integer either way each party will agree - based upon their position - to pay £10 to FATJUGS if they are wrong. The maximum that they can lose will be fixed at 5 integer points (ie. no individial bet should see a party to that bet out-of-pocket by more than £50).

    To wager the bet - of which there will be three (or four) - the party will accept or reject using the following terms: (3)

    Bet X - where X is the number of the bet - should be placed as thus:
    X-Lower: Fluffy, you are wrong and I think the Tories will get a lower poll than that.
    X-Even: Fluffy, you have embarrassed the professional puntah enough!
    X-Higher: Fluffy, you really have not understood the concept of 'swingback'...!
    So to the bets on offer:
    Bet 1:
    With Pulpstar.
    Bet 2:
    With Junior.
    Bet 3:
    First to accept amongst OGH, PfP or PtP.
    Bet 4:
    With tim (subject to regular rantings/postings from acceptance until final settlement).
  • FluffyThoughtsFluffyThoughts Posts: 2,420
    edited January 2015
    The 2015 bet: (Part B )

    Obviously I need to arrange a 'neutral' adjudication team (as Bet 3 excludes the grown-ups). I have already intimated with AntiFrank that he is a party that I would like to perform such a role but I would also request to have a second, counter-balance to his shrewd mind. I would also invite young Charles to be an adjudicator. NOTE: Both have now accepted.(5)

    Bets are open on January 1st 2015. Bets to be agreed as soon as possible. (4)

    Puntahs, place you bets...! (6)


    1 FATJUGS: Future Accruals Towards Junior's Usually Good Servers. Junior is exempt from this contribution and must offer any payments to The Royal British Legion (excluding the weird Scots' branch) or the Royal National LifeBoat Institution. All bets using the FATJUGS meme must be funding for policitalbetting.com unless agreed with me before hand.

    2 BenM considers this the Conservatives party ceiling. But he believes in double-dip and triple-dip recessions: Bless!

    3 Sorry if anyone feels excluded. My bets are not copyrighted. Feel free to build a friendly, fund-raiser solution amongst yourself. :)

    4 Adjudication will include: Acceptance and recording of each bet according to the response; allocation or re-allocation of bets if they become available (7); and ensuring settlement based upon the integer/unitary GB-wide figures published by Al-Beeb. These figures should be settled no later than seven-days after the poll closes with payments made subsequently.

    5 Parties involved in these bets will have somewhat earlier awareness. Same rules apply. [As intimated to AntiFrank this message will be IM'ed - where possible - on 31st December 2014.]

    6 All parties to IM FluffyThoughts, AntiFrank and Charles regarding their response. Use it or lose it but do not exercise your bet until 2015...!

    7 If any bet (other than bet 4) is not accepted then other listed puntahs can accept to take the bet. No listed puntah can accept more than one bet. If the bet - other than number 4 - remains untaken after 2nd January 2015 then the bet can be opened to the wider demos of politicalbetting.com.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,034

    Re RobD and his FPT post.

    I was, many years ago on a Eastern European plane. Around take-off from London the stewardess, while giving her little speech said “Part of this flight is over water. However, due to the excellent constrauction of thgis aircraft, you will not need life-jackets!"

    Comforting ;)
  • Paul_Mid_BedsPaul_Mid_Beds Posts: 1,409
    edited January 2015
    Despite Baxter changing his SNP methodoology he still has UKIP as 0 seats despite Carswell in Clacton being a nailed on UKIP certainty whatever happens elsewhere

    If I Baxter C28, L28, UKIP24 & LD10 it gives UKIP 4 seats

    Those 4 UKIP seats are Aberdeenshire West and Kincardine, Argyll & Bute, Cambridge & Gordon.

    This makes it rather difficult for me to take Baxter seriously.

  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Red Dwarf gets the subject of air safety spot on:

    http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3Sq-s7V_qg
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Oh, and Happy New Year all.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,972
    edited January 2015
    From Scotland........The best version yet recorded Mairi Campbell


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urDzywYAO0I
  • audreyanneaudreyanne Posts: 1,376

    Let's not forget that the Tories have been overstated in the majority of by-election polls this parliament. Remember Eastleigh, Corby, Oldham E, Feltham etc.

    In Eastleigh none of the polls even got that they would end up third and the final Survation had them in the lead 8% ahead of what they actually got.

    I haven't got time to go back through them all today as I'm working but I'm afraid I doubt this is true Mike, sorry. I know for instance that at Newark opinion polls stated the Conservatives as:

    36% (Survation)
    42% (Lord Ashcroft)
    (I think there was a third poll but can't find it right now.)

    The Conservatives won it with 45%.
  • audreyanneaudreyanne Posts: 1,376

    Despite Baxter changing his SNP methodoology he still has UKIP as 0 seats despite Carswell in Clacton being a nailed on UKIP certainty whatever happens elsewhere

    If I Baxter C28, L28, UKIP24 & LD10 it gives UKIP 4 seats

    Those 4 UKIP seats are Aberdeenshire West and Kincardine, Argyll & Bute, Cambridge & Gordon.

    This makes it rather difficult for me to take Baxter seriously.

    I agree with you that Baxter has had his day. The current system has rendered it redundant.

    However, I think you're pushing it to say Carswell is 'nailed on.' I think he will win, but when the General Election bandwagon swings into gear it may become more uncomfortable for him. I think I'm right in saying no equivalent question to that which was asked at Rochester was asked at Clacton viz. 'and how would you vote at the 2015 GE' when, as we know, it showed Reckless will lose.
  • audreyanneaudreyanne Posts: 1,376
    edited January 2015
    By the way, those of you who want to see where Labour's lead went in 2013-2014, this graph is, well, graphic:

    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk
  • audreyanneaudreyanne Posts: 1,376
    Wythenshawe & Sale East:

    Lord Ashcroft Cons 14%
    Actual share 14.5%

    So another one where this wasn't true.

    I really must stop ;)
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300


    DecrepitJohn no offence but I've no idea what you're talking about to be honest. IDS was removed because he was unelectable. Like EdM.

    No, IDS's Conservatives actually performed quite well at actual elections: better than opinion polls suggested. This is, of course, the case you are making now to downplay Labour's chances in May.
  • audreyanneaudreyanne Posts: 1,376
    edited January 2015
    European elections:

    Final polls on Conservative share:

    YouGov 22%
    Opinium 21%
    Survation 23%
    TNS 21%
    ComRes 20%
    ICM 26% (fieldwork 7-10 days before)

    Actual Conservative share: 24%

    In fact of the 43 European election opinion polls in 2014 only 11% overstated the actual Conservative share result, and all of these were before the final week. http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/european-elections

    Quod erat demonstrandum
  • audreyanneaudreyanne Posts: 1,376
    edited January 2015


    DecrepitJohn no offence but I've no idea what you're talking about to be honest. IDS was removed because he was unelectable. Like EdM.

    No, IDS's Conservatives actually performed quite well at actual elections: better than opinion polls suggested. This is, of course, the case you are making now to downplay Labour's chances in May.
    No, that's not what I meant. We realised he was unelectable so removed him. Sometimes you just have to take a step back and ask yourself how someone will go down with voters who matter. That's why toxic Michael Gove was chopped. We're quite good at doing that. It's one of Labour's biggest weaknesses that they can't remove a lame duck leader.
  • audreyanneaudreyanne Posts: 1,376
    Got to go now but p.s. Mike I'll post you a very full apology if I'm wrong about the Conservative and Labour shares vs opinion polls in May :)
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,972
    edited January 2015
    Audreyanne

    "Actual Conservative share 24%"

    Actual Conservative share 23%
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746

    "Even though Baxter has SNP taking 47 of the 59 Scottish seats his latest projection has LAB just 5 short of a majority"

    Remind us Mike, just how close was Baxter's final forecast to the actual result in 2010?

    There's no sign as yet unfortunately of Nate Silver producing a VIPER-type GE forecast, although there's still time of course.
    Who knows, we might even be provided with just such a foreceast by the great Smithson Junior himself?

    2010 prediction: Con 297, Lab 235, LD 86
    2010 result: Con 307, Lab 258, LD 57

    http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/trackrecord.html
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    edited January 2015
    antifrank said:
    "Labour has now identified at least 17 seats where it is at risk of failing to take the constituency because the Green party is chomping through their core leftwing support. "

    Anyone know which seats these are?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,961
    Good morning, everyone.

    Ended up watching Kind Hearts and Coronets (latter half, anyway) last night/this morning. Rather a nice comedy.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,972
    edited January 2015
    audreyanne

    "In fact of the 43 European election opinion polls in 2014 only 11% overstated the actual Conservative share result, and all of these were before the final week. "

    Actually 22 out of 49 got the percentage right or OVERSTATED it........

    (New Year's Day-What have I turned into??!!)
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,961
    F1: handy list of dates here:
    http://www1.skysports.com/f1/news/22058/9520366/f1-in-2015-the-driver-line-ups-car-launches-and-test-race-schedules-for-next-season-your-one-stop-run-down-of-the-essential-details-for-the-new-year

    Basically -
    January - sod all
    February - all 3 tests [1 day in March]
    March - racing starts halfway through

    I expect Korea to be dropped and the order may be altered after that.
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    Happy New Year every one.


  • VerulamiusVerulamius Posts: 1,550
    Happy election year.
  • peter_from_putneypeter_from_putney Posts: 6,956
    edited January 2015

    "Even though Baxter has SNP taking 47 of the 59 Scottish seats his latest projection has LAB just 5 short of a majority"

    Remind us Mike, just how close was Baxter's final forecast to the actual result in 2010?

    There's no sign as yet unfortunately of Nate Silver producing a VIPER-type GE forecast, although there's still time of course.
    Who knows, we might even be provided with just such a foreceast by the great Smithson Junior himself?

    2010 prediction: Con 297, Lab 235, LD 86
    2010 result: Con 307, Lab 258, LD 57

    http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/trackrecord.html


    Thanks for that Dave - little did I realise that this info was staring me in the face!
    A very good forecast by Baxter, expecially so as regards Tory seats.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,566
    RobD said:

    Re RobD and his FPT post.

    I was, many years ago on a Eastern European plane. Around take-off from London the stewardess, while giving her little speech said “Part of this flight is over water. However, due to the excellent constrauction of thgis aircraft, you will not need life-jackets!"

    Comforting ;)
    Great stuff. There's an engaging small South African airline which is a bit like this. I've only flown with them once (because I've only been to frica once) but their welcome announcement said things like, "If you haven;'t worked out how seatbelts work, you probably never will." It was good fun, like the estate agent that highlights problems in their properties (giving the impression that they do bargains), and I didn't honestly feel any less safe than usual.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,730

    Good morning, everyone.

    Ended up watching Kind Hearts and Coronets (latter half, anyway) last night/this morning. Rather a nice comedy.

    My favourite moment is when General D'Ascoyne gets a jar of caviar (complete with hidden bomb) and says 'Used to get a lot of this stuff in the Crimea. One thing those Ruskies do really well,' and digs his knife in - BANG!

    As you can doubtless tell, I am easily amused...but the whole of it's very good, with surely career-best performances from both Price and especially Guinness, and a very clever punch line at the end set up by, of all people, Arthur Lowe in his first comedy role.

    Off on a trip today to Bosworth Field, so just dropped in to say Happy New Year to all.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    antifrank said:
    "Labour has now identified at least 17 seats where it is at risk of failing to take the constituency because the Green party is chomping through their core leftwing support. "

    Anyone know which seats these are?
    This has been floating around since October but I haven't seen a list.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,961
    Mr. Ydoethur, that was quite a good moment. The admiral's drowning and the argument with drunken Lionel were also rather entertaining.

    I didn't realise that chap at the end was Arthur Lowe.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746
    edited January 2015
    antifrank said:

    antifrank said:
    "Labour has now identified at least 17 seats where it is at risk of failing to take the constituency because the Green party is chomping through their core leftwing support. "

    Anyone know which seats these are?
    This has been floating around since October but I haven't seen a list.
    Election Data highlighted 10 Green-friendly seats on demographics, but 4 of those are Labour held.

    http://www.conservativehome.com/leftwatch/2014/09/how-much-of-a-threat-do-the-green-party-offer-to-labour-and-the-lib-dems.html
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,341

    Mr. Ydoethur, that was quite a good moment. The admiral's drowning and the argument with drunken Lionel were also rather entertaining.

    I didn't realise that chap at the end was Arthur Lowe.

    The drowning was, perhaps surprisingly, based on a real incident, of course. Richard Hough's 'Admirals in Collision' is an oldie but goodie book on the sinking of HMS Victoria.

  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 14,466
    edited January 2015
    Happy New Year to everyone.

    Those that watched Kind Hearts And Coronets made a better start than most.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,961
    Mr. Punter, I was fortunate to find it. After reading the third book of Caesar's Gallic War, I decided to try some television and pressed the wrong button, which delivered me to BBC4.

    Mr. Carnyx, surprisingly, I knew that [I checked Wikipedia for the film an hour or so ago]. Odd how perhaps the least convincing of deaths was based on a real event.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498

    The 2015 bet: (Part B )

    Obviously I need to arrange a 'neutral' adjudication team (as Bet 3 excludes the grown-ups). I have already intimated with AntiFrank that he is a party that I would like to perform such a role but I would also request to have a second, counter-balance to his shrewd mind. I would also invite young Charles to be an adjudicator. NOTE: Both have now accepted.(5)

    Bets are open on January 1st 2015. Bets to be agreed as soon as possible. (4)

    Puntahs, place you bets...! (6)


    1 FATJUGS: Future Accruals Towards Junior's Usually Good Servers. Junior is exempt from this contribution and must offer any payments to The Royal British Legion (excluding the weird Scots' branch) or the Royal National LifeBoat Institution. All bets using the FATJUGS meme must be funding for policitalbetting.com unless agreed with me before hand.

    2 BenM considers this the Conservatives party ceiling. But he believes in double-dip and triple-dip recessions: Bless!

    3 Sorry if anyone feels excluded. My bets are not copyrighted. Feel free to build a friendly, fund-raiser solution amongst yourself. :)

    4 Adjudication will include: Acceptance and recording of each bet according to the response; allocation or re-allocation of bets if they become available (7); and ensuring settlement based upon the integer/unitary GB-wide figures published by Al-Beeb. These figures should be settled no later than seven-days after the poll closes with payments made subsequently.

    5 Parties involved in these bets will have somewhat earlier awareness. Same rules apply. [As intimated to AntiFrank this message will be IM'ed - where possible - on 31st December 2014.]

    6 All parties to IM FluffyThoughts, AntiFrank and Charles regarding their response. Use it or lose it but do not exercise your bet until 2015...!

    7 If any bet (other than bet 4) is not accepted then other listed puntahs can accept to take the bet. No listed puntah can accept more than one bet. If the bet - other than number 4 - remains untaken after 2nd January 2015 then the bet can be opened to the wider demos of politicalbetting.com.

    usual nasty racist verbal diahorrea comments from the little Englander. Hopefully you lose every bet which is very likely.. I assume a Scot pulled your pigtails a few years ago to make you such a bitter and twisted twerp.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    47 seats is equal to the result of SMAPS at a 2000 vote confidence level.
  • Good morning everyone and wishing a happy and bet winning 2015 to all PBers.
    On the subject of air safety, it would be nice if more of the announcements could be like this one
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lqh8e2KYIrU
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821
    edited January 2015
    Happy New Year to all.

    That Dan Hodges article is very good indeed (and the Photoshop is fun too!). Punters betting on the GE would do well to heed it, especially these wise words:

    [Nicola Sturgeon] will not do anything to jeopardise her party’s chances of maintaining power after the Scottish parliamentary elections which follow in 2016. To win those elections she needs to maintain clear yellow and black water between herself and Labour, and she has no intention of becoming Scotland’s Nick Clegg.

    I think that Dan is slightly wrong in that the SNP might informally prop up a Labour minority government for a while, extracting such pork-barrel as they can and causing as much pain and disruption in Westminster as they can. However, he is absolutely right that the SNP's focus is on Scottish politics, not UK politics. And, in Scotland, the SNP's enemy is Labour.

    Go figure.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    malcolmg said:

    The 2015 bet: (Part B )

    Obviously I need to arrange a 'neutral' adjudication team (as Bet 3 excludes the grown-ups). I have already intimated with AntiFrank that he is a party that I would like to perform such a role but I would also request to have a second, counter-balance to his shrewd mind. I would also invite young Charles to be an adjudicator. NOTE: Both have now accepted.(5)

    Bets are open on January 1st 2015. Bets to be agreed as soon as possible. (4)

    Puntahs, place you bets...! (6)


    1 FATJUGS: Future Accruals Towards Junior's Usually Good Servers. Junior is exempt from this contribution and must offer any payments to The Royal British Legion (excluding the weird Scots' branch) or the Royal National LifeBoat Institution. All bets using the FATJUGS meme must be funding for policitalbetting.com unless agreed with me before hand.

    2 BenM considers this the Conservatives party ceiling. But he believes in double-dip and triple-dip recessions: Bless!

    3 Sorry if anyone feels excluded. My bets are not copyrighted. Feel free to build a friendly, fund-raiser solution amongst yourself. :)

    4 Adjudication will include: Acceptance and recording of each bet according to the response; allocation or re-allocation of bets if they become available (7); and ensuring settlement based upon the integer/unitary GB-wide figures published by Al-Beeb. These figures should be settled no later than seven-days after the poll closes with payments made subsequently.

    5 Parties involved in these bets will have somewhat earlier awareness. Same rules apply. [As intimated to AntiFrank this message will be IM'ed - where possible - on 31st December 2014.]

    6 All parties to IM FluffyThoughts, AntiFrank and Charles regarding their response. Use it or lose it but do not exercise your bet until 2015...!

    7 If any bet (other than bet 4) is not accepted then other listed puntahs can accept to take the bet. No listed puntah can accept more than one bet. If the bet - other than number 4 - remains untaken after 2nd January 2015 then the bet can be opened to the wider demos of politicalbetting.com.

    usual nasty racist verbal diahorrea comments from the little Englander. Hopefully you lose every bet which is very likely.. I assume a Scot pulled your pigtails a few years ago to make you such a bitter and twisted twerp.
    Happy New Yr Malcolm G/ When it comes to bitter and twisted, your prognostications before and after the vote say it all.
    You are like a spoilt child who has had his favourite toy taken away.

    Suck it up. You lost.
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584
    edited January 2015

    Happy
    New
    Year

    And may the odds be ever in your favour.

  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    Square Root.. As usual I received literally hundreds of good wishes from people around the globe..who all wished me well for 2015.. MG wished for me to have a crap 2015...sort of sums him up.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,928
    OGH talks about the strength of the Labour brand. I'd see it as the opposite, the weakness of the Tory one. There are quite a few people who have little time for Ed Miliband or the Labour party but really really don't like the Tories. In an election that matters they'll do what's needed to stop Dave. I'm probably in this category myself now given where the Lib Dems have headed under Clegg. But not living in a marginal I'm less motivated.
  • calumcalum Posts: 3,046
    Alistair said:

    47 seats is equal to the result of SMAPS at a 2000 vote confidence level.

    If you're looking for ways to refine SMAPS, Table 16 in the recent Survation poll has good regional breakdowns and analyses current party support compared to Indyref voting patterns.

    http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/December-Scotland-Daily-Record-Scottish-Voting-Intention-ONE.pdf
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498

    malcolmg said:

    The 2015 bet: (Part B )

    Obviously I need to arrange a 'neutral' adjudication team (as Bet 3 excludes the grown-ups). I have already intimated with AntiFrank that he is a party that I would like to perform such a role but I would also request to have a second, counter-balance to his shrewd mind. I would also invite young Charles to be an adjudicator. NOTE: Both have now accepted.(5)

    Bets are open on January 1st 2015. Bets to be agreed as soon as possible. (4)

    Puntahs, place you bets...! (6)


    1 FATJUGS: Future Accruals Towards Junior's Usually Good Servers. Junior is exempt from this contribution and must offer any payments to The Royal British Legion (excluding the weird Scots' branch) or the Royal National LifeBoat Institution. All bets using the FATJUGS meme must be funding for policitalbetting.com unless agreed with me before hand.

    2 BenM considers this the Conservatives party ceiling. But he believes in double-dip and triple-dip recessions: Bless!

    6 All parties to IM FluffyThoughts, AntiFrank and Charles regarding their response. Use it or lose it but do not exercise your bet until 2015...!

    7 If any bet (other than bet 4) is not accepted then other listed puntahs can accept to take the bet. No listed puntah can accept more than one bet. If the bet - other than number 4 - remains untaken after 2nd January 2015 then the bet can be opened to the wider demos of politicalbetting.com.

    usual nasty racist verbal diahorrea comments from the little Englander. Hopefully you lose every bet which is very likely.. I assume a Scot pulled your pigtails a few years ago to make you such a bitter and twisted twerp.
    Happy New Yr Malcolm G/ When it comes to bitter and twisted, your prognostications before and after the vote say it all.
    You are like a spoilt child who has had his favourite toy taken away.

    Suck it up. You lost.
    Happy New Year to you.H
    however , what are you wittering on about I lost. It was a political vote which did not result in an outcome that I wanted, but had nothing to do with my comment on the odious racist Fluffer, and is long gone. His hatred of Scottish people oozes out of every post, he is a cretin and deserves to be pointed out.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,989
    Morning all :)

    First, belated New Year greetings to all and especially to Mike and Robert who perform miracles (I imagine) at times to keep the show on the road. I can only hope that successfully playing the markets does enough to a) keep the site going and b) keep OGH in a style to which he has become accustomed.

    The Hodges piece is the usual package of anti-Miliband vitriol (which will make it popular with the majority on here) and a crude attempt to undermine the potential Lab-SNP "deal" (if there is one on offer). If the sticking point is going to be Trident, it would be just as much a problem for any Con-SNP deal so presumably that's out of the window as well.

    I would not be so dismissive as Hodges for the possibility for a Lab-LD deal though my personal view has long been that the LDs won't want to go back into Coalition unless they have done so well as to make Coalition 2 (with the Tories) look viable.

    The inability of some journalists to "see" Ed Miliband as Prime Minister is staggering. There's absolutely no evidence the man wouldn't make a competent Prime Minister - Cameron did some pretty daft things as LOTO (it goes with the territory) but that didn't stop him. If the only criteria for judging a Prime Minister is the way someone looks or eats a bacon sandwich, we are well past the need for electoral reform. The Labour administration on offer might not be to the taste of many on here but I've few concerns on that score and they would, as a group, be more experienced in Government than either the incoming 1997 or 2010 administrations.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498

    Square Root.. As usual I received literally hundreds of good wishes from people around the globe..who all wished me well for 2015.. MG wished for me to have a crap 2015...sort of sums him up.

    As ever doddery you forget the personal insults you posted on me first. You are a vile odious creature, happy to play the bigshot insulting people but a big jessie who cannot take it in return. Crawl back under your rock.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    mg.. point made ..what a prat.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,928

    Happy New Year to all.

    That Dan Hodges article is very good indeed (and the Photoshop is fun too!). Punters betting on the GE would do well to heed it, especially these wise words:

    [Nicola Sturgeon] will not do anything to jeopardise her party’s chances of maintaining power after the Scottish parliamentary elections which follow in 2016. To win those elections she needs to maintain clear yellow and black water between herself and Labour, and she has no intention of becoming Scotland’s Nick Clegg.

    I think that Dan is slightly wrong in that the SNP might informally prop up a Labour minority government for a while, extracting such pork-barrel as they can and causing as much pain and disruption in Westminster as they can. However, he is absolutely right that the SNP's focus is on Scottish politics, not UK politics. And, in Scotland, the SNP's enemy is Labour.

    Go figure.

    But Hodges is full of what the SNP won't do. What he can't answer is what they WILL do. They will be in a difficult position. As you say, Labour are their rivals. But at the same time they've pretty much guaranteed they won't prop up the Tories and many of their supporters would be livid if they did. Unless they could extract something pretty meaningful....

    However if Trident is the big thing for Sturgeon, I can't see the Tories offering that. As for more powers, it may be tempting, but would the Tories do that without demanding the ditching of Barnett? Cameron has said that he would make sure to get any deal past his party in some official capacity this time. Are the Tories really hungry enough for power? A Lab/SNP deal might look unlikely, until you look at the alternative. More Tory wishful thinking methinks.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    malcolmg said:

    Square Root.. As usual I received literally hundreds of good wishes from people around the globe..who all wished me well for 2015.. MG wished for me to have a crap 2015...sort of sums him up.

    As ever doddery you forget the personal insults you posted on me first. You are a vile odious creature, happy to play the bigshot insulting people but a big jessie who cannot take it in return. Crawl back under your rock.
    Oh dear Malc , you think any of the dross you post frightens anyone.. if you do, you should think again.. as I said, suck it up, you lost.... in case you need reminding.. YOU LOST..
    That's why you post all the bile..
  • Not very difficult to tell the difference between our Malcolm and a ray of sunshine this morning
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,928
    stodge - it's worth reminding ourselves that most of the Press is centre right so it's hardly surprising Ed gets written off by most of them. Of course New Labour was treated reasonably for a while, but it would have been seriously going against the grain of public opinion given where the polls were in the 90s. And if Tony Blair is the best the other side can do, you might feel you've basically won anyway. It's not the same with Miliband.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,578

    OGH talks about the strength of the Labour brand. I'd see it as the opposite, the weakness of the Tory one. There are quite a few people who have little time for Ed Miliband or the Labour party but really really don't like the Tories. In an election that matters they'll do what's needed to stop Dave.

    I think that hits to the heart of the matter. It's the only way to reconcile that many people, even Labour supporters, are unenthused about Ed M and pessimistic about Labour's prospects, despite events having to fall very fortuitously for the Tories to prevent at least a Labour plurality.

    I might even go so far as to say that this might be leading to the Labour vote/seats being understated in many predictions, as understandably many focus on Labour's difficulties, and particularly Ed M's, to the exclusion of how utterly broken and weak the Tory brand currently is even now, and even leading to a shy Labour effect.

    As far as I can see, given Tory weakness - even if huge numbers of UKIPers return 'home', it probably wouldn't be enough to do more than level peg with Labour - only an SNP surge can prevent an outright Labour win - I think Baxter's prediction probably overstates how many seats Labour would win overall if they lost that many to the SNP - and even then, some form of arrangement would get Labour in power. Sure, a formal coalition is unlikely, and it would probably be very limited, but the SNP will not permit a Tory government if they can prevent it - and for some reason stopping Tory austerity is essential, even though Labour austerity will bite just as hard to those it impacts - so something will come up to sort that out.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821
    edited January 2015
    @FrankBooth - What the SNP will do, if they are given a chance, is cause the maximum disruption at Westminster. Dan Hodges is right to point out that this is not a comfort blanket for Labour.

    The mistake many observers are making is to assume that the result of the next GE will be a stable government. This is a big error. Just because we were lucky in 2010 to get a stable government despite the hung parliament doesn't mean we'll be so lucky again. Rather the reverse, it seems to me - almost no combination actually seems to work, except perhaps another Con/LD coalition, and even that would be problematic.

    As for the Tories, there is no chance of a formal Con/SNP deal, but I suppose the SNP might abstain or somehow manage to keep a Con minority government limping along for a bit before choosing their opportunity to bring it down.
  • malcolmg said:

    Happy New Year to you.H
    however , what are you wittering on about I lost. It was a political vote which did not result in an outcome that I wanted, but had nothing to do with my comment on the odious racist Fluffer, and is long gone. His hatred of Scottish people oozes out of every post, he is a cretin and deserves to be pointed out.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSufrWXQSxg

  • That Dan Hodges article is very good indeed.

    Really?

    'The idea of a “Nat Pact” has become the talk of Westminster. The odds on Sturgeon entering the cabinet have been slashed to 6-1.'

    That rather suggests he doesn't know his McArse from his McElbow.

  • That Dan Hodges article is very good indeed.

    Really?

    'The idea of a “Nat Pact” has become the talk of Westminster. The odds on Sturgeon entering the cabinet have been slashed to 6-1.'

    That rather suggests he doesn't know his McArse from his McElbow.
    No, it suggests a typing error, and a sleepy sub-editor.
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693

    @FrankBooth - What the SNP will do, if they are given a chance, is cause the maximum disruption at Westminster. Dan Hodges is right to point out that this is not a comfort blanket for Labour.

    The mistake many observers are making is to assume that the result of the next GE will be a stable government. This is a big error. Just because we were lucky in 2010 to get a stable government despite the hung parliament doesn't mean we'll be so lucky again. Rather the reverse, it seems to me - almost no combination actually seems to work, except perhaps another Con/LD coalition, and even that would be problematic.

    As for the Tories, there is no chance of a formal Con/SNP deal, but I suppose the SNP might abstain or somehow manage to keep a Con minority government limping along for a bit before choosing their opportunity to bring it down.

    2 elections in 2015 @ 8/1
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,566
    I was writing a brief for a consultancy on the different parties' tax policies, and so far as I can see (it'd be useful to see a link if I'm wrong) the SNP doesn't have any for Westminster, with the odd exception of supporting the return to a 50p rate (while declining to commit to it in Scotland). That presumably means that they're fairly relaxed about Westminster policy so long as it involves moving Trident and more powers for Holyrood.

    In principle I can see either major party finding a way through on those if they had to, with a timetable to discourage the SNP from instantly turning on them (moving Trident can't be done overnight anyway). But I think the SNP will draw conclusions from what happened to the LibDem vote the instant they did a deal with the Tories. In Scotland, the effect would be even more seismic. I can't see a coalition with Labour, but support for a minority Labour government if needed looks more likely than not.

    All the same, the odds on NOM now look too short to me. With LibDem representation pulverised and the likely UKIP breakthrough in single figures the scope for either main party to get an overall majority is better than the percentage vote shares would suggest. I'd think that laying NOM is a good strategy at this point - you can trade it off when a couple of polls show one side or the other spiking.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,578
    edited January 2015
    stodge said:



    The inability of some journalists to "see" Ed Miliband as Prime Minister is staggering. There's absolutely no evidence the man wouldn't make a competent Prime Minister.... The Labour administration on offer might not be to the taste of many on here but I've few concerns on that score and they would, as a group, be more experienced in Government than either the incoming 1997 or 2010 administrations.

    To the first point, I think that is fair enough - I really doubt Ed M, a man steeped in government and of intense political calculation, would be capable or allowed by colleagues to be a true disaster. Even if he turns out to be a poor PM, I certainly don't fear the possibility all that much. For one, given governments always blame anything bad on things outside their control, most people probably don't think changing governments will alter all that much about the big picture of where the country's going. It's like changing gas suppliers, where there might be fringe benefits, but the main difference is a different name at the top of the bill you get.

    To the second point, it may be true the incoming Labour lot will be more experienced than the ones in 1997 or 2010, though I am uncertain whether that would be a good or bad thing. My main issue with Labour and Ed M getting back in so soon is that it will have been too quick and easy, so they won't have learned any real lessons from what they did in government - they are still at the 'we'll say we got some things wrong, but our actions and policies clearly indicate we don't believe that' phase, or to shake off the bad behaviours you develop after being in power for too long.

    I've not really noticed a problem with inexperienced ministers would be the takeaway. Focus on that too much and you get the hilarious argument Brown and Labour were putting forth in 2010 (and which the Tories would use in 2020 if they manage to somehow retain power in a few months), that you don't want to change to inexperienced oppositions when things are going badly - the logic of which is you never change government, as no need to change when things going well, but don't risk changing it when things are not.
  • Pong said:

    @FrankBooth - What the SNP will do, if they are given a chance, is cause the maximum disruption at Westminster. Dan Hodges is right to point out that this is not a comfort blanket for Labour.

    The mistake many observers are making is to assume that the result of the next GE will be a stable government. This is a big error. Just because we were lucky in 2010 to get a stable government despite the hung parliament doesn't mean we'll be so lucky again. Rather the reverse, it seems to me - almost no combination actually seems to work, except perhaps another Con/LD coalition, and even that would be problematic.

    As for the Tories, there is no chance of a formal Con/SNP deal, but I suppose the SNP might abstain or somehow manage to keep a Con minority government limping along for a bit before choosing their opportunity to bring it down.

    2 elections in 2015 @ 8/1
    Yes, could be value - what do you think?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498
    edited January 2015

    malcolmg said:

    Square Root.. As usual I received literally hundreds of good wishes from people around the globe..who all wished me well for 2015.. MG wished for me to have a crap 2015...sort of sums him up.

    As ever doddery you forget the personal insults you posted on me first. You are a vile odious creature, happy to play the bigshot insulting people but a big jessie who cannot take it in return. Crawl back under your rock.
    Oh dear Malc , you think any of the dross you post frightens anyone.. if you do, you should think again.. as I said, suck it up, you lost.... in case you need reminding.. YOU LOST..
    That's why you post all the bile..
    You really are a sad loser. What imbeilic mind could imagine I am trying to frighten anyone by posting that they are cretins. You are a real thicko, time someone lost you. Go post to your equals , plenty cretins on here for you to bond with.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,989

    stodge - it's worth reminding ourselves that most of the Press is centre right so it's hardly surprising Ed gets written off by most of them. Of course New Labour was treated reasonably for a while, but it would have been seriously going against the grain of public opinion given where the polls were in the 90s. And if Tony Blair is the best the other side can do, you might feel you've basically won anyway. It's not the same with Miliband.

    Fair points as always, Frank. With regard to the 90s, there seem to be a lot of Conservatives on here who claim to have voted for Major in 1997. Perhaps but out on the streets canvassing for that election the anti-Conservative mood was more subtle - it wasn't a sense of deep anger more a sense that we'd simply had enough of them.

    As you say, Blair won because he managed to convince millions of Conservative voters who had supported the Tories since 1979 that the Labour Party he led was a non-socialist party of the centre or centre-left. The likes of Benn and Livingstone were masked and ignored and by reassuring the aforementioned voters that the basic tenets of Thatcherism (especially the anti-Union laws) would be maintained, he was able to garner votes by the bucket load.

    It's hard to deny that Blair was just a continuation of the post-Thatcher centralising social democracy that had been begun by Major and had presided over an economic boom. Indeed, go further and it's perfectly possible to assert that Blair was the SDP Triumphant - the son, not of Thatcher but of David Owen.

    Miliband is cut from a slightly different cloth - more Wilsonian technocrat to my eye. That's hardly charismatic but Wilson did well and in a sense 2015's Wilson faces in Cameron 2015's Heath, a man with problems of his own within the Party and especially relating to Europe.

    This is why I see May as February 1974 redux - two uninspiring leaders in the main parties but with Farage and UKIP playing the role of Thorpe's Liberals. Analogies aren't exact - we aren't looking at power cuts or "who governs Britain ?" and the residual levels of support for the LDs, SNP and even the Greens make them more than bit part players.

    The duopoly will survive a fall in combined vote share to 60% because the third party vote is so fragmented. I suspect the Conservatives will finish on 31-33% and Labour on 28-30% with UKIP still garnering 12-15% but I've nothing more than a gut feeling and trusting your gut on New Year's Day is often a route to the poor house as I found in the old days when there was jump racing at Windsor.

  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,928
    Pong said:

    @FrankBooth - What the SNP will do, if they are given a chance, is cause the maximum disruption at Westminster. Dan Hodges is right to point out that this is not a comfort blanket for Labour.

    The mistake many observers are making is to assume that the result of the next GE will be a stable government. This is a big error. Just because we were lucky in 2010 to get a stable government despite the hung parliament doesn't mean we'll be so lucky again. Rather the reverse, it seems to me - almost no combination actually seems to work, except perhaps another Con/LD coalition, and even that would be problematic.

    As for the Tories, there is no chance of a formal Con/SNP deal, but I suppose the SNP might abstain or somehow manage to keep a Con minority government limping along for a bit before choosing their opportunity to bring it down.

    2 elections in 2015 @ 8/1
    Those are insane odds. Allegedly the civil service is already preparing for such an eventuality.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,624
    Happy New Year to all.

    As it's time for retrospectives, I thought I'd assess my February economic forecasts.

    Where I was right
    The UK, Ireland and Spain. I forecast growth in all these countries would be significantly better than most economists predicted. I was also bullish on US GDP, although I wasn't significantly higher than the market. I also forecast Italy would remain zero growth, and that Germany would disappoint. And I was also extremely negative on the oil price.

    Where I was wrong
    I thought France would slip back into recession in 2014. Amazingly, it continued growing (albeit at veeeeery slow pace).

    Where I was very wrong
    China. My forecast was that growth would slow very sharply this year. And while growth has slowed, my 4% GDP growth figure for the year is likely to have been exceeded by 2.8% or so,

    Some forecasts for 2015:

    I continue to expect the UK (2.9%), Ireland (3.3%) and Spain to lead the pack in Europe. Spain is the biggest benificiary of cheaper oil prices on the continent (at $70 oil, GDP is 1.5% higher than at $115, so growth might top 3% there in 2015). I expect Portugal to pick up the pace, and see maybe 1.5% growth in 2015.

    Germany's exports - a large number of which go to Eastern Europe, Russia and China - are likely to disappoint in 2015. Fortunately, that will be largely offset by lower energy import bills. I'd expect the country's savings rate to dip somewhat, as German house prices are beginning to take off. Overall, say 1.2% growth in 2015, but with stronger consumer spending and weaker industrial production.

    France is likely to continue to stagnate. I'd be wary of predicting outright recession (largely thanks to lower energy import bills), but unemployment will probably continue to tick up. Growth of 0.5%.

    Italy has now passed a wide reaching labour reform law (technically, it's passed a law allowing Renzi to make a decry on labour reform). We all know what happens when you do this: in the short term, unemployment rises, but in the longer term, your economy benefits. I'd reckon on a difficult 2015, with unemployment heading up towards 15%, but with GDP growth marginally positive - say 0.3% for the year.

    Oil will bounce around in the $50-75 range, probably ending the year nearer the top of the range than the bottom.

    The US is a tough one to call: corporate America has releveraged like crazy and that makes it quite vulnerable to any slowdown. Furthermore, energy self sufficiency (which they are not at yet) means that the country benefits less from low oil prices. I'd say, continued consumer strength, and a modest pull back in growth in 2015 - probably coming in just behind the UK at 2.6-2.8% for the year.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498

    malcolmg said:

    Happy New Year to you.H
    however , what are you wittering on about I lost. It was a political vote which did not result in an outcome that I wanted, but had nothing to do with my comment on the odious racist Fluffer, and is long gone. His hatred of Scottish people oozes out of every post, he is a cretin and deserves to be pointed out.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSufrWXQSxg
    Fluffy thinks hard
    http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4640/388/320/head_up_arse2.jpg
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,624
    Oh yes: China. I think we'll continue to see the slow deceleration of the economy as (a) the law of large numbers makes an impact, (b) the growth in the urban labour force slows, and (c) it moves from an investment driven economy to a consumption driven one. Forecasts for GDP next year are around 7% in 2015, I think it might be high 5s - say 5.7-6.0%.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,566
    edited January 2015

    stodge - it's worth reminding ourselves that most of the Press is centre right so it's hardly surprising Ed gets written off by most of them. Of course New Labour was treated reasonably for a while, but it would have been seriously going against the grain of public opinion given where the polls were in the 90s. And if Tony Blair is the best the other side can do, you might feel you've basically won anyway. It's not the same with Miliband.

    Miliband took on both Murdoch and the Mail, IMO quite admirably, and they'll do their best to pay him back. However, in the end the press need to keep their readers onside. I remember Joe Murphy (then on the Mail, before he moved to the Standard) telling me that in 1997 they simply spiked a number of anti-Labour stories after the election, not because they feared Downing Street retaliation but simply because their readers were bored with them being endlessly hostile and minded to give the new lot a chance. It lasted a year or two before they felt able to go back to business as usual.

    Incidentally, the Standard's position will be interesting. They supported Boris and have been Tory-leaning for years, but they're probably mindful of being in a Labour-meaning city, especially as their main readership is in the city core, and their editorials are intermittently polite about Labour. I'd guess they may end up neutral.

  • @rcs1000 - Fancy a charity bet at Evens on US vs UK growth in 2015? I think the UK will lag behind the US because of the political risk here.
  • rcs1000 said:

    Oh yes: China. I think we'll continue to see the slow deceleration of the economy as (a) the law of large numbers makes an impact, (b) the growth in the urban labour force slows, and (c) it moves from an investment driven economy to a consumption driven one. Forecasts for GDP next year are around 7% in 2015, I think it might be high 5s - say 5.7-6.0%.

    Hmmm,

    Any views about Austria? Looking at the last few months of t'Economist back-pages she is so far out-of-sync with the Eurozone.

    Numbers indicate one thing: They would suggest to me that she is either a) lucky, or b) in for a bout of pneumonia. How do you see the next eighteen-months panning out...?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,624

    @rcs1000 - Fancy a charity bet at Evens on US vs UK growth in 2015? I think the UK will lag behind the US because of the political risk here.

    It's an interesting one. In the UK's favour:

    1. We've delevered since 2008, while US debts are back at record levels
    2. We're bigger energy importers, so we get more of a crude benefit
    3. The UK economy is probably further from 'potential' than the US

    Against that:

    1. We still have fiscal tightening ahead of us
    2. Political risk

    So, no. I'm not confident enough to stake money on this one :-)
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,624

    rcs1000 said:

    Oh yes: China. I think we'll continue to see the slow deceleration of the economy as (a) the law of large numbers makes an impact, (b) the growth in the urban labour force slows, and (c) it moves from an investment driven economy to a consumption driven one. Forecasts for GDP next year are around 7% in 2015, I think it might be high 5s - say 5.7-6.0%.

    Hmmm,

    Any views about Austria? Looking at the last few months of t'Economist back-pages she is so far out-of-sync with the Eurozone.

    Numbers indicate one thing: They would suggest to me that she is either a) lucky, or b) in for a bout of pneumonia. How do you see the next eighteen-months panning out...?
    Not an economy I know enough about, I'm afraid.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,682
    edited January 2015
    Just a note for any who might be interested, the highlight of New Years Day, the concert from Vienna, is on BBC2 now. Well worth a watch.

    Happy New Year one and all, whatever your political persuasion.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821
    edited January 2015
    rcs1000 said:

    @rcs1000 - Fancy a charity bet at Evens on US vs UK growth in 2015? I think the UK will lag behind the US because of the political risk here.

    It's an interesting one. In the UK's favour:

    1. We've delevered since 2008, while US debts are back at record levels
    2. We're bigger energy importers, so we get more of a crude benefit
    3. The UK economy is probably further from 'potential' than the US

    Against that:

    1. We still have fiscal tightening ahead of us
    2. Political risk

    So, no. I'm not confident enough to stake money on this one :-)
    Fair enough!

    I'd add a further important point affecting the UK, which is the much higher dependency on the Eurozone. I suppose that if the ECB finally gets its act together that could in principle turn into a positive for the UK, but I'm not holding my breath - it's more likely to be a negative. In any case any improvement in the Eurozone will probably be too late to help the UK in 2015.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    Good Morning: a Happy New Year

    and the manipulated Baxter is fu88ed.

    My prediction: 40+ seats for UKIP, which has quietly strengthened over the holiday period. As for the rest; san fairy ann. Che sera, sera.
  • Paul_Mid_BedsPaul_Mid_Beds Posts: 1,409
    edited January 2015
    If the May election is totally inconclusive and the only feasible option is a Labour - Tory coalition or a minority government that has to go to the country again by October, will the Labour & Libdem parties be able to afford another election?

    My suspicion is that they can't and the Tories can and this concept will form part of their post election stragegy if needs be.

    Maybe the Tories will supply confidence to a Miliband minority government until it starts to obviously run into the sand and then pull the plug?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,624

    rcs1000 said:

    @rcs1000 - Fancy a charity bet at Evens on US vs UK growth in 2015? I think the UK will lag behind the US because of the political risk here.

    It's an interesting one. In the UK's favour:

    1. We've delevered since 2008, while US debts are back at record levels
    2. We're bigger energy importers, so we get more of a crude benefit
    3. The UK economy is probably further from 'potential' than the US

    Against that:

    1. We still have fiscal tightening ahead of us
    2. Political risk

    So, no. I'm not confident enough to stake money on this one :-)
    Fair enough!

    I'd add a further important point affecting the UK, which is the much higher dependency on the Eurozone. I suppose that if the ECB finally gets its act together that could in principle turn into a positive for the UK, but I'm not holding my breath - it's more likely to be a negative
    The Eurozone economy is a much bigger energy importer than the UK or the US, so it benefits disproportionately from the fall in the oil price (and commensurate falls in natural gas and coal prices). I know SeanT and AEP think this ushers in deflation in the Eurozone. Personally, I think that if consumers are sending fewer Euros to Saudi Arabia and Russia, then that's rather good news. Simplistically, the change in net exports for major Eurozone economies is 0.9-1.5% (with similar benefits for China and Japan). I'd also note that QE is coming (eventually) in early 2015. From what I hear, individual country central banks will be allowed to buy their own country's debt - which apparently satisfies the German government's concerns about Germany being on the hook for Irish or Italian debt.

    That being said, the Eurozone economy is potentially very vulnerable to either further issues with Russia and the Ukraine or a meltdown in Greece. I've shared my views on what will happen in Greece, and I believe that many of the details are already agreed behind the scenes (although my guess for the shape of the "extend and pretend" is just that, a guess). Of course, SYRIZA could play hardball and be told to "fuck off" by the troika, but I think they will hail the negotiation (which is already largely agreed) as a great victory. We shall see.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527

    surbiton said:



    Of course, as you say, the Tory poll figures themselves maybe wrong. But in 2010, if I remember correctly, the pollsters were overestimating the Tory figure.

    Since 2010 9 out of every 10 polls has overstated Labour's share of the vote against the actual outcomes at respective by-elections and europeans. That's not wishful thinking, it's fact.
    On the other hand 2010 was not the only election when pollsters actually underestimated the Labour share. It also happened in 1983 and Feb 1974.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,889
    Of course in the Canadian Federal election of 1993 the Quebec nationalists won 54 seats and were the official opposition to the governing centre-left Liberals
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_1993
  • MikeK said:

    Good Morning: a Happy New Year

    and the manipulated Baxter is fu88ed.

    My prediction: 40+ seats for UKIP, which has quietly strengthened over the holiday period. As for the rest; san fairy ann. Che sera, sera.

    Thats not fair. I don't think for a moment that Baxter is manipulated, just that his model does not account for the UKIP element of the vote properly. If it did, the first four UKIP seats would not include Gordon and Cambridge. He seems to have UKIP as some sort of anitliberal vote.

    However Baxters amending of the model to account for the rise in the SNP does show that it has eliminated at a stroke the inbuilt advantage that Lab had.

    This can be very easily seen as Baxters Make your own prediction model has not yet been altered to allow for SNP rise. If you put identical figures in make your prediction to the figures OGH has at the top then you get Lab Majority 34.

    Surely the revised Baxter model showing labour cut to 5 short from 34 majority on identical poll percentages, this wiping out the advantage the electoral system gives Labour, is the real story here?
This discussion has been closed.