Keighley @ 5/4 is seat #281 (in ascending odds order), roughly meaning Tories Most Seats Sherwood @ 11/4 is seat #326, meaning TOM
Now the specific seats don't really matter, but it's interesting that they should be this close in price, given the supposed inevitability of a Hung Parliament.
If you want to back TOM, back the 6.6 on betfair or the 5/1 widely available.
If you want to back Tories Most Seats, make yourself a portfolio of seats in the 11/10 - 11/8 range.
audreyanne as this is a betting site your confidence will be rewarded handsomely. Cameron is weak and duplicitous, if he was any good Ed would be sunk by now.
You seriously believe ed isn't sunk? He'll be pleased somebody still thinks he's waving and not drowning.
Keighley @ 5/4 is seat #281 (in ascending odds order), roughly meaning Tories Most Seats Sherwood @ 11/4 is seat #326, meaning TOM
Now the specific seats don't really matter, but it's interesting that they should be this close in price, given the supposed inevitability of a Hung Parliament.
If you want to back TOM, back the 6.6 on betfair or the 5/1 widely available.
If you want to back Tories Most Seats, make yourself a portfolio of seats in the 11/10 - 11/8 range.
Keighley @ 5/4 is seat #281 (in ascending odds order), roughly meaning Tories Most Seats Sherwood @ 11/4 is seat #326, meaning TOM
Now the specific seats don't really matter, but it's interesting that they should be this close in price, given the supposed inevitability of a Hung Parliament.
If you want to back TOM, back the 6.6 on betfair or the 5/1 widely available.
If you want to back Tories Most Seats, make yourself a portfolio of seats in the 11/10 - 11/8 range.
Keighley @ 5/4 is seat #281 (in ascending odds order), roughly meaning Tories Most Seats Sherwood @ 11/4 is seat #326, meaning TOM
Now the specific seats don't really matter, but it's interesting that they should be this close in price, given the supposed inevitability of a Hung Parliament.
If you want to back TOM, back the 6.6 on betfair or the 5/1 widely available.
If you want to back Tories Most Seats, make yourself a portfolio of seats in the 11/10 - 11/8 range.
Only 323 required, assuming 5 Sinn Fein MPs
NOT FOR THE BETTING MARKETS.
WELL THEY SHOULD BE - AMATEURS!
Absolutely not, it would play havoc if a bookie went and did that and a party ended up with 324 seats.
Looks like I was right when I said Jim Murphy's comments would hurt Labour in London/The South
Scottish Labour leader Jim Murphy may have shot his party in the foot in London by boasting that a “mansion tax” mainly hitting the South-East would fund 1,000 nurses in Scotland, a poll shows today.
The YouGov survey found nearly three in 10 Londoners said his remarks made them feel less favourable towards Labour.
Tim Montgomerie says focusing on Labour's potential coalition partners is this week's Conservative Party election strategy:
"Mr Cameron wants voters to think hard about the factions that Mr Miliband might need to rely upon to govern.
There'll be Mr Salmond -- forever demanding that the Scottish tail wags the English dog. There'll be Caroline Lucas demanding decriminalisation of membership of terrorist organisations. And there'll be union leaders such as Len McCluskey calling for more taxes to pay for higher public sector wages. If you thought the prospect of Ed Miliband governing on his own was bad enough, think of the people he might have to cuddle up to."
For the Tories to take Sherwood they need to be 11.4% ahead in England.
Is "11.4%" the new peg on which to hang your hat now that "Labour's firewall" has fallen off the wall?
Respect your elders, Audrey.
Mike has a long and distinguished record of providing useful information and stellar tips. He doesn't need anybody's advice, least of all from somebody who spouts opinions without knowledge of the basic facts.
Hampstead? 'Glenda'? You need to crank up your credibility rating before addressing a proper punter thus.
By the way, if my suggestions yesterday are right about 20+ Conservative gains from the yellows then they don't need to be 11.4% ahead of Labour in England …
Don't ignore the fallen LibDem share. It's one of the big game changers this time round.
I can't work out why the Conservatives are 1-2 in Pompey north, seems far too long to me.
Not answering your question. FYI there is worse to come out about UKIP.
Portsmouth North is Frank Judd's old seat and contains Paulsgrove a large council estate, I would have thought that Labour were in with a good chance. Labour won in '74, '97 and '05. The Tories won in '79 with the infamous Peter Griffiths and in '10.
Ah Logical Song! What was the bet you offered that I bottled?
Can't you remember, something about the number of UKIP MPs. Dig it out in the archives if you'd like to reconsider.
I doubt it happened to be honest, I think you are are making it up. If I made a claim and you offered better odds than bookies I would have had it
Of course I'm not making it up, how dare you suggest such a thing. I guess that the odds weren't better than the bookies, that's an excuse for bottling it.
Well you suggested I bottled a bet.. but you cant remember what the bet was!
Weird
I don't remember it and probably would have taken you on out of bravado anyway so yes, I think you are making it up
If you offered rubbish odds and I could get better elsewhere, its hardly "bottling" a bet is it?
Mr. Pulpstar, I agree. Greens will do very well in certain spots, but their current polling is something like 8%. Easy to see that being squeezed, or supporters to just not bother turning out. Labour, Conservative, SNP, and UKIP will all be more motivated.
From what I read in today's papers, the EU is preparing to humiliate Greece's government, and torpedo the absurd notion that austerity can be 'turned away from'
This should be fun.
Tsipras was an idiot, he made the same mistake as Cameron, he told them he wouldn't default. Now they are feeling relaxed since it was the only thing that worried them and are going to take the p155.
There is no Cameron comparison. But the Greek voters have wasted their vote it seems to me. Hard to see what they can do if they are promising not to default and stay in euro. But default would spell ruin anyway. As it is, based on a fraud, Greece has got a bunch of hard left extremists in power.
RE: Scottish drink driving. Typically in Scotland the number of people killed by a drunk driver is about 6 a year. On top of this are the 2/3 of deaths where the drink driver is the victim.
the enjoyment/livelihood of hundreds of thousands of drivers....
Thanks for posting - any data to back up ?
I also suspect that this is a classic SNP wedge issue - using the powers they have just to make Scotland "different" - with no thought to the consequences.
I replied on previous post Carynx - am not that fussed about the politics of this - more that the rUk doesn't follow down the same path - some data on deaths/accidents and levels of blood alcohol would be instructive - TCPB suggested that total drink driving deaths average 6 per year but had no details on whether this new policy would improve.
Kennry MacAskill (as reported by the Mail) said it was 20 deaths a year.
I am sorry to say I agree on this one , the new law will do nothing for road safety and just criminalise a few people who have an odd drink. Pathetic in my mind and will do nothing to deter drunk drivers. MacAskill was a plank.
I gulp - agree gulp - with malcolmg gulp...
we will have you in shape one of these days, from small acorns and all that
An unhealthy dynamic is appearing in the Greek-troika public posturing. It looks like Syriza will cancel the €950m sale of the land on which the former Athens airport stood. This is a particularly odd one, as the development of this land would create jobs (as well bringing in €950m to the government coffers). It's also a sign that Tsipiras is more in hock to the Chavez side of his party than to the Lula side.
In addition, his demands for a 50% haircut to Greek debts will clearly be completely unacceptable to the IMF. There are ways of lowering interest bills and pushing repayment of capital into the 2040s, which would have the effect of reducing the effective value of Greek debts by c. 50% - but meaningful haircuts would be politically unacceptable across the Eurozone, and would be straight vetoed by the IMF.
Germany, the IMF and the ECB have now all stepped up the rhetoric on the other side of the table, making it clear that (in the case of the IMF and the ECB) there will be no haircut, and that (in the case of Germany) they are not "scared" of Grexit.
With tensions rising, the possibility of a disorderly default and Grexit are rising. If Syriza were to try and call the bluff of the creditors by threatening to suspend interest payments, then I think that rating agencies would immediately declare a technical default, and the ECB would cease to accept Greek bonds as collateral. This would result in the immediate closure of the Greek banking system, due to the withdrawal of Emergency Liquidity Assistance, and (in all probability) the exit of Greece from the Eurozone within 24 hours.
To my mind, backtracking on the privatization of the Athens airport land (and some of the comments regarding the role of tourism) are the most worrying signs- it suggests the leadership is completely oblivious to economic reality. (Whether the Eurozone is right for Greece is somewhat beside the point, when you're opposing selling off unused land for development as it's part of some capitalist plot... well, you're the one who's lost the plot...)
Keighley @ 5/4 is seat #281 (in ascending odds order), roughly meaning Tories Most Seats Sherwood @ 11/4 is seat #326, meaning TOM
Now the specific seats don't really matter, but it's interesting that they should be this close in price, given the supposed inevitability of a Hung Parliament.
If you want to back TOM, back the 6.6 on betfair or the 5/1 widely available.
If you want to back Tories Most Seats, make yourself a portfolio of seats in the 11/10 - 11/8 range.
Only 323 required, assuming 5 Sinn Fein MPs
NOT FOR THE BETTING MARKETS.
WELL THEY SHOULD BE - AMATEURS!
Absolutely not, it would play havoc if a bookie went and did that and a party ended up with 324 seats.
324 would be a majority if SF continue abstentionism.
audreyanne as this is a betting site your confidence will be rewarded handsomely. Cameron is weak and duplicitous, if he was any good Ed would be sunk by now.
You seriously believe ed isn't sunk? He'll be pleased somebody still thinks he's waving and not drowning.
We saw in 2010 that the labour vote will stand up against Cameron, outside of the tribal tories he is very unpopular.
An unhealthy dynamic is appearing in the Greek-troika public posturing. It looks like Syriza will cancel the €950m sale of the land on which the former Athens airport stood. This is a particularly odd one, as the development of this land would create jobs (as well bringing in €950m to the government coffers). It's also a sign that Syriza is more in hock to the Chavez side of his party than to the Lula side.
In addition, his demands for a 50% haircut to Greek debts will clearly be completely unacceptable to the IMF. There are ways of lowering interest bills and pushing repayment of capital into the 2040s, which would have the effect of reducing the effective value of Greek debts by c. 50% - but meaningful haircuts would be politically unacceptable across the Eurozone, and would be straight vetoed by the IMF.
Germany, the IMF and the ECB have now all stepped up the rhetoric on the other side of the table, making it clear that (in the case of the IMF and the ECB) there will be no haircut, and that (in the case of Germany) they are not "scared" of Grexit.
With tensions rising, the possibility of a disorderly default and Grexit are rising. If Syriza were to try and call the bluff of the creditors by threatening to suspend interest payments, then I think that rating agencies would immediately declare a technical default, and the ECB would cease to accept Greek bonds as collateral. This would result in the immediate closure of the Greek banking system, due to the withdrawal of Emergency Liquidity Assistance, and (in all probability) the exit of Greece from the Eurozone within 24 hours.
To my mind, backtracking on the privatization of the Athens airport land (and some of the comments regarding the role of tourism) are the most worrying signs- it suggests the leadership is completely oblivious to economic reality. (Whether the Eurozone is right for Greece is somewhat beside the point, when you're opposing selling off unused land for development as it's part of some capitalist plot... well, you're the one who's lost the plot...)
They'd better start printing Drachma, or find someone else who can.
I can't work out why the Conservatives are 1-2 in Pompey north, seems far too long to me.
Not answering your question. FYI there is worse to come out about UKIP.
Portsmouth North is Frank Judd's old seat and contains Paulsgrove a large council estate, I would have thought that Labour were in with a good chance. Labour won in '74, '97 and '05. The Tories won in '79 with the infamous Peter Griffiths and in '10.
Ah Logical Song! What was the bet you offered that I bottled?
Can't you remember, something about the number of UKIP MPs. Dig it out in the archives if you'd like to reconsider.
I doubt it happened to be honest, I think you are are making it up. If I made a claim and you offered better odds than bookies I would have had it
Of course I'm not making it up, how dare you suggest such a thing. I guess that the odds weren't better than the bookies, that's an excuse for bottling it.
Well you suggested I bottled a bet.. but you cant remember what the bet was!
Weird
I don't remember it and probably would have taken you on out of bravado anyway so yes, I think you are making it up
If you offered rubbish odds and I could get better elsewhere, its hardly "bottling" a bet is it?
It's pointless arguing with someone who is never wrong. I offered the bet and you chose not to take it. Call it something other than bottling if you like.
Labour have achieved a 10%+ swing in six English by elections this parliament. In all but one seat, it was already Labour held. Three in the NW, one in London, one in yorkshire (Barnsley in 2011). The sole win was Corby.
They have achieved a <5% swing in four. Eastleigh, Newark, Bradford W, Rochester. Three of those have been since the start of 2013.
Labour have achieved a vote share increase above 1% just once in the seven by elections since the start of 2013. Wythenshawe in the NW - a seat they already held.
An unhealthy dynamic is appearing in the Greek-troika public posturing. It looks like Syriza will cancel the €950m sale of the land on which the former Athens airport stood. This is a particularly odd one, as the development of this land would create jobs (as well bringing in €950m to the government coffers). It's also a sign that Syriza is more in hock to the Chavez side of his party than to the Lula side.
In addition, his demands for a 50% haircut to Greek debts will clearly be completely unacceptable to the IMF. There are ways of lowering interest bills and pushing repayment of capital into the 2040s, which would have the effect of reducing the effective value of Greek debts by c. 50% - but meaningful haircuts would be politically unacceptable across the Eurozone, and would be straight vetoed by the IMF.
Germany, the IMF and the ECB have now all stepped up the rhetoric on the other side of the table, making it clear that (in the case of the IMF and the ECB) there will be no haircut, and that (in the case of Germany) they are not "scared" of Grexit.
With tensions rising, the possibility of a disorderly default and Grexit are rising. If Syriza were to try and call the bluff of the creditors by threatening to suspend interest payments, then I think that rating agencies would immediately declare a technical default, and the ECB would cease to accept Greek bonds as collateral. This would result in the immediate closure of the Greek banking system, due to the withdrawal of Emergency Liquidity Assistance, and (in all probability) the exit of Greece from the Eurozone within 24 hours.
To my mind, backtracking on the privatization of the Athens airport land (and some of the comments regarding the role of tourism) are the most worrying signs- it suggests the leadership is completely oblivious to economic reality. (Whether the Eurozone is right for Greece is somewhat beside the point, when you're opposing selling off unused land for development as it's part of some capitalist plot... well, you're the one who's lost the plot...)
They'd better start printing Drachma, or find someone else who can.
Maybe they are. You wouldn't tell anyone if you were...
I can't work out why the Conservatives are 1-2 in Pompey north, seems far too long to me.
Not answering your question. FYI there is worse to come out about UKIP.
Portsmouth North is Frank Judd's old seat and contains Paulsgrove a large council estate, I would have thought that Labour were in with a good chance. Labour won in '74, '97 and '05. The Tories won in '79 with the infamous Peter Griffiths and in '10.
Ah Logical Song! What was the bet you offered that I bottled?
Can't you remember, something about the number of UKIP MPs. Dig it out in the archives if you'd like to reconsider.
I doubt it happened to be honest, I think you are are making it up. If I made a claim and you offered better odds than bookies I would have had it
Of course I'm not making it up, how dare you suggest such a thing. I guess that the odds weren't better than the bookies, that's an excuse for bottling it.
Well you suggested I bottled a bet.. but you cant remember what the bet was!
Weird
I don't remember it and probably would have taken you on out of bravado anyway so yes, I think you are making it up
If you offered rubbish odds and I could get better elsewhere, its hardly "bottling" a bet is it?
It's pointless arguing with someone who is never wrong. I offered the bet and you chose not to take it. Call it something other than bottling if you like.
Labour have achieved a 10%+ swing in six English by elections this parliament. In all but one seat, it was already Labour held. Three in the NW, one in London, one in yorkshire (Barnsley in 2011). The sole win was Corby.
They have achieved a less than 5% swing in four. Eastleigh, Newark, Bradford W, Rochester. Three of those have been since the start of 2013.
Labour have achieved a vote share increase above 1% just once in the seven by elections since the start of 2013. Wythenshawe in the NW - a seat they already held.
An unhealthy dynamic is appearing in the Greek-troika public posturing. It looks like Syriza will cancel the €950m sale of the land on which the former Athens airport stood. This is a particularly odd one, as the development of this land would create jobs (as well bringing in €950m to the government coffers). It's also a sign that Syriza is more in hock to the Chavez side of his party than to the Lula side.
In addition, his demands for a 50% haircut to Greek debts will clearly be completely unacceptable to the IMF. There are ways of lowering interest bills and pushing repayment of capital into the 2040s, which would have the effect of reducing the effective value of Greek debts by c. 50% - but meaningful haircuts would be politically unacceptable across the Eurozone, and would be straight vetoed by the IMF.
Germany, the IMF and the ECB have now all stepped up the rhetoric on the other side of the table, making it clear that (in the case of the IMF and the ECB) there will be no haircut, and that (in the case of Germany) they are not "scared" of Grexit.
With tensions rising, the possibility of a disorderly default and Grexit are rising. If Syriza were to try and call the bluff of the creditors by threatening to suspend interest payments, then I think that rating agencies would immediately declare a technical default, and the ECB would cease to accept Greek bonds as collateral. This would result in the immediate closure of the Greek banking system, due to the withdrawal of Emergency Liquidity Assistance, and (in all probability) the exit of Greece from the Eurozone within 24 hours.
To my mind, backtracking on the privatization of the Athens airport land (and some of the comments regarding the role of tourism) are the most worrying signs- it suggests the leadership is completely oblivious to economic reality. (Whether the Eurozone is right for Greece is somewhat beside the point, when you're opposing selling off unused land for development as it's part of some capitalist plot... well, you're the one who's lost the plot...)
They'd better start printing Drachma, or find someone else who can.
Maybe they are. You wouldn't tell anyone if you were...
There are only a few banknote paper manufacturers, and printers. Someone would know...
audreyanne as this is a betting site your confidence will be rewarded handsomely. Cameron is weak and duplicitous, if he was any good Ed would be sunk by now.
You seriously believe ed isn't sunk? He'll be pleased somebody still thinks he's waving and not drowning.
We saw in 2010 that the labour vote will stand up against Cameron, outside of the tribal tories he is very unpopular.
An unhealthy dynamic is appearing in the Greek-troika public posturing. It looks like Syriza will cancel the €950m sale of the land on which the former Athens airport stood. This is a particularly odd one, as the development of this land would create jobs (as well bringing in €950m to the government coffers). It's also a sign that Syriza is more in hock to the Chavez side of his party than to the Lula side.
In addition, his demands for a 50% haircut to Greek debts will clearly be completely unacceptable to the IMF. There are ways of lowering interest bills and pushing repayment of capital into the 2040s, which would have the effect of reducing the effective value of Greek debts by c. 50% - but meaningful haircuts would be politically unacceptable across the Eurozone, and would be straight vetoed by the IMF.
Germany, the IMF and the ECB have now all stepped up the rhetoric on the other side of the table, making it clear that (in the case of the IMF and the ECB) there will be no haircut, and that (in the case of Germany) they are not "scared" of Grexit.
With tensions rising, the possibility of a disorderly default and Grexit are rising. If Syriza were to try and call the bluff of the creditors by threatening to suspend interest payments, then I think that rating agencies would immediately declare a technical default, and the ECB would cease to accept Greek bonds as collateral. This would result in the immediate closure of the Greek banking system, due to the withdrawal of Emergency Liquidity Assistance, and (in all probability) the exit of Greece from the Eurozone within 24 hours.
To my mind, backtracking on the privatization of the Athens airport land (and some of the comments regarding the role of tourism) are the most worrying signs- it suggests the leadership is completely oblivious to economic reality. (Whether the Eurozone is right for Greece is somewhat beside the point, when you're opposing selling off unused land for development as it's part of some capitalist plot... well, you're the one who's lost the plot...)
They'd better start printing Drachma, or find someone else who can.
Maybe they are. You wouldn't tell anyone if you were...
I think it's quite a difficult thing to keep secret!
Firstly, there are relatively few companies capable of printing large quantities of banknotes, De La Rue PLC is probably the biggest. And they don't have hundreds of bank note printing machines lying idle, ready to use.
Secondly, it's actually quite an involved process. You need to get designs made, and you need them to be difficult to forge and easy to recognise.
By the way, if my suggestions yesterday are right about 20+ Conservative gains from the yellows then they don't need to be 11.4% ahead of Labour in England …
Don't ignore the fallen LibDem share. It's one of the big game changers this time round.
What are these 20 gains ?
The problem for the Conservatives is the "special case" Lib Dem seats that will most likely not go with UNS.
Conservative best Price/ Ordered by Majority
Solihull 2-7 Mid Dorset & North Poole 4-11 Wells 4-9 St Austell & Newquay 4-6 Somerton and Froome 2-5 Sutton & Cheam 13-8 <- Lib Dems 45%, Cons 27% in Lord Ashcroft 2nd question. St Ives 6-5 <- LD 27%/Con 25% (Probably value Tories @6-5 though) Chippenham 8-15
Cheadle 6-5 North Cornwall 5-4 Norwich South (Many way contest) Eastbourne 13-8 Bradford East 33-1 Taunton Deane 8-13 Berwick 8-13
Eastleigh 4-1 Argyll and Bute 20-1 (With good reason here, given the SNP) Aberdeenshire West and Kincardine 3-1 (On this, but on SNP here also) TOrbay 11-8 (I tipped this at 9-4 but think 11-8 is a fair price)
I just don't see where you get anywhere near 20 gains from lib Dem.
One thing about Paddy, they certainly make you wait for your money on political bets.
Indeed and in my experience on several occasions, I've had to go asking for my winnings on political bets, particularly the long term ones, which they tend to conveniently forget about. If bookies can't manage their book efficiently on such bets, they shouldn't offer them in the first place.
By the way, if my suggestions yesterday are right about 20+ Conservative gains from the yellows then they don't need to be 11.4% ahead of Labour in England …
Don't ignore the fallen LibDem share. It's one of the big game changers this time round.
What are these 20 gains ?
The problem for the Conservatives is the "special case" Lib Dem seats that will most likely not go with UNS.
Conservative best Price/ Ordered by Majority
Do you really want me to re-post the whole thing from yesterday?
By the way, if my suggestions yesterday are right about 20+ Conservative gains from the yellows then they don't need to be 11.4% ahead of Labour in England …
Don't ignore the fallen LibDem share. It's one of the big game changers this time round.
What are these 20 gains ?
The problem for the Conservatives is the "special case" Lib Dem seats that will most likely not go with UNS.
Conservative best Price/ Ordered by Majority
Solihull 2-7 Mid Dorset & North Poole 4-11 Wells 4-9 St Austell & Newquay 4-6 Somerton and Froome 2-5 Sutton & Cheam 13-8
They could lose Twickenham and Kingston too - although I think Eastleigh will probably remain LibDem given it's a three-way fight.
After we’ve re-elected David Cameron, the Labour party and broader Left will look to one another in incredulity. “What happened?” they will exclaim. “Why did we lose? How did we lose?”
The answer is on the BBC website. You can see it for yourself. Go the main site, navigate through to the “Newsnight” page, click on last night’s episode, and watch Kirsty Wark’s segment with shadow health secretary Andy Burnham.
It’s not a “car-crash” interview in the classic sense of the word. There's no floundering for words, or panic stricken pauses. But those nine minutes and eight seconds encapsulate, in perfect form, why Labour will lose, and why - in truth - Labour deserves to lose.
The cost of coalition: how the LibDems will hand the Conservatives victory. 1/3
I was going to hold off this until after the first week of February’s fieldwork but since Pb.com has gone febrile I’ll stick it up now.
There’s an assumption amongst many that we’re heading for a hung parliament. In part it’s this human tendency to assume that what happened last time is bound to repeat. But it isn’t. Two, and possibly now three, factors are different this time. 1. LibDems 2. UKIP 3. Greens. I’m not going to bore you with details on those: they should be obvious. I’m also going to ignore here 2. And 3. For simple reasons. Firstly the Greens will damage Labour in Lab marginals, and that’s a different issue to the one I’m discussing here. Secondly there’s little evidence that UKIP will marshall forces in LibDem marginals sufficient to damage Tories. They aren’t the kind of seats where UKIP will score well. Instead I’m focusing on the LibDem-Cons marginal.
Let’s suppose for a second that the Cons and Lab poll close to GE2010: 36.1 / 29. I’m going to give them both an extra 1% and say it’s 37/30. That may be generous to Labour, less so to the Conservatives for all sorts of good reasons to do with the next 3 months of campaigning.
Okay, so last time the LibDems polled 23% for 57 seats. This time they will be lucky to get out of single figures in vote share. We all know they’re great at marshaling where they need it, but this will push them only so far. There comes a point where even they can’t resist the tide. Let’s give them too an extra 1% over their European result last year: giving them 8% which is roughly where they’re currently polling. Even that may be optimistic, but we will work with it.
Let’s suppose for a second that UKIP hit 12% after a bit of pressure during the campaign.
Baxterise those figures and you have an outright Conservative majority of 24. The LibDems lose 45 seats, and the Conservatives gain 31 of them. Bingo.
Now we all know it won’t quite work like that. We’ve also seen Lord Ashcroft’s (now stale) polls taken when the Tories were bumping along the bottom. We know the LibDems are good local campaigners. However, against that I think the Conservatives will actually poll above 37%. So here are 33 yellow seats that I think are vulnerable. My current estimate is that the Conservatives will win at least 20 of them (but I think they may take more than that)
audreyanne as this is a betting site your confidence will be rewarded handsomely. Cameron is weak and duplicitous, if he was any good Ed would be sunk by now.
You seriously believe ed isn't sunk? He'll be pleased somebody still thinks he's waving and not drowning.
We saw in 2010 that the labour vote will stand up against Cameron, outside of the tribal tories he is very unpopular.
You'll have some polling evidence to back that up won't you?
The cost of coalition: how the LibDems will hand the Conservatives victory 2/3
20 of the following 25 to turn blue:
Berwick-upon-Tweed Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk Brecon and Radnorshire Carshalton and Wallington Cheadle Cheltenham Chippenham Colchester Cornwall North Devon North Dorset Mid and Poole North Fife North East (Ming Campbell standing down, outside chance) Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell standing down) Kingston and Surbiton Lewes Portsmouth South (Mike Hancock … ) Solihull Somerton and Frome Southport St Austell and Newquay St Ives Sutton and Cheam Taunton Deane Torbay Wells
Fareham's UKIP PPC fiasco PROSPECTIVE parliamentary candidate Don Jerrard called time on his election campaign on Monday citing his opposition to Ukip supporting a convicted criminal as his main reason. He is apparently referring to Paul Lovegrove who is Chairman of Portsmouth South.
Mr Lovegrove said he was not sorry to see him leave. ‘The world of politics will be better off without him.’
The same Mr Lovegrove said of a UKIP coucillor in Portsmouth "I took on a guy from a council estate." Mr Lovegrove said taking on Cllr Godier was a mistake.
The cost of coalition: how the LibDems will hand the Conservatives victory 3/3
8 other outside chances to watch:
Aberdeenshire West and Kincardine Argyll and Bute Eastbourne Eastleigh Edinburgh West Leeds North West Thornbury and Yate Twickenham (shock of the night: Vince Cable to lose?)
My outside tip for THE shock of the night: Vince Cable to lose Twickenham
My apologies to those who had to endure this yesterday afternoon
After we’ve re-elected David Cameron, the Labour party and broader Left will look to one another in incredulity. “What happened?” they will exclaim. “Why did we lose? How did we lose?”
The answer is on the BBC website. You can see it for yourself. Go the main site, navigate through to the “Newsnight” page, click on last night’s episode, and watch Kirsty Wark’s segment with shadow health secretary Andy Burnham.
It’s not a “car-crash” interview in the classic sense of the word. There's no floundering for words, or panic stricken pauses. But those nine minutes and eight seconds encapsulate, in perfect form, why Labour will lose, and why - in truth - Labour deserves to lose.
I can't work out why the Conservatives are 1-2 in Pompey north, seems far too long to me.
Not answering your question. FYI there is worse to come out about UKIP.
Portsmouth North is Frank Judd's old seat and contains Paulsgrove a large council estate, I would have thought that Labour were in with a good chance. Labour won in '74, '97 and '05. The Tories won in '79 with the infamous Peter Griffiths and in '10.
Ah Logical Song! What was the bet you offered that I bottled?
Can't you remember, something about the number of UKIP MPs. Dig it out in the archives if you'd like to reconsider.
I doubt it happened to be honest, I think you are are making it up. If I made a claim and you offered better odds than bookies I would have had it
Of course I'm not making it up, how dare you suggest such a thing. I guess that the odds weren't better than the bookies, that's an excuse for bottling it.
Well you suggested I bottled a bet.. but you cant remember what the bet was!
Weird
I don't remember it and probably would have taken you on out of bravado anyway so yes, I think you are making it up
If you offered rubbish odds and I could get better elsewhere, its hardly "bottling" a bet is it?
It's pointless arguing with someone who is never wrong. I offered the bet and you chose not to take it. Call it something other than bottling if you like.
Haha you don't even know what the bet was!
Didn't happen
Of course it did. I don't know how to search the archives, can't be bothered to find out* and you'd never accept it even when you see it in black and white anyway. *If you know how tell me and I'll reluctantly do it.
Miss Cyclefree, a fair point it's hardly must-watch TV. However, amongst its declining audience are many people who write for newspapers and won't be shy pointing out how poor Burnham was.
There are only a few banknote paper manufacturers, and printers. Someone would know...
There was a Wolfson Prize for 'how to leave the Euro'.
The winning entry suggested printing money _after_ the decision had been made public.
"Recommendations Order the printing of new notes and the minting of new coins as soon as the announcement is made to withdraw from the euro. Accept that there will be a period without new notes and coins. In this interim phase, rely on non-cash means of payment for the majority of transactions. Allow euros to continue to be used where people so wish. As bank branches and ATMs are reopened after D-Day, all withdrawals of euros to be treated as a foreign currency transaction and debited from drachma accounts according to the prevailing exchange rate."
After we’ve re-elected David Cameron, the Labour party and broader Left will look to one another in incredulity. “What happened?” they will exclaim. “Why did we lose? How did we lose?”
The answer is on the BBC website. You can see it for yourself. Go the main site, navigate through to the “Newsnight” page, click on last night’s episode, and watch Kirsty Wark’s segment with shadow health secretary Andy Burnham.
It’s not a “car-crash” interview in the classic sense of the word. There's no floundering for words, or panic stricken pauses. But those nine minutes and eight seconds encapsulate, in perfect form, why Labour will lose, and why - in truth - Labour deserves to lose.
I guess the point is more how it encapsulates how utterly useless this Labour team are. They are the weakest opposition I can remember in a long long time. To be 3 months out and have your shadow health minister all over the shop like that on key figures and policy is so crap it's beyond parody. He sums up the entire Labour front bench. It's schoolboy student debating politics. You can just imagine how they dreamt up this bollocks sitting round Ed Miliband's Hampstead kitchen table. It's odious middle class meddling in a world of grown up politics.
Right that's my vent at Andy Burnham done. I'm off to walk the dog.
After we’ve re-elected David Cameron, the Labour party and broader Left will look to one another in incredulity. “What happened?” they will exclaim. “Why did we lose? How did we lose?”
The answer is on the BBC website. You can see it for yourself. Go the main site, navigate through to the “Newsnight” page, click on last night’s episode, and watch Kirsty Wark’s segment with shadow health secretary Andy Burnham.
It’s not a “car-crash” interview in the classic sense of the word. There's no floundering for words, or panic stricken pauses. But those nine minutes and eight seconds encapsulate, in perfect form, why Labour will lose, and why - in truth - Labour deserves to lose.
The cost of coalition: how the LibDems will hand the Conservatives victory 3/3
8 other outside chances to watch:
Aberdeenshire West and Kincardine Argyll and Bute Eastbourne Eastleigh Edinburgh West Leeds North West Thornbury and Yate Twickenham (shock of the night: Vince Cable to lose?)
My outside tip for THE shock of the night: Vince Cable to lose Twickenham
My apologies to those who had to endure this yesterday afternoon
You might as well add Redcar to that list for good measure.
Er, the point of the article is not how many people saw it, simply that if you want evidence of why Labour are going to lose the interview provides it.
The interview is not why they are going to lose. The subject matter of the interview (any Labour policy) is the problem
The cost of coalition: how the LibDems will hand the Conservatives victory 3/3
8 other outside chances to watch:
Aberdeenshire West and Kincardine Argyll and Bute Eastbourne Eastleigh Edinburgh West Leeds North West Thornbury and Yate Twickenham (shock of the night: Vince Cable to lose?)
My outside tip for THE shock of the night: Vince Cable to lose Twickenham
My apologies to those who had to endure this yesterday afternoon
You might as well add Redcar to that list for good measure.
Don't know about the others, but Eastleigh shouldn't be on the list.
Miss Cyclefree, a fair point it's hardly must-watch TV. However, amongst its declining audience are many people who write for newspapers and won't be shy pointing out how poor Burnham was.
True enough but I'm sceptical of how far that will shift many votes given how strong Labour's NHS brand is. If Stafford can't impact it, I doubt that a rubbish interview about the difference between 4% and 6% outsourcing will do it.
Perhaps, Miss Cyclefree, but it does give an attack line to the blues, and means Labour has to try and explain what it means instead of telling us how the Conservatives will hire private companies to industrialise the eating of babies.
There are only a few banknote paper manufacturers, and printers. Someone would know...
There was a Wolfson Prize for 'how to leave the Euro'.
The winning entry suggested printing money _after_ the decision had been made public.
"Recommendations Order the printing of new notes and the minting of new coins as soon as the announcement is made to withdraw from the euro. Accept that there will be a period without new notes and coins. In this interim phase, rely on non-cash means of payment for the majority of transactions. Allow euros to continue to be used where people so wish. As bank branches and ATMs are reopened after D-Day, all withdrawals of euros to be treated as a foreign currency transaction and debited from drachma accounts according to the prevailing exchange rate."
True enough but I'm sceptical of how far that will shift many votes given how strong Labour's NHS brand is. If Stafford can't impact it, I doubt that a rubbish interview about the difference between 4% and 6% outsourcing will do it.
Again, it's not the interview that's the problem. It's the policy disaster revealed in the interview that will do for them
The cost of coalition: how the LibDems will hand the Conservatives victory 3/3
8 other outside chances to watch:
Aberdeenshire West and Kincardine Argyll and Bute Eastbourne Eastleigh Edinburgh West Leeds North West Thornbury and Yate Twickenham (shock of the night: Vince Cable to lose?)
My outside tip for THE shock of the night: Vince Cable to lose Twickenham
My apologies to those who had to endure this yesterday afternoon
You might as well add Redcar to that list for good measure.
Don't know about the others, but Eastleigh shouldn't be on the list.
Argyll and Bute definitely shouldn't be
You can get 33-1 on the Conservatives winning in Leeds Northwest. I'm not tempted.
Miss Cyclefree, a fair point it's hardly must-watch TV. However, amongst its declining audience are many people who write for newspapers and won't be shy pointing out how poor Burnham was.
The media - and I don't just mean the "Tory propaganda machine" side of it beloved by CiF commenters - clearly don't rate Ed (or Burnham, for that matter, whose position is nakedly opportunistic).
Whether that's Leveson-related, or Syria-related, or simply contempt for his extraordinarily complacent "35% strategy", I don't know.
What I do expect is that they will act on this judgement over the next 99 days. All the more so if it looks like he's going to lose.
Still, every cloud has a silver lining, and Labour can console themselves with the thought that at least they avoided choosing Andy B as leader.
There's still time for them to do that, post-Ed.
Yes, I hope so, both for political and betting reasons.
Having recently put all my betting slips into good order, I regret to say that Jim Murphy and Harriet Harman are among my preferred successors to Ed Miliband.
The cost of coalition: how the LibDems will hand the Conservatives victory. 1/3
I was going to hold off this until after the first week of February’s fieldwork but since Pb.com has gone febrile I’ll stick it up now.
There’s an assumption amongst many that we’re heading for a hung parliament. In part it’s this human tendency to assume that what happened last time is bound to repeat. But it isn’t. Two, and possibly now three, factors are different this time. 1. LibDems 2. UKIP 3. Greens. I’m not going to bore you with details on those: they should be obvious. I’m also going to ignore here 2. And 3. For simple reasons. Firstly the Greens will damage Labour in Lab marginals, and that’s a different issue to the one I’m discussing here. Secondly there’s little evidence that UKIP will marshall forces in LibDem marginals sufficient to damage Tories. They aren’t the kind of seats where UKIP will score well. Instead I’m focusing on the LibDem-Cons marginal.
Let’s suppose for a second that the Cons and Lab poll close to GE2010: 36.1 / 29. I’m going to give them both an extra 1% and say it’s 37/30. That may be generous to Labour, less so to the Conservatives for all sorts of good reasons to do with the next 3 months of campaigning.
Okay, so last time the LibDems polled 23% for 57 seats. This time they will be lucky to get out of single figures in vote share. We all know they’re great at marshaling where they need it, but this will push them only so far. There comes a point where even they can’t resist the tide. Let’s give them too an extra 1% over their European result last year: giving them 8% which is roughly where they’re currently polling. Even that may be optimistic, but we will work with it.
Let’s suppose for a second that UKIP hit 12% after a bit of pressure during the campaign.
Baxterise those figures and you have an outright Conservative majority of 24. The LibDems lose 45 seats, and the Conservatives gain 31 of them. Bingo.
Now we all know it won’t quite work like that. We’ve also seen Lord Ashcroft’s (now stale) polls taken when the Tories were bumping along the bottom. We know the LibDems are good local campaigners. However, against that I think the Conservatives will actually poll above 37%. So here are 33 yellow seats that I think are vulnerable. My current estimate is that the Conservatives will win at least 20 of them (but I think they may take more than that)
If you are placing bets based on that theory then if I were you I would register at a local foodbank.
There are only a few banknote paper manufacturers, and printers. Someone would know...
There was a Wolfson Prize for 'how to leave the Euro'.
The winning entry suggested printing money _after_ the decision had been made public.
"Recommendations Order the printing of new notes and the minting of new coins as soon as the announcement is made to withdraw from the euro. Accept that there will be a period without new notes and coins. In this interim phase, rely on non-cash means of payment for the majority of transactions. Allow euros to continue to be used where people so wish. As bank branches and ATMs are reopened after D-Day, all withdrawals of euros to be treated as a foreign currency transaction and debited from drachma accounts according to the prevailing exchange rate."
While that's the only way, that was predicated on someone leaving the Euro from a position of basic solvency.
Syriza is not looking like your average, economically literate, Eurosceptic party. It is looking like the party of Hugo Chavez, that sees private ownership of the land that Athens airport used to be on (and which was to be developed) as a capitalist plot. It seeks to discourage tourism (which accounts for one-in-five jobs in Greece). It has announced the sale of shares in the Greek Power Utility (because its not being run for the workers) is to be stopped, and is cancelling the privatisation of the Port of Athens.
In a disorderly default and Grexit scenario, the combination of falling government bond prices and deposit flight would lead to the insolvency of all the banks. The price of imported goods and services would soar - in a 40% devaluation relative to the Euro (a not unreasonable expectation), then petrol prices would increase 80%, as would large chunks of basic staples, clothes, etc. The Greek electricity company would no longer be able to pay the bills to import gas.
If you are economically sensible, but struggling with an over-valued exchange rate or over-regulated labour market, leaving the Euro might make perfect sense and work very well for you.
But following the Hugo Chavez school of economic management - irrespective of what currency you use - is going to end in disaster.
True enough but I'm sceptical of how far that will shift many votes given how strong Labour's NHS brand is. If Stafford can't impact it, I doubt that a rubbish interview about the difference between 4% and 6% outsourcing will do it.
Maybe people aren't as stupid as politicos sometimes think. Lord Ashcroft's latest focus group was interesting on the NHS:
Some observed that [Labour] had been “banging on about the NHS”, but to what end they were not sure. Most saw it as a stick with which Labour intended to beat the Tories; nobody had heard of any Labour plan to improve the service, other than possibly to spend more: “They’re saying what’s wrong with it, not what they’re going to do to put it right”; “they care about it deep down and they would try to do more, but they’re a bit stupid with the money”.
There was a widespread view that problems with the NHS were deep seated, did not originate with the current government and would not be solved by the next one: “the problems are on the ground. It’s not really something that can be solved in parliament. It will take years”.
I think it's quite a difficult thing to keep secret!
Firstly, there are relatively few companies capable of printing large quantities of banknotes, De La Rue PLC is probably the biggest. And they don't have hundreds of bank note printing machines lying idle, ready to use.
Secondly, it's actually quite an involved process. You need to get designs made, and you need them to be difficult to forge and easy to recognise.
Thirdly, people talk.
I have been toying with the idea of investing in De La Rue. Close to their year low, and if Greece exit and make through to the other side, Italy and Spain won't be far behind, especially if Podemos in Spain continue to make inroads as they have done in the last few months. Could be a nice bit of business for them over the next couple of years.
The cost of coalition: how the LibDems will hand the Conservatives victory. 1/3
I was going to hold off this until after the first week of February’s fieldwork but since Pb.com has gone febrile I’ll stick it up now.
There’s an assumption amongst many that we’re heading for a hung parliament. In part it’s this human tendency to assume that what happened last time is bound to repeat. But it isn’t. Two, and possibly now three, factors are different this time. 1. LibDems 2. UKIP 3. Greens. I’m not going to bore you with details on those: they should be obvious. I’m also going to ignore here 2. And 3. For simple reasons. Firstly the Greens will damage Labour in Lab marginals, and that’s a different issue to the one I’m discussing here. Secondly there’s little evidence that UKIP will marshall forces in LibDem marginals sufficient to damage Tories. They aren’t the kind of seats where UKIP will score well. Instead I’m focusing on the LibDem-Cons marginal.
Let’s suppose for a second that the Cons and Lab poll close to GE2010: 36.1 / 29. I’m going to give them both an extra 1% and say it’s 37/30. That may be generous to Labour, less so to the Conservatives for all sorts of good reasons to do with the next 3 months of campaigning.
Okay, so last time the LibDems polled 23% for 57 seats. This time they will be lucky to get out of single figures in vote share. We all know they’re great at marshaling where they need it, but this will push them only so far. There comes a point where even they can’t resist the tide. Let’s give them too an extra 1% over their European result last year: giving them 8% which is roughly where they’re currently polling. Even that may be optimistic, but we will work with it.
Let’s suppose for a second that UKIP hit 12% after a bit of pressure during the campaign.
Baxterise those figures and you have an outright Conservative majority of 24. The LibDems lose 45 seats, and the Conservatives gain 31 of them. Bingo.
Now we all know it won’t quite work like that. We’ve also seen Lord Ashcroft’s (now stale) polls taken when the Tories were bumping along the bottom. We know the LibDems are good local campaigners. However, against that I think the Conservatives will actually poll above 37%. So here are 33 yellow seats that I think are vulnerable. My current estimate is that the Conservatives will win at least 20 of them (but I think they may take more than that)
If you are placing bets based on that theory then if I were you I would register at a local foodbank.
Still, every cloud has a silver lining, and Labour can console themselves with the thought that at least they avoided choosing Andy B as leader.
There's still time for them to do that, post-Ed.
Yes, I hope so, both for political and betting reasons.
Having recently put all my betting slips into good order, I regret to say that Jim Murphy and Harriet Harman are among my preferred successors to Ed Miliband.
I would love to see Harman, become leader, preferably in a coronation a la, Gordon.
Still, every cloud has a silver lining, and Labour can console themselves with the thought that at least they avoided choosing Andy B as leader.
There's still time for them to do that, post-Ed.
Yes, I hope so, both for political and betting reasons.
Having recently put all my betting slips into good order, I regret to say that Jim Murphy and Harriet Harman are among my preferred successors to Ed Miliband.
I would love to see Harman, become leader, preferably in a coronation a la, Gordon.
After we’ve re-elected David Cameron, the Labour party and broader Left will look to one another in incredulity. “What happened?” they will exclaim. “Why did we lose? How did we lose?”
The answer is on the BBC website. You can see it for yourself. Go the main site, navigate through to the “Newsnight” page, click on last night’s episode, and watch Kirsty Wark’s segment with shadow health secretary Andy Burnham.
It’s not a “car-crash” interview in the classic sense of the word. There's no floundering for words, or panic stricken pauses. But those nine minutes and eight seconds encapsulate, in perfect form, why Labour will lose, and why - in truth - Labour deserves to lose.
Perhaps, Miss Cyclefree, but it does give an attack line to the blues, and means Labour has to try and explain what it means instead of telling us how the Conservatives will hire private companies to industrialise the eating of babies.
I tend to feel that the best argument on the NHS is that Labour will so muck up the economy that there won't be any money to pay for it and that they have no idea what to do to improve it either. Start getting into the details and most voters' eyes will glaze over.
Currently I imagine that most Labour or Labour-inclined voters think that if the Tories were to get in they will do something dreadful to the NHS that they aren't currently able to do and that Labour will spend more on it by taxing the very very rich.
None of what you say about Burnham being an idiot, Labour's front bench being weak, their policies being ill-thought through etc (which I tend to agree with) will change that perception. The effects will be more indirect - on Labour party morale, on the commentariat etc - rather than on people queuing up in A&E waiting for a nurse to turn up.
Comments
Lab 37%, Con 23%, UKIP 16%, Plaid 10%, Green 8%, LD 6%.
http://www.itv.com/news/wales/update/2015-01-27/what-the-latest-welsh-poll-means-for-each-party/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2015_United_Kingdom_general_election#Wales
UKIP TASTER MANIFESTO OFFERS WELCOME RETURN TO LOW TAX, SMALL STATE POLITICS
If we are to have a small state then how much are we to cut from health pensions welfare defence and education.
Great tip by @Antifrank a couple of years back that one.
Mike has a long and distinguished record of providing useful information and stellar tips. He doesn't need anybody's advice, least of all from somebody who spouts opinions without knowledge of the basic facts.
Hampstead? 'Glenda'? You need to crank up your credibility rating before addressing a proper punter thus.
2-1 is probably ok still btw.
Don't ignore the fallen LibDem share. It's one of the big game changers this time round.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31023166
Weird
I don't remember it and probably would have taken you on out of bravado anyway so yes, I think you are making it up
If you offered rubbish odds and I could get better elsewhere, its hardly "bottling" a bet is it?
You obviously never saw Dads army.
Mainwaring had been trying unsuccessfully to get in for years. Wilson, of course, was a member.
But the Greek voters have wasted their vote it seems to me. Hard to see what they can do if they are promising not to default and stay in euro. But default would spell ruin anyway. As it is, based on a fraud, Greece has got a bunch of hard left extremists in power.
An unhealthy dynamic is appearing in the Greek-troika public posturing. It looks like Syriza will cancel the €950m sale of the land on which the former Athens airport stood. This is a particularly odd one, as the development of this land would create jobs (as well bringing in €950m to the government coffers). It's also a sign that Tsipiras is more in hock to the Chavez side of his party than to the Lula side.
In addition, his demands for a 50% haircut to Greek debts will clearly be completely unacceptable to the IMF. There are ways of lowering interest bills and pushing repayment of capital into the 2040s, which would have the effect of reducing the effective value of Greek debts by c. 50% - but meaningful haircuts would be politically unacceptable across the Eurozone, and would be straight vetoed by the IMF.
Germany, the IMF and the ECB have now all stepped up the rhetoric on the other side of the table, making it clear that (in the case of the IMF and the ECB) there will be no haircut, and that (in the case of Germany) they are not "scared" of Grexit.
With tensions rising, the possibility of a disorderly default and Grexit are rising. If Syriza were to try and call the bluff of the creditors by threatening to suspend interest payments, then I think that rating agencies would immediately declare a technical default, and the ECB would cease to accept Greek bonds as collateral. This would result in the immediate closure of the Greek banking system, due to the withdrawal of Emergency Liquidity Assistance, and (in all probability) the exit of Greece from the Eurozone within 24 hours.
To my mind, backtracking on the privatization of the Athens airport land (and some of the comments regarding the role of tourism) are the most worrying signs- it suggests the leadership is completely oblivious to economic reality. (Whether the Eurozone is right for Greece is somewhat beside the point, when you're opposing selling off unused land for development as it's part of some capitalist plot... well, you're the one who's lost the plot...)
Indeed. Just like the idiotic decision yesterday to oppose all in holiday camps than bring in valuable revenue.
Its quite clear this lot could never pay back even less onerous debt schedule. Their only credo is ransom, replenish and re spend.
Quite appalling, really.
I offered the bet and you chose not to take it. Call it something other than bottling if you like.
They have achieved a <5% swing in four. Eastleigh, Newark, Bradford W, Rochester. Three of those have been since the start of 2013.
Labour have achieved a vote share increase above 1% just once in the seven by elections since the start of 2013. Wythenshawe in the NW - a seat they already held.
Didn't happen
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/537044601065197569
Firstly, there are relatively few companies capable of printing large quantities of banknotes, De La Rue PLC is probably the biggest. And they don't have hundreds of bank note printing machines lying idle, ready to use.
Secondly, it's actually quite an involved process. You need to get designs made, and you need them to be difficult to forge and easy to recognise.
Thirdly, people talk.
The problem for the Conservatives is the "special case" Lib Dem seats that will most likely not go with UNS.
Conservative best Price/ Ordered by Majority
Solihull 2-7
Mid Dorset & North Poole 4-11
Wells 4-9
St Austell & Newquay 4-6
Somerton and Froome 2-5
Sutton & Cheam 13-8 <- Lib Dems 45%, Cons 27% in Lord Ashcroft 2nd question.
St Ives 6-5 <- LD 27%/Con 25% (Probably value Tories @6-5 though)
Chippenham 8-15
Cheadle 6-5
North Cornwall 5-4
Norwich South (Many way contest)
Eastbourne 13-8
Bradford East 33-1
Taunton Deane 8-13
Berwick 8-13
Eastleigh 4-1
Argyll and Bute 20-1 (With good reason here, given the SNP)
Aberdeenshire West and Kincardine 3-1 (On this, but on SNP here also)
TOrbay 11-8 (I tipped this at 9-4 but think 11-8 is a fair price)
I just don't see where you get anywhere near 20 gains from lib Dem.
Sitting tight?
I was going to hold off this until after the first week of February’s fieldwork but since Pb.com has gone febrile I’ll stick it up now.
There’s an assumption amongst many that we’re heading for a hung parliament. In part it’s this human tendency to assume that what happened last time is bound to repeat. But it isn’t. Two, and possibly now three, factors are different this time. 1. LibDems 2. UKIP 3. Greens. I’m not going to bore you with details on those: they should be obvious. I’m also going to ignore here 2. And 3. For simple reasons. Firstly the Greens will damage Labour in Lab marginals, and that’s a different issue to the one I’m discussing here. Secondly there’s little evidence that UKIP will marshall forces in LibDem marginals sufficient to damage Tories. They aren’t the kind of seats where UKIP will score well. Instead I’m focusing on the LibDem-Cons marginal.
Let’s suppose for a second that the Cons and Lab poll close to GE2010: 36.1 / 29. I’m going to give them both an extra 1% and say it’s 37/30. That may be generous to Labour, less so to the Conservatives for all sorts of good reasons to do with the next 3 months of campaigning.
Okay, so last time the LibDems polled 23% for 57 seats. This time they will be lucky to get out of single figures in vote share. We all know they’re great at marshaling where they need it, but this will push them only so far. There comes a point where even they can’t resist the tide. Let’s give them too an extra 1% over their European result last year: giving them 8% which is roughly where they’re currently polling. Even that may be optimistic, but we will work with it.
Let’s suppose for a second that UKIP hit 12% after a bit of pressure during the campaign.
Baxterise those figures and you have an outright Conservative majority of 24. The LibDems lose 45 seats, and the Conservatives gain 31 of them. Bingo.
Now we all know it won’t quite work like that. We’ve also seen Lord Ashcroft’s (now stale) polls taken when the Tories were bumping along the bottom. We know the LibDems are good local campaigners. However, against that I think the Conservatives will actually poll above 37%. So here are 33 yellow seats that I think are vulnerable. My current estimate is that the Conservatives will win at least 20 of them (but I think they may take more than that)
20 of the following 25 to turn blue:
Berwick-upon-Tweed
Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk
Brecon and Radnorshire
Carshalton and Wallington
Cheadle
Cheltenham
Chippenham
Colchester
Cornwall North
Devon North
Dorset Mid and Poole North
Fife North East (Ming Campbell standing down, outside chance)
Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell standing down)
Kingston and Surbiton
Lewes
Portsmouth South (Mike Hancock … )
Solihull
Somerton and Frome
Southport
St Austell and Newquay
St Ives
Sutton and Cheam
Taunton Deane
Torbay
Wells
PROSPECTIVE parliamentary candidate Don Jerrard called time on his election campaign on Monday citing his opposition to Ukip supporting a convicted criminal as his main reason.
He is apparently referring to Paul Lovegrove who is Chairman of Portsmouth South.
Mr Lovegrove said he was not sorry to see him leave. ‘The world of politics will be better off without him.’
The same Mr Lovegrove said of a UKIP coucillor in Portsmouth "I took on a guy from a council estate."
Mr Lovegrove said taking on Cllr Godier was a mistake.
http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/local/ukip-parliamentary-candidate-leaves-over-chairman-s-criminal-record-1-6546275
8 other outside chances to watch:
Aberdeenshire West and Kincardine
Argyll and Bute
Eastbourne
Eastleigh
Edinburgh West
Leeds North West
Thornbury and Yate
Twickenham (shock of the night: Vince Cable to lose?)
My outside tip for THE shock of the night: Vince Cable to lose Twickenham
My apologies to those who had to endure this yesterday afternoon
How many people watch Newsnight?
*If you know how tell me and I'll reluctantly do it.
The winning entry suggested printing money _after_ the decision had been made public.
"Recommendations
Order the printing of new notes and the minting of new coins as soon as the announcement is made to withdraw from the euro.
Accept that there will be a period without new notes and coins.
In this interim phase, rely on non-cash means of payment for the majority of transactions.
Allow euros to continue to be used where people so wish.
As bank branches and ATMs are reopened after D-Day, all withdrawals of euros to be treated as a foreign currency transaction and debited from drachma accounts according to the prevailing exchange rate."
p.45
http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/images/WolfsonPrize/wep shortlist essay - roger bootle.pdf
http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/component/zoo/item/wolfson-economics-prize-2012
I guess the point is more how it encapsulates how utterly useless this Labour team are. They are the weakest opposition I can remember in a long long time. To be 3 months out and have your shadow health minister all over the shop like that on key figures and policy is so crap it's beyond parody. He sums up the entire Labour front bench. It's schoolboy student debating politics. You can just imagine how they dreamt up this bollocks sitting round Ed Miliband's Hampstead kitchen table. It's odious middle class meddling in a world of grown up politics.
Right that's my vent at Andy Burnham done. I'm off to walk the dog.
The ones that count in the labour party. He needs to be looking behind him at the best of times, these are not the best of times.
The interview is not why they are going to lose. The subject matter of the interview (any Labour policy) is the problem
15 pt headstart in Aberdeenshire West & Kincardine, and still the Nats are big favourites.
In Greece?!
You can get 33-1 on the Conservatives winning in Leeds Northwest. I'm not tempted.
French rewrite Battle of Waterloo to cast Napoleon as the victor
Re-enactment of 1815 conflict will seek to portray French military leader as a hero
The French are seeking to rewrite history by claiming that Napoleon Bonaparte was a “political virtuoso” who all but won the Battle of Waterloo.
A large-scale re-enactment to mark this year’s bicentenary of the conflict will paint Napoleon as a hero.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11373655/French-rewrite-Battle-of-Waterloo-to-cast-Napoleon-as-the-victor.html
Whether that's Leveson-related, or Syria-related, or simply contempt for his extraordinarily complacent "35% strategy", I don't know.
What I do expect is that they will act on this judgement over the next 99 days. All the more so if it looks like he's going to lose.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Eagles, how very dare you?!
http://www.doncasterfreepress.co.uk/news/major-job-losses-as-two-doncaster-tesco-stores-will-close-1-7075952
A Tory Prime Minister leading a vast European Alliance to give the French a damn good thrashing.
There's only 1 seat I've staked a three figure unhedged betting sum on in a Conservative/Lib Dem contest.
Solihull. Target number 1.
If you think the Conservatives are going to take 20 Lib Dem seats then you need to back in Leeds Northwest and Argyll and Bute @ 33s and 20s.
Neither tempts me. The Lib Dems are stickier than shit.
Syriza is not looking like your average, economically literate, Eurosceptic party. It is looking like the party of Hugo Chavez, that sees private ownership of the land that Athens airport used to be on (and which was to be developed) as a capitalist plot. It seeks to discourage tourism (which accounts for one-in-five jobs in Greece). It has announced the sale of shares in the Greek Power Utility (because its not being run for the workers) is to be stopped, and is cancelling the privatisation of the Port of Athens.
In a disorderly default and Grexit scenario, the combination of falling government bond prices and deposit flight would lead to the insolvency of all the banks. The price of imported goods and services would soar - in a 40% devaluation relative to the Euro (a not unreasonable expectation), then petrol prices would increase 80%, as would large chunks of basic staples, clothes, etc. The Greek electricity company would no longer be able to pay the bills to import gas.
If you are economically sensible, but struggling with an over-valued exchange rate or over-regulated labour market, leaving the Euro might make perfect sense and work very well for you.
But following the Hugo Chavez school of economic management - irrespective of what currency you use - is going to end in disaster.
Some observed that [Labour] had been “banging on about the NHS”, but to what end they were not sure. Most saw it as a stick with which Labour intended to beat the Tories; nobody had heard of any Labour plan to improve the service, other than possibly to spend more: “They’re saying what’s wrong with it, not what they’re going to do to put it right”; “they care about it deep down and they would try to do more, but they’re a bit stupid with the money”.
There was a widespread view that problems with the NHS were deep seated, did not originate with the current government and would not be solved by the next one: “the problems are on the ground. It’s not really something that can be solved in parliament. It will take years”.
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2015/01/ashcroft-national-poll-con-32-lab-32-lib-dem-6-ukip-15-green-9/#more-7375
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Arthur_Wellesley,_1st_Duke_of_Wellington
I'd imagine the same ones wot watch PMQs?
That Alan Johnson cash I pissed up the wall isn't coming back though.
Currently I imagine that most Labour or Labour-inclined voters think that if the Tories were to get in they will do something dreadful to the NHS that they aren't currently able to do and that Labour will spend more on it by taxing the very very rich.
None of what you say about Burnham being an idiot, Labour's front bench being weak, their policies being ill-thought through etc (which I tend to agree with) will change that perception. The effects will be more indirect - on Labour party morale, on the commentariat etc - rather than on people queuing up in A&E waiting for a nurse to turn up.