The commentariat seems to be composed entirely of Blairite journalists that hate Ed Miliband's guts. So I'd say that battle is already home and dry for the Conservatives.
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 ?
I just don't see where you get anywhere near 20 gains from lib Dem.
That rather depends how many, or rather how few seats the LibDems finish up with. As I posted last night, William Hill, no slouches they, have the Yellows priced up at surprisingly short odds of only 11/4 on them winning between 11 - 20 seats. Assuming a mid point of 16 seats, this would mean them losing approximately 40 of their existing seats. Were the SNP to win say 8 of their Scottish seats, that would mean 32 losses elsewhere. Split these equally say between Lab & Con and both parties would gain around 16 seats. Unlikely yes, but just possible if one believes the betting markets.
Almost as bad as that Polish chap saying the Ukrainians liberated Auschwitz?
TBF it was the First Ukranian Front that opened the gates, and the Soviet forces included a great number of non Russian troops.
Sure, there were Ukrainian soldiers there. But the majority were Russian. And dozens of other nationalities, including Poles. The “Ukrainian Front” was a mere geographical/military marker that had precisely nothing to do with ethnicity.
If one were really into beans-counting, the purely military contribution of Russians substantially outweighed that of Ukrainians – both in terms of their presence in the Red Army, and their military losses (this is, of course, after adjusting for relative population sizes). There is nothing political about this; it was just a logical consequence of Ukraine being occupied for the first half of the war, and being unable to contribute conscripts.
Incidentally, what makes this all the more ironic is that Poroshenko, as the President of the Maidan, represents many of the ideological descendents of Ukraine’s collaborationist forces – the same ones who killed and ethnically cleansed the Poles and Jews who had previously constituted a majority in West Ukraine’s cities during the antebellum period. And who are even now, as they have been these past two decades, busy rewriting Ukrainian history textbooks to whitewash the role of the UPA.
It just shows Poland in their true light really, and it is not pleasant.
its not often my gob is well and truly smacked but I read today that the av serving of Crunchy nut cornflakes (kellogs ) was equivalent to eating NINE spoonful's of sugar. That's 63 spoonful's a week
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 ?
I just don't see where you get anywhere near 20 gains from lib Dem.
That rather depends how many, or rather how few seats the LibDems finish up with. As I posted last night, William Hill, no slouches they, have the Yellows priced up at surprisingly short odds of ony 11/4 on them winning between 11 - 20 seats. Assuming a mid point of 16 seats, this would mean them losing approximately 40 of their existing seats. Were the SNP to win say 8 of their Scottish seats, that would mean 32 losses elsewhere. Split these equally say between Lab & Con and both parties would gain around 16 seats. Unlikely yes, but just possible if one believes the betting markets.
If the yellow peril hold onto 3 Scottish seats then they'll have more than 20 nationally.
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.
Absolutely right. It's quite fun contemplating the weighting to be applied to the different reasons; I said back in 2011 that Miliband's behaviour over the hacking scandal would come back to haunt him (while the media barons seethed at Cameron for caving into a public enquiry, Miliband's opportunism and glee was in their eyes unforgivable). But in truth I think the largest part is the simple realisation that Miliband is not good enough to be prime minister, his front bench is weak and his party does not have a coherent policy platform. The energy price freeze was a wake up call to political journalists on the right that the modern political consensus is not permanent, and that Miliband could inadvertently do great damage. Meanwhile Miliband's former supporters in the left wing press, never particularly vocal, have all but ceased trying to persuade themselves or their readers that Labour offers a credible alternative or an attractive vision. If the current polling trend continues (and remember, we are reading a lot into what could be a blip, as well as the long term trend) we are surely only a couple of weeks away from a Guardian-led attempt to pull together the disparate forces of the left into an anti-tory umbrella movement. Short of black swans, it may be the left's last card.
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.
I see the chances of the Lib Dems going below 20 seats as fairly remote (and the chances of them getting above 40 likewise). Backing both 21-30 and 31-40 on the seat bands looks like a reasonably safe way of getting something like a 40% return on your money in 99 days.
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'm also on Jim Murphy and I raise you David Miliband.
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'm also on Jim Murphy and I raise you David Miliband.
The money's still coming for David Miliband. I'm at a loss as to the expected mechanism.
I see the chances of the Lib Dems going below 20 seats as fairly remote (and the chances of them getting above 40 likewise). Backing both 21-30 and 31-40 on the seat bands looks like a reasonably safe way of getting something like a 40% return on your money in 99 days.
11 to 20 is by no means impossible - and if they remain marooned in the 8-10% range, then it's a good bet.
And if the LibDems really do poll 6-8%, then fewer than 10 seats is entirely possible.
This is simple mathematics: if they poll mid single digits, then no matter how concentrated their vote, they will will struggle to win more than a few a seats.
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'm also on Jim Murphy and I raise you David Miliband.
The money's still coming for David Miliband. I'm at a loss as to the expected mechanism.
Something along the lines of Buffalo Bill in Silence of the Lambs.
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'm also on Jim Murphy and I raise you David Miliband.
The money's still coming for David Miliband. I'm at a loss as to the expected mechanism.
The only way I can see it is if Ed wins a majority in May.
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'm also on Jim Murphy and I raise you David Miliband.
Surely Murphy is going to have issues after not being an MP from May?
Gales and vast quantities of hail. Looks like it's been snowing, the road's entirely white. Glad I don't need to walk the hound (get lashed a bit by light hail and strong winds before, but this would be dreadful).
RCS1000 thanks for your "Just a little Greece update" below.
The view we often take in guessing what people will do next is what a rational mind would decide. Unfortunately Syriza has a lot of irrational people including very left wing "Chavez" economists who seem to understand little about economics. At least one of which was an economics lecturer in this country. So our gain through them leaving is their loss in arriving in Greece.
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'm also on Jim Murphy and I raise you David Miliband.
The money's still coming for David Miliband. I'm at a loss as to the expected mechanism.
Something along the lines of Buffalo Bill in Silence of the Lambs.
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.
I can't see Syriza being the guys to lead anyone to the other side. Greece could go all Venezuela or Argentina on us. (Not a good outcome for anyone.)
RCS1000 thanks for your "Just a little Greece update" below.
The view we often take in guessing what people will do next is what a rational mind would decide. Unfortunately Syriza has a lot of irrational people including very left wing "Chavez" economists who seem to understand little about economics. At least one of which was an economics lecturer in this country. So our gain through them leaving is their loss in arriving in Greece.
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 keep talking about Scottish seats going blue. They won't they are going SNP a minimum of 9, possibly all 11. None are going blue.
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 ?
I just don't see where you get anywhere near 20 gains from lib Dem.
That rather depends how many, or rather how few seats the LibDems finish up with. As I posted last night, William Hill, no slouches they, have the Yellows priced up at surprisingly short odds of ony 11/4 on them winning between 11 - 20 seats. Assuming a mid point of 16 seats, this would mean them losing approximately 40 of their existing seats. Were the SNP to win say 8 of their Scottish seats, that would mean 32 losses elsewhere. Split these equally say between Lab & Con and both parties would gain around 16 seats. Unlikely yes, but just possible if one believes the betting markets.
If the yellow peril hold onto 3 Scottish seats then they'll have more than 20 nationally.
I think the assumption is that the other 2 Lib Dem seats will fall to the Conservatives.
I am blithely assuming that Orkney&Shetlands is completely and totally safe.
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 keep talking about Scottish seats going blue. They won't they are going SNP a minimum of 9, possibly all 11. None are going blue.
I think the LibDems will hold onto Orkney & Shetland. And I think Charlies has a big enough personal vote in Ross, K & S.
The Borders seats could be toss-ups between Conservative and SNP. But in a split Unionist environment, I reckon the SNP is the horse to back.
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'm also on Jim Murphy and I raise you David Miliband.
Surely Murphy is going to have issues after not being an MP from May?
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'm also on Jim Murphy and I raise you David Miliband.
Well one definitely won't be an MP after May and one probably won't be. Not the best value?
One fewer 'trump card' in the "inevitable" (sic) Indy negotiations......
Given that the SNP aim is to remove Trident from Scotland then that's a win for the SNP.
And the loss of jobs? In a 'united Kingdom moving for no good reason is pretty costly. Wales is not ideal because of the oil terminal.
The loss of jobs was hugely exaggerated - IIRC Labour were touting 45K jobs at the same time as MoD was giving 512 as the jobs dependent on Trident.
Neither of the figures are plausible to be honest.
I assume that 512 is the direct employment, but does not take into account any suppliers who might move, and the impact on the local service economy of the loss of high paying jobs at the site. But 45K seems a ludicrous exaggeration.
45,000 is a ludicrous exaggeration - by a Nat. The actual Labour claim was less than half of that......
Labour claimed: Some 6700 military and civilian jobs are at Faslane, and a further 1500 posts are due to be created by 2022.
Labour calculate a further 11,000 people are also directly and indirectly reliant on the base for their livelihoods.
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'm also on Jim Murphy and I raise you David Miliband.
Well one definitely won't be an MP after May and one probably won't be. Not the best value?
It's ok. I've backed a few other horses in this race.
I just need Mike and Henry to tip someone at 33/1 like they did in 2008 on Ed to be Lab leader after Gordon.
RCS1000 thanks for your "Just a little Greece update" below.
The view we often take in guessing what people will do next is what a rational mind would decide. Unfortunately Syriza has a lot of irrational people including very left wing "Chavez" economists who seem to understand little about economics. At least one of which was an economics lecturer in this country. So our gain through them leaving is their loss in arriving in Greece.
Perhaps you should find out a little more about Varoufakis. Hardly a rabid commie, if anything he seems ideally suited to be Finance Minister given Greece's predicament.
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 keep talking about Scottish seats going blue. They won't they are going SNP a minimum of 9, possibly all 11. None are going blue.
I think the LibDems will hold onto Orkney & Shetland. And I think Charlies has a big enough personal vote in Ross, K & S.
The Borders seats could be toss-ups between Conservative and SNP. But in a split Unionist environment, I reckon the SNP is the horse to back.
I can see there may be quite a few people hedging with Kennedy and Carmichael. I suspect that may not be a very good idea.
I see the chances of the Lib Dems going below 20 seats as fairly remote (and the chances of them getting above 40 likewise). Backing both 21-30 and 31-40 on the seat bands looks like a reasonably safe way of getting something like a 40% return on your money in 99 days.
Antifrank, where do you think the Lib Dems need to be, in terms of seats and vote share, to be willing to enter a coalition? And do you think it depends on who the largest party is and the largest party's vote and seat position?
My gut instinct is there a point at which the Lib Dems' performance is so bad that they cannot contemplate going into a coalition at all, because they will conclude that they are better served trying to rebuild in opposition than propping up a wafer thin majority. Certainly if they end up with 7% of the vote and <20 seats (not my expectation), I think that would be the case.
Above the no coalition point (which may well be higher than 7%/<20 but I suspect peaks at about 10%/25 seats) I think there is probably a window in which they would contemplate a coalition with Labour - Clegg falling on sword if not felled in battle - but not the Conservatives. And then there is a point at which they might consider that they have emerged relatively unscathed by their time in government and could enter another coalition with the Tories (say 15%/35-40 seats) (again unlikely). It may be the case that below that range there is a window for a Tory coalition if the Tories make massive concessions to the Lib Dems, so the Lib Dems can show their party it is worthwhile, but I find it hard to envisage a situation where the Conservatives are able to form a government (which implies their vote held up pretty robustly) but would be minded to offer big concessions to the Lib Dems whose own vote had dissipated. In other words I find it difficult to see reconciliation between the price the Lib Dems must insist on to make another coalition worthwhile and the price the Conservatives will be willing to pay, absent a very strong Lib Dem recovery.
I think the LibDems will hold onto Orkney & Shetland. And I think Charlies has a big enough personal vote in Ross, K & S.
The Borders seats could be toss-ups between Conservative and SNP. But in a split Unionist environment, I reckon the SNP is the horse to back.
I was looking at SNP nags to see if any of them are still available at attractive odds, and I did wonder about Dumfries & Galloway. William Hill go 9/2 on the SNP, which might not be a bad bet, but what about Shadsy's 7/1 on the Conservatives here? The raw figures here make this look like a three-way contest if a reasonable chunk of the Labour vote splits off to the SNP.
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.
Wouldn't Jim Murphy be in with a good shout if (a) Miliband did not become PM and (b) Murphy manages to stop the SNP juggernaut?
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.
Wouldn't Jim Murphy be in with a good shout if (a) Miliband did not become PM and (b) Murphy manages to stop the SNP juggernaut?
I'd be astonished if Orkney and Shetland went SNP, as it had a big No vote, Labour has no votes to give to the SNP here and the SNP couldn't gain it in the Scots Elections.
I think the LibDems will hold onto Orkney & Shetland. And I think Charlies has a big enough personal vote in Ross, K & S.
The Borders seats could be toss-ups between Conservative and SNP. But in a split Unionist environment, I reckon the SNP is the horse to back.
I was looking at SNP nags to see if any of them are still available at attractive odds, and I did wonder about Dumfries & Galloway. William Hill go 9/2 on the SNP, which might not be a bad bet, but what about Shadsy's 7/1 on the Conservatives here? The raw figures here make this look like a three-way contest if a reasonable chunk of the Labour vote splits off to the SNP.
People in the still dilapidated and run down schemes of Dumfries, Newton Stewart and Stranrear are very unlikely to go near the Tories. If they leave Labour they will go SNP.
People in the still dilapidated and run down schemes of Dumfries, Newton Steward and Stranrear are very unlikely to go near the Tories. If they leave Labour they will go SNP.
They don't need to for the Tories to win. What they need to do is go to the SNP in sufficient but not excessive numbers.
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.
Wouldn't Jim Murphy be in with a good shout if (a) Miliband did not become PM and (b) Murphy manages to stop the SNP juggernaut?
They aren't mutually exclusive events. If Ed becomes PM it may be because the likes of Jim Murphy hold on to their seat.
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 keep talking about Scottish seats going blue. They won't they are going SNP a minimum of 9, possibly all 11. None are going blue.
I think the LibDems will hold onto Orkney & Shetland. And I think Charlies has a big enough personal vote in Ross, K & S.
The Borders seats could be toss-ups between Conservative and SNP. But in a split Unionist environment, I reckon the SNP is the horse to back.
I can see there may be quite a few people hedging with Kennedy and Carmichael. I suspect that may not be a very good idea.
Given that Orkney & Shetland was among the weakest - if not the weakest - part of Scotland in the independence vote, that the LibDems won the constituent seats in the last Holyrood election, and that Carmichael presumably has at least some personal vote, I don't find the SNP prices in O&S interesting.
RK&S might be different. Charlie is not the man he was, and the SNP is much stronger there. Charlie, as yesterday's man, might be a loser and the odds make it interesting to maybe play. But I'd still reckon its 55% LD, 45% SNP as far as likely outcome.
Antifrank, where do you think the Lib Dems need to be, in terms of seats and vote share, to be willing to enter a coalition? And do you think it depends on who the largest party is and the largest party's vote and seat position?
I largely agree with you.
For the purpose of this question, there is no single entity called the Lib Dems. To enter into a coalition, first their negotiating team need to negotiate terms, then the MPs need to approve it, then it needs to be approved by the membership.
The current leadership of the party would, I think, by and large be happy enough to continue with the Conservatives in coalition, where they have a reasonably good working relationship. They would find working with Labour more problematic, owing to personality differences (it seems from the outside), but if push comes to a shove they would be willing to go for that too - whether Labour would be willing to enter coalition with the current Lib Dem leadership is a quite different matter.
The MPs who returned in May would be much less willing to be in coalition with the Conservatives. They would have seen comrades shot down for their role in the last five years and another five years would leave them looking like an agency for the Conservative party. They would much rather assist the Labour party, but only so long as they were not going to be kicked all over the place.
The party membership are still further down the line than the MPs. With no personal ambitions tied up in the decision, they will be much more open to refreshing the party on the backbenches or in opposition.
To avoid that fate, that requires numbers. Fewer than 30 would make it hard to secure adequate Cabinet representation. Labour are in no mood to be kind to the Lib Dems, while the Conservatives in 2010 were pretty open-handed in their offer of five seats at the table to the Lib Dems. They might be again.
So I am not expecting a further coalition, because I don't expect the three different interested groups to agree.
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 keep talking about Scottish seats going blue. They won't they are going SNP a minimum of 9, possibly all 11. None are going blue.
I think the LibDems will hold onto Orkney & Shetland. And I think Charlies has a big enough personal vote in Ross, K & S.
The Borders seats could be toss-ups between Conservative and SNP. But in a split Unionist environment, I reckon the SNP is the horse to back.
I can see there may be quite a few people hedging with Kennedy and Carmichael. I suspect that may not be a very good idea.
Given that Orkney & Shetland was among the weakest - if not the weakest - part of Scotland in the independence vote, that the LibDems won the constituent seats in the last Holyrood election, and that Carmichael presumably has at least some personal vote, I don't find the SNP prices in O&S interesting.
RK&S might be different. Charlie is not the man he was, and the SNP is much stronger there. Charlie, as yesterday's man, might be a loser and the odds make it interesting to maybe play. But I'd still reckon its 55% LD, 45% SNP as far as likely outcome.
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 keep talking about Scottish seats going blue. They won't they are going SNP a minimum of 9, possibly all 11. None are going blue.
I think the LibDems will hold onto Orkney & Shetland. And I think Charlies has a big enough personal vote in Ross, K & S.
The Borders seats could be toss-ups between Conservative and SNP. But in a split Unionist environment, I reckon the SNP is the horse to back.
I can see there may be quite a few people hedging with Kennedy and Carmichael. I suspect that may not be a very good idea.
Given that Orkney & Shetland was among the weakest - if not the weakest - part of Scotland in the independence vote, that the LibDems won the constituent seats in the last Holyrood election, and that Carmichael presumably has at least some personal vote, I don't find the SNP prices in O&S interesting.
RK&S might be different. Charlie is not the man he was, and the SNP is much stronger there. Charlie, as yesterday's man, might be a loser and the odds make it interesting to maybe play. But I'd still reckon its 55% LD, 45% SNP as far as likely outcome.
Yes, I quite agree with this analysis.
Thirded. I've bet on the SNP against Charles Kennedy, but I don't expect to collect.
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 keep talking about Scottish seats going blue. They won't they are going SNP a minimum of 9, possibly all 11. None are going blue.
I think the LibDems will hold onto Orkney & Shetland. And I think Charlies has a big enough personal vote in Ross, K & S.
The Borders seats could be toss-ups between Conservative and SNP. But in a split Unionist environment, I reckon the SNP is the horse to back.
I can see there may be quite a few people hedging with Kennedy and Carmichael. I suspect that may not be a very good idea.
Given that Orkney & Shetland was among the weakest - if not the weakest - part of Scotland in the independence vote, that the LibDems won the constituent seats in the last Holyrood election, and that Carmichael presumably has at least some personal vote, I don't find the SNP prices in O&S interesting.
RK&S might be different. Charlie is not the man he was, and the SNP is much stronger there. Charlie, as yesterday's man, might be a loser and the odds make it interesting to maybe play. But I'd still reckon its 55% LD, 45% SNP as far as likely outcome.
I don't claim to be close enough to Orkney and Shetland to have an ear to the ground but it does strike me as if the Liberal hangover in the North of Scotland was weakened by the Liberal/SDP merger, it's still obviously strong but not as much as it was.
It seems to lie in the small c conservative nature of the area being a natural Liberal worldview. With that, Carmichael being an Incomer strikes me as his personal vote being much weaker than you might think from the outside.
On the other hand John Thurso's personal vote as Viscount Thurso, the area clinging on to the old fashioned Aristrocratic values (as evidenced by the high No in the high North probably means he has the largest personal vote of any Liberal maybe of anyone in Scotland.
Thanks, I agree. I like your articulation of the three constituencies and agree that is key to the analysis. It is the members' reticence, primarily, that makes me think a deal with the Conservatives is unlikely at almost any price. I think the Labour and Lib Dem leadership's mutual dislike could be overcome; the rose garden marriage in 2010 demonstrated that politicians have much thicker skins and are much more pragmatic than we give them credit for. And Ed Balls is a sweetheart, really. I also think that Labour and the Lib Dems could quickly find enough to agree on to make a coalition work in policy terms (principally pursuing constitutional reform, which the Lib Dems would largely own). But I struggle to see it happening if Labour is behind in votes and seats, except as part of a broader rainbow coalition. And if Labour are head on votes and seats the Lib Dems are probably reduced to a rump and possibly not strong enough to deliver a workable majority.
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 keep talking about Scottish seats going blue. They won't they are going SNP a minimum of 9, possibly all 11. None are going blue.
I think the LibDems will hold onto Orkney & Shetland. And I think Charlies has a big enough personal vote in Ross, K & S.
The Borders seats could be toss-ups between Conservative and SNP. But in a split Unionist environment, I reckon the SNP is the horse to back.
I can see there may be quite a few people hedging with Kennedy and Carmichael. I suspect that may not be a very good idea.
Given that Orkney & Shetland was among the weakest - if not the weakest - part of Scotland in the independence vote, that the LibDems won the constituent seats in the last Holyrood election, and that Carmichael presumably has at least some personal vote, I don't find the SNP prices in O&S interesting.
RK&S might be different. Charlie is not the man he was, and the SNP is much stronger there. Charlie, as yesterday's man, might be a loser and the odds make it interesting to maybe play. But I'd still reckon its 55% LD, 45% SNP as far as likely outcome.
I don't claim to be close enough to Orkney and Shetland to have an ear to the ground but it does strike me as if the Liberal hangover in the North of Scotland was weakened by the Liberal/SDP merger, it's still obviously strong but not as much as it was.
It seems to lie in the small c conservative nature of the area being a natural Liberal worldview. With that, Carmichael being an Incomer strikes me as his personal vote being much weaker than you might think from the outside.
On the other hand John Thurso's personal vote as Viscount Thurso, the area clinging on to the old fashioned Aristrocratic values (as evidenced by the high No in the high North probably means he has the largest personal vote of any Liberal maybe of anyone in Scotland.
That's interesting, I'm hedged on Thurso and you've reassured me that the 6-4 on the Lib Dems there wasn't as daft a move as I thought perhaps immediately after doing so.
I think the LibDems will hold onto Orkney & Shetland. And I think Charlies has a big enough personal vote in Ross, K & S.
The Borders seats could be toss-ups between Conservative and SNP. But in a split Unionist environment, I reckon the SNP is the horse to back.
I was looking at SNP nags to see if any of them are still available at attractive odds, and I did wonder about Dumfries & Galloway. William Hill go 9/2 on the SNP, which might not be a bad bet, but what about Shadsy's 7/1 on the Conservatives here? The raw figures here make this look like a three-way contest if a reasonable chunk of the Labour vote splits off to the SNP.
People in the still dilapidated and run down schemes of Dumfries, Newton Stewart and Stranrear are very unlikely to go near the Tories. If they leave Labour they will go SNP.
Yes, I'd favour the SNP to take Dumfries and Galloway rather than the Blues, but I cannot see the remotest chance of them taking Berwickshire, Roxborough and Selkirk. The referendum suggests the borders, in general, will be reasonably profitable for the Tories
Edit - in most of the seats the Tories are chasing Libs, they will now find themselves chasing the SNP, Berwickshire aside. Their seconds to Labour they will fade in, D and G aside and they will be first amongst also rans in the Angus/Buchan/Moray and Perthshire set
Lots of speculation here without looking at the polling numbers.
The last two waves of Ashcroft CON-LD battlegrounds each had average swings to CON of just 2%. Now there was an awful lot of variation between the seats but they don't, as some on here are suggesting, point to big gains. Possibly 7 but maybe 10 max.
In most of these defences the LDs are far better organised with more skilled ground troops and far better databases.
Clearly where an incumbent MP like Alan Beith is standing down then it will be a harder. But the Ashcroft polling had the yellows ahead amongst alll those expressing a preference in his seat.
Lord Ashcroft @LordAshcroft · 2m2 minutes ago My my these Scottish constituency polls are looking interesting.......
I'm not amused.
If he wasn't spending vast sums of his own money to do these I would be annoyed with this teasing. As it is I am agog with anticipation. I would very much like him to show a big SNP lead in Aberdeenshire West as I accidentally double betted on the constituency.
I remain of the view that bookies will struggle to make money out of political betting / current affairs. It is one of the few market areas where informed, shrewd punters have a substantial edge over the bookies.
As part of a general (much overdue) bookkeeping exercise, I listed every one of my fixed odds political bets on a spreadsheet last night (not including my substantial betfair positions/trades).
In total, I've staked £1044 on 52 bets. If all the bets won at the odds that I took, I'd be £12351 in profit. Bear in mind, this is profit, not including the return of the stake. Also, It would be impossible for all of the bets to come in - but for the purpose of this exercise, that doesn't matter. The odds have since lengthened on 2 bets, remained the same on 9 and have shortened on all the others.
The key point here is - If I were to place those exact same bets now (for the same stakes) at the best odds currently available, my profit would be only £5816. If there were a cashout option on my bets, i'd be able to double my money and walk away.
That's quite an edge I have on the bookies.
I'm not willy-waving here. I'm just wondering if there are enough heart-over-head mug-punters, betting enough cash at poor odds for the bookies to offset their losses to the sharps.
I remain of the view that bookies will struggle to make money out of political betting / current affairs. It is one of the few market areas where informed, shrewd punters have a substantial edge over the bookies.
As part of a general (much overdue) bookkeeping exercise, I listed every one of my fixed odds political bets on a spreadsheet last night (not including my substantial betfair positions/trades).
In total, I've staked £1044 on 52 bets. If all the bets won at the odds that I took, I'd be £12351 in profit. Bear in mind, this is profit, not including the return of the stake. Also, It would be impossible for all of the bets to come in - but for the purpose of this exercise, that doesn't matter. The odds have since lengthened on 2 bets, remained the same on 9 and have shortened on all the others.
The key point here is - If I were to place those exact same bets now (for the same stakes) at the best odds currently available, my profit would be only £5816. If there were a cashout option on my bets, i'd be able to double my money and walk away.
That's quite an edge I have on the bookies.
I'm not willy-waving here. I'm just wondering if there are enough heart-over-head mug-punters, betting enough cash at poor odds for the bookies to offset their losses to the sharps.
I hope so, but I'm sceptical.
I've got way more than that stacked and my potential winnings are alot lower.
I'm not willy-waving here. I'm just wondering if there are enough heart-over-head mug-punters, betting enough cash at poor odds for the bookies to offset their losses to the sharps.
Most of the time there aren't. At the election there will (or may) be.
Lots of speculation here without looking at the polling numbers.
The last two waves of Ashcroft CON-LD battlegrounds each had average swings to CON of just 2%. Now there was an awful lot of variation between the seats but they don't, as some on here are suggesting, point to big gains. Possibly 7 but maybe 10 max.
In most of these defences the LDs are far better organised with more skilled ground troops and far better databases.
Clearly where an incumbent MP like Alan Beith is standing down then it will be a harder. But the Ashcroft polling had the yellows ahead amongst alll those expressing a preference in his seat.
I see the chances of the Lib Dems going below 20 seats as fairly remote (and the chances of them getting above 40 likewise). Backing both 21-30 and 31-40 on the seat bands looks like a reasonably safe way of getting something like a 40% return on your money in 99 days.
11 to 20 is by no means impossible - and if they remain marooned in the 8-10% range, then it's a good bet.
And if the LibDems really do poll 6-8%, then fewer than 10 seats is entirely possible.
This is simple mathematics: if they poll mid single digits, then no matter how concentrated their vote, they will will struggle to win more than a few a seats.
6-8% overall is compatible with say, an average of 30% in 60 seats.
Bradford West - someone put me off taking 3/1 on Galloway
Half of his local party have decamped from him. Why are you thinking of backing him?
I was just going through the seats and it struck me as a big price for a man who wouldn't be standing if he didn't think he could win. I don't know the ins and outs of the whole saga.
I remain of the view that bookies will struggle to make money out of political betting / current affairs. It is one of the few market areas where informed, shrewd punters have a substantial edge over the bookies.
As part of a general (much overdue) bookkeeping exercise, I listed every one of my fixed odds political bets on a spreadsheet last night (not including my substantial betfair positions/trades).
In total, I've staked £1044 on 52 bets. If all the bets won at the odds that I took, I'd be £12351 in profit. Bear in mind, this is profit, not including the return of the stake. Also, It would be impossible for all of the bets to come in - but for the purpose of this exercise, that doesn't matter. The odds have since lengthened on 2 bets, remained the same on 9 and have shortened on all the others.
The key point here is - If I were to place those exact same bets now (for the same stakes) at the best odds currently available, my profit would be only £5816. If there were a cashout option on my bets, i'd be able to double my money and walk away.
That's quite an edge I have on the bookies.
I'm not willy-waving here. I'm just wondering if there are enough heart-over-head mug-punters, betting enough cash at poor odds for the bookies to offset their losses to the sharps.
I hope so, but I'm sceptical.
I've got way more than that stacked and my potential winnings are alot lower.
I've got lots of other, more complicated positions on betfair which I haven't included because they mess up the calculation.
My overall exposure is about £3500, and my expected profit, about £6000.
I remain of the view that bookies will struggle to make money out of political betting / current affairs. It is one of the few market areas where informed, shrewd punters have a substantial edge over the bookies.
As part of a general (much overdue) bookkeeping exercise, I listed every one of my fixed odds political bets on a spreadsheet last night (not including my substantial betfair positions/trades).
In total, I've staked £1044 on 52 bets. If all the bets won at the odds that I took, I'd be £12351 in profit. Bear in mind, this is profit, not including the return of the stake. Also, It would be impossible for all of the bets to come in - but for the purpose of this exercise, that doesn't matter. The odds have since lengthened on 2 bets, remained the same on 9 and have shortened on all the others.
The key point here is - If I were to place those exact same bets now (for the same stakes) at the best odds currently available, my profit would be only £5816. If there were a cashout option on my bets, i'd be able to double my money and walk away.
That's quite an edge I have on the bookies.
I'm not willy-waving here. I'm just wondering if there are enough heart-over-head mug-punters, betting enough cash at poor odds for the bookies to offset their losses to the sharps.
I hope so, but I'm sceptical.
I've got way more than that stacked and my potential winnings are alot lower.
I've got lots of other, more complicated positions on betfair which I haven't included because they mess up the calculation.
My overall exposure is about £3500, and my expected profit, about £6000.
Ah yes I've got some of those, like the £960 I've got that turns to £0.67 profit if Labour get most votes and seats.
I see the chances of the Lib Dems going below 20 seats as fairly remote (and the chances of them getting above 40 likewise). Backing both 21-30 and 31-40 on the seat bands looks like a reasonably safe way of getting something like a 40% return on your money in 99 days.
11 to 20 is by no means impossible - and if they remain marooned in the 8-10% range, then it's a good bet.
And if the LibDems really do poll 6-8%, then fewer than 10 seats is entirely possible.
This is simple mathematics: if they poll mid single digits, then no matter how concentrated their vote, they will will struggle to win more than a few a seats.
6-8% overall is compatible with say, an average of 30% in 60 seats.
The way I look at it, the LibDems start with 6.8 million votes, and will probably shed c. 4m of them (and maybe nearer 4.5m).
It is possible that the bulk of these 4 million are lost in seats where the LibDems have no real chance. But it is not likely.
After Newsnight last night and Andy Burnham with Kay Burley this afternoon it is difficult not to conclude that labour really need a new health secretary with immediate effect if they hope to gain any political points out of the NHS. Also my wife who is not interested in politics commented this afternoon that every time she hears David Cameron he seems to get better and better and that Ed Miliband just gets worse and worse.
I see the chances of the Lib Dems going below 20 seats as fairly remote (and the chances of them getting above 40 likewise). Backing both 21-30 and 31-40 on the seat bands looks like a reasonably safe way of getting something like a 40% return on your money in 99 days.
11 to 20 is by no means impossible - and if they remain marooned in the 8-10% range, then it's a good bet.
And if the LibDems really do poll 6-8%, then fewer than 10 seats is entirely possible.
This is simple mathematics: if they poll mid single digits, then no matter how concentrated their vote, they will will struggle to win more than a few a seats.
6-8% overall is compatible with say, an average of 30% in 60 seats.
The way I look at it, the LibDems start with 6.8 million votes, and will probably shed c. 4m of them (and maybe nearer 4.5m).
It is possible that the bulk of these 4 million are lost in seats where the LibDems have no real chance. But it is not likely.
Have you seen their by-election results in seats where they aren't competitive ?!
Bradford West - someone put me off taking 3/1 on Galloway
Half of his local party have decamped from him. Why are you thinking of backing him?
I was just going through the seats and it struck me as a big price for a man who wouldn't be standing if he didn't think he could win. I don't know the ins and outs of the whole saga.
He came third in Poplar & Limehouse last time. He can crash and burn.
I remain of the view that bookies will struggle to make money out of political betting / current affairs. It is one of the few market areas where informed, shrewd punters have a substantial edge over the bookies.
As part of a general (much overdue) bookkeeping exercise, I listed every one of my fixed odds political bets on a spreadsheet last night (not including my substantial betfair positions/trades).
In total, I've staked £1044 on 52 bets. If all the bets won at the odds that I took, I'd be £12351 in profit. Bear in mind, this is profit, not including the return of the stake. Also, It would be impossible for all of the bets to come in - but for the purpose of this exercise, that doesn't matter. The odds have since lengthened on 2 bets, remained the same on 9 and have shortened on all the others.
The key point here is - If I were to place those exact same bets now (for the same stakes) at the best odds currently available, my profit would be only £5816. If there were a cashout option on my bets, i'd be able to double my money and walk away.
That's quite an edge I have on the bookies.
I'm not willy-waving here. I'm just wondering if there are enough heart-over-head mug-punters, betting enough cash at poor odds for the bookies to offset their losses to the sharps.
I hope so, but I'm sceptical.
Mirror Mirror on the wall, who is the shrewdest of them all?
Lots of speculation here without looking at the polling numbers.
The last two waves of Ashcroft CON-LD battlegrounds each had average swings to CON of just 2%. Now there was an awful lot of variation between the seats but they don't, as some on here are suggesting, point to big gains. Possibly 7 but maybe 10 max.
In most of these defences the LDs are far better organised with more skilled ground troops and far better databases.
Clearly where an incumbent MP like Alan Beith is standing down then it will be a harder. But the Ashcroft polling had the yellows ahead amongst alll those expressing a preference in his seat.
Trabant could have the most skilled ground troops and best database in Germany - doesn't mean anyone would buy what they were selling.
And Nick Clegg is not going to win any awards as Salesman of the Year. He is voter repellent. He has been found out. The LibDems are certifiable for going into an election campaign with him as their leader.
After Newsnight last night and Andy Burnham with Kay Burley this afternoon it is difficult not to conclude that labour really need a new health secretary with immediate effect if they hope to gain any political points out of the NHS. Also my wife who is not interested in politics commented this afternoon that every time she hears David Cameron he seems to get better and better and that Ed Miliband just gets worse and worse.
It's too close to the GE now. Burnham's only get out could be 'health reasons', either himself or a family member.
Bradford West - someone put me off taking 3/1 on Galloway
Half of his local party have decamped from him. Why are you thinking of backing him?
I was just going through the seats and it struck me as a big price for a man who wouldn't be standing if he didn't think he could win. I don't know the ins and outs of the whole saga.
He came third in Poplar & Limehouse last time. He can crash and burn.
A brief web search finds no evidence that Labour have yet selected a candidate for Bradford West. Not the best basis from which to campaign to regain a seat lost in a by-election.
I see the chances of the Lib Dems going below 20 seats as fairly remote (and the chances of them getting above 40 likewise). Backing both 21-30 and 31-40 on the seat bands looks like a reasonably safe way of getting something like a 40% return on your money in 99 days.
11 to 20 is by no means impossible - and if they remain marooned in the 8-10% range, then it's a good bet.
And if the LibDems really do poll 6-8%, then fewer than 10 seats is entirely possible.
This is simple mathematics: if they poll mid single digits, then no matter how concentrated their vote, they will will struggle to win more than a few a seats.
6-8% overall is compatible with say, an average of 30% in 60 seats.
The way I look at it, the LibDems start with 6.8 million votes, and will probably shed c. 4m of them (and maybe nearer 4.5m).
It is possible that the bulk of these 4 million are lost in seats where the LibDems have no real chance. But it is not likely.
Of course the bulk of their votes will be lost in seats where they have little chance - that's 600 out of 630 seats! I agree with the comment about by elections - they clear have next to no core support now. What they do still provide is an anti Tory tacical vote in certain places where Labour or indeed anyone else bar the blues aren't competitive.
From a UNS standpoint, if they are down 15% nationally then they might hope to be down only 8% in the Tory facing seats. If the Tories are down 5% in those sets as well then they shouldn't lose too many.
Bradford West - someone put me off taking 3/1 on Galloway
Half of his local party have decamped from him. Why are you thinking of backing him?
I was just going through the seats and it struck me as a big price for a man who wouldn't be standing if he didn't think he could win. I don't know the ins and outs of the whole saga.
He came third in Poplar & Limehouse last time. He can crash and burn.
A brief web search finds no evidence that Labour have yet selected a candidate for Bradford West. Not the best basis from which to campaign to regain a seat lost in a by-election.
I'm on Galloway at 9-4 for £20, I've pretty much mentally filed that one under 'b' for bin.
The perpetually betrayed left craves Syriza-style Marxist revivalism and the aristocracy of New Labour complain that their legacy has been traduced. Miliband tried to steer a middle way – a “third way” – but one of the positions it was positioning itself against was already a “Third Way”, so Milibandism became a third of a third … so a ninth way, which was too refined for most people to understand.
If there were a cashout option on my bets, i'd be able to double my money and walk away.
No, you wouldn't. Cash out is based on taking the "other side" of the price. If you back something at 4/1 and it shortens to 2/1, you only make about 33% (because you have to back the other side at 4/11).
If you back something at 25/1, and it shortens to 12/1, you just get your money back on a cash out (because bookies usually bet 1/25 v 12/1).
Many of these selections have shortened precisely because you backed them. Chances are, they're good bets, but chances also are that the bookies have over-reacted to your money.
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 keep talking about Scottish seats going blue. They won't they are going SNP a minimum of 9, possibly all 11. None are going blue.
I think the LibDems will hold onto Orkney & Shetland. And I think Charlies has a big enough personal vote in Ross, K & S.
The Borders seats could be toss-ups between Conservative and SNP. But in a split Unionist environment, I reckon the SNP is the horse to back.
I can see there may be quite a few people hedging with Kennedy and Carmichael. I suspect that may not be a very good idea.
Given that Orkney & Shetland was among the weakest - if not the weakest - part of Scotland in the independence vote, that the LibDems won the constituent seats in the last Holyrood election, and that Carmichael presumably has at least some personal vote, I don't find the SNP prices in O&S interesting.
RK&S might be different. Charlie is not the man he was, and the SNP is much stronger there. Charlie, as yesterday's man, might be a loser and the odds make it interesting to maybe play. But I'd still reckon its 55% LD, 45% SNP as far as likely outcome.
Yes, I quite agree with this analysis.
Thirded. I've bet on the SNP against Charles Kennedy, but I don't expect to collect.
Only Kennedy and Carmichael ! That's it. A whole history written off due to helping the Tories !
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.
I can't see Syriza being the guys to lead anyone to the other side. Greece could go all Venezuela or Argentina on us. (Not a good outcome for anyone.)
Hence my toying with the idea rather than going ahead with it. Mrs Max wouldn't be too happy if I had to explain why we're not going on holiday this year because my money is tied up in an unproductive investment in De La Rue waiting for the dividend payout.
Comments
Assuming a mid point of 16 seats, this would mean them losing approximately 40 of their existing seats. Were the SNP to win say 8 of their Scottish seats, that would mean 32 losses elsewhere. Split these equally say between Lab & Con and both parties would gain around 16 seats. Unlikely yes, but just possible if one believes the betting markets.
If one were really into beans-counting, the purely military contribution of Russians substantially outweighed that of Ukrainians – both in terms of their presence in the Red Army, and their military losses (this is, of course, after adjusting for relative population sizes). There is nothing political about this; it was just a logical consequence of Ukraine being occupied for the first half of the war, and being unable to contribute conscripts.
Incidentally, what makes this all the more ironic is that Poroshenko, as the President of the Maidan, represents many of the ideological descendents of Ukraine’s collaborationist forces – the same ones who killed and ethnically cleansed the Poles and Jews who had previously constituted a majority in West Ukraine’s cities during the antebellum period. And who are even now, as they have been these past two decades, busy rewriting Ukrainian history textbooks to whitewash the role of the UPA.
It just shows Poland in their true light really, and it is not pleasant.
its not often my gob is well and truly smacked but I read today that the av serving of Crunchy nut cornflakes (kellogs ) was equivalent to eating NINE spoonful's of sugar. That's 63 spoonful's a week
Frankly I am appalled .
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2929178/The-kids-cereals-sugar-one-bowl-7-chocolate-fingers-products-contain-three-years-ago-despite-advice-cut-amounts.html
The historical irony of such a person holding a British passport would, I'm sure, be much appreciated by the French.
This short 3 min video explains what happened at Waterloo.
http://youtu.be/Sj_9CiNkkn4
@GuidoFawkes: PMQs: Ed’s Weapon Backfires - @simonsketch http://t.co/KISZGP5TEh
And if the LibDems really do poll 6-8%, then fewer than 10 seats is entirely possible.
This is simple mathematics: if they poll mid single digits, then no matter how concentrated their vote, they will will struggle to win more than a few a seats.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-31016537
Stupidity of politicians N and S of the border, but with oil at $50 who would be looking.
The view we often take in guessing what people will do next is what a rational mind would decide. Unfortunately Syriza has a lot of irrational people including very left wing "Chavez" economists who seem to understand little about economics. At least one of which was an economics lecturer in this country. So our gain through them leaving is their loss in arriving in Greece.
I am blithely assuming that Orkney&Shetlands is completely and totally safe.
And I think Charlies has a big enough personal vote in Ross, K & S.
The Borders seats could be toss-ups between Conservative and SNP. But in a split Unionist environment, I reckon the SNP is the horse to back.
Labour claimed: Some 6700 military and civilian jobs are at Faslane, and a further 1500 posts are due to be created by 2022.
Labour calculate a further 11,000 people are also directly and indirectly reliant on the base for their livelihoods.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/yes-vote-would-put-19000-faslane-jobs-at-risk.19860457
I just need Mike and Henry to tip someone at 33/1 like they did in 2008 on Ed to be Lab leader after Gordon.
My gut instinct is there a point at which the Lib Dems' performance is so bad that they cannot contemplate going into a coalition at all, because they will conclude that they are better served trying to rebuild in opposition than propping up a wafer thin majority. Certainly if they end up with 7% of the vote and <20 seats (not my expectation), I think that would be the case.
Above the no coalition point (which may well be higher than 7%/<20 but I suspect peaks at about 10%/25 seats) I think there is probably a window in which they would contemplate a coalition with Labour - Clegg falling on sword if not felled in battle - but not the Conservatives. And then there is a point at which they might consider that they have emerged relatively unscathed by their time in government and could enter another coalition with the Tories (say 15%/35-40 seats) (again unlikely). It may be the case that below that range there is a window for a Tory coalition if the Tories make massive concessions to the Lib Dems, so the Lib Dems can show their party it is worthwhile, but I find it hard to envisage a situation where the Conservatives are able to form a government (which implies their vote held up pretty robustly) but would be minded to offer big concessions to the Lib Dems whose own vote had dissipated. In other words I find it difficult to see reconciliation between the price the Lib Dems must insist on to make another coalition worthwhile and the price the Conservatives will be willing to pay, absent a very strong Lib Dem recovery.
2010 was:
Lab 45.9%
Con 31.6%
SNP 12.3%
LD 8.8%
UKIP 1.3%
RK&S might be different. Charlie is not the man he was, and the SNP is much stronger there. Charlie, as yesterday's man, might be a loser and the odds make it interesting to maybe play. But I'd still reckon its 55% LD, 45% SNP as far as likely outcome.
For the purpose of this question, there is no single entity called the Lib Dems. To enter into a coalition, first their negotiating team need to negotiate terms, then the MPs need to approve it, then it needs to be approved by the membership.
The current leadership of the party would, I think, by and large be happy enough to continue with the Conservatives in coalition, where they have a reasonably good working relationship. They would find working with Labour more problematic, owing to personality differences (it seems from the outside), but if push comes to a shove they would be willing to go for that too - whether Labour would be willing to enter coalition with the current Lib Dem leadership is a quite different matter.
The MPs who returned in May would be much less willing to be in coalition with the Conservatives. They would have seen comrades shot down for their role in the last five years and another five years would leave them looking like an agency for the Conservative party. They would much rather assist the Labour party, but only so long as they were not going to be kicked all over the place.
The party membership are still further down the line than the MPs. With no personal ambitions tied up in the decision, they will be much more open to refreshing the party on the backbenches or in opposition.
To avoid that fate, that requires numbers. Fewer than 30 would make it hard to secure adequate Cabinet representation. Labour are in no mood to be kind to the Lib Dems, while the Conservatives in 2010 were pretty open-handed in their offer of five seats at the table to the Lib Dems. They might be again.
So I am not expecting a further coalition, because I don't expect the three different interested groups to agree.
.. he looked as though he was going to burst into tears
It seems to lie in the small c conservative nature of the area being a natural Liberal worldview. With that, Carmichael being an Incomer strikes me as his personal vote being much weaker than you might think from the outside.
On the other hand John Thurso's personal vote as Viscount Thurso, the area clinging on to the old fashioned Aristrocratic values (as evidenced by the high No in the high North probably means he has the largest personal vote of any Liberal maybe of anyone in Scotland.
A B...Belle Alliance
(pardon my stutter)
Thanks, I agree. I like your articulation of the three constituencies and agree that is key to the analysis. It is the members' reticence, primarily, that makes me think a deal with the Conservatives is unlikely at almost any price. I think the Labour and Lib Dem leadership's mutual dislike could be overcome; the rose garden marriage in 2010 demonstrated that politicians have much thicker skins and are much more pragmatic than we give them credit for. And Ed Balls is a sweetheart, really. I also think that Labour and the Lib Dems could quickly find enough to agree on to make a coalition work in policy terms (principally pursuing constitutional reform, which the Lib Dems would largely own). But I struggle to see it happening if Labour is behind in votes and seats, except as part of a broader rainbow coalition. And if Labour are head on votes and seats the Lib Dems are probably reduced to a rump and possibly not strong enough to deliver a workable majority.
David Cameron Debate Excuse Generator
"Your party name is The Upminster Popular People's Front. If you ask, David Cameron will probably insist you get included in the #leadersdebates"
http://www.libdems.org.uk/askcameron
Edit - in most of the seats the Tories are chasing Libs, they will now find themselves chasing the SNP, Berwickshire aside.
Their seconds to Labour they will fade in, D and G aside and they will be first amongst also rans in the Angus/Buchan/Moray and Perthshire set
My my these Scottish constituency polls are looking interesting.......
I'm not amused.
"A few of the comments on Greek elections tonight have been somewhat ultracrepidarian"
So I had to look it up..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultracrepidarianism
I'm quite sure that I regularly give opinions that are outside my sandals
Perhaps his work is not as pro bono as believed....
11.5
The last two waves of Ashcroft CON-LD battlegrounds each had average swings to CON of just 2%. Now there was an awful lot of variation between the seats but they don't, as some on here are suggesting, point to big gains. Possibly 7 but maybe 10 max.
In most of these defences the LDs are far better organised with more skilled ground troops and far better databases.
Clearly where an incumbent MP like Alan Beith is standing down then it will be a harder. But the Ashcroft polling had the yellows ahead amongst alll those expressing a preference in his seat.
http://may2015.com/featured/may-2015-and-the-art-of-political-betting/
I remain of the view that bookies will struggle to make money out of political betting / current affairs. It is one of the few market areas where informed, shrewd punters have a substantial edge over the bookies.
As part of a general (much overdue) bookkeeping exercise, I listed every one of my fixed odds political bets on a spreadsheet last night (not including my substantial betfair positions/trades).
In total, I've staked £1044 on 52 bets. If all the bets won at the odds that I took, I'd be £12351 in profit. Bear in mind, this is profit, not including the return of the stake. Also, It would be impossible for all of the bets to come in - but for the purpose of this exercise, that doesn't matter. The odds have since lengthened on 2 bets, remained the same on 9 and have shortened on all the others.
The key point here is - If I were to place those exact same bets now (for the same stakes) at the best odds currently available, my profit would be only £5816. If there were a cashout option on my bets, i'd be able to double my money and walk away.
That's quite an edge I have on the bookies.
I'm not willy-waving here. I'm just wondering if there are enough heart-over-head mug-punters, betting enough cash at poor odds for the bookies to offset their losses to the sharps.
I hope so, but I'm sceptical.
https://www.betfair.com/sport/politics?eventId=27348569&bssId=9183071&action=addAffiliateSelection&bsmId=924.20665745&modules=betslip&clkID=63_03089E7584D1417ABD011C9A9616E707&rfr=63&ttp=111&pid=746970&bid=8189
6 -10 Tory gains from Lib Dems, fill your boots @ 11-2.
My overall exposure is about £3500, and my expected profit, about £6000.
It is possible that the bulk of these 4 million are lost in seats where the LibDems have no real chance. But it is not likely.
And Nick Clegg is not going to win any awards as Salesman of the Year. He is voter repellent. He has been found out. The LibDems are certifiable for going into an election campaign with him as their leader.
From a UNS standpoint, if they are down 15% nationally then they might hope to be down only 8% in the Tory facing seats. If the Tories are down 5% in those sets as well then they shouldn't lose too many.
The perpetually betrayed left craves Syriza-style Marxist revivalism and the aristocracy of New Labour complain that their legacy has been traduced. Miliband tried to steer a middle way – a “third way” – but one of the positions it was positioning itself against was already a “Third Way”, so Milibandism became a third of a third … so a ninth way, which was too refined for most people to understand.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2015/jan/28/labour-interesting-alliances-forming-to-plot-partys-future
If you back something at 25/1, and it shortens to 12/1, you just get your money back on a cash out (because bookies usually bet 1/25 v 12/1).
Many of these selections have shortened precisely because you backed them. Chances are, they're good bets, but chances also are that the bookies have over-reacted to your money.
http://www.torontosun.com/2015/01/28/canadian-muslim-group-funnelled-300k-to-hamas-linked-charity-documents