Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » For those who didn’t see it the Lord Ashcroft interview on
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » For those who didn’t see it the Lord Ashcroft interview on SkyNews
politicalbetting.com is proudly powered by WordPress
with "Neat!" theme. Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
1) The SNP surge is real.
2) Whether it is as big as reported elsewhere "remains to be seen".
3) Some words about the possible impact of the referendum in Glasgow on voting habits.
Oh, and Labour and the Conservatives are responsible for UKIP's rise.
If London treated Britain like Germany treats the eurozone, Londoners would pay no income tax http://tgr.ph/1Hj9zlP
1. A hung parliament
2. Tories and Labour seats very close
3. A big tartan block
4. A yellow rump but not that tiny a one
5. A Dave minority in all likelihood
For me he either gets it from UKIP + DUP or
the Lib Dems
Lib Dem + DUP + UKIP even in a minority looks like a non starter for me.
3 is the favourite
http://www.paddypower.com/bet/politics/other-politics/uk-politics?ev_oc_grp_ids=1991640
As an olive branch for such information, can tell you that down here near Torbay, the Tories are pushing incredibly hard. I dearly hope that Adrian Sanders holds on as he always seems to, but every week the local candidate for the Tories is in the local paper fairly prominently, and my parents in the constituency have received 3 separate leaflets over the last few months from him. His name recognition should be fairly high by voting day as an attempt to eat into the incumbency effect.
29/01/2015 Single To Win
1 @ 5/1
|How many Cabinet Ministers will lose th
How many Cabinet ministers will lose their seats? £4.10 Pending
29/01/2015 Single To Win
0 @ 10/1
|How many Cabinet Ministers will lose th
How many Cabinet ministers will lose their seats? £2.23 Pending
Have you considered the thought that if it were to be Con/Lab the whatever remnants if Lab are left after May in Scotland would be reduced to Pasok proportions at the subsequent election. That of course is why Lab/SNP is a very likely outcome of this election.
Sajid Javid, Peter Hain, Rhun ap Iorwerth, Germaine Greer and Kate Maltby
40% non white panel #diversity
As it happens, as I understand these matters, the existing PM gets first go at forming a stable government anyway. So he'll be ring Clegg up during the night of election unless it is clear he has lost completely.
Not sure I agree with the general line that SNP in a coalition is implausible. Lots of things have happened in politics that could be described as that, until they actually happen. I have stuck my money on this one happening - risky IMHO - but not totally unlikely.
I'm completely hedged on Torbay and think it will be the closest battle of the night for Con/Lib Dem.
"Any deal that can guarantee significantly more than 323 on a regular basis will be prioritised over razor-thin deals."
I think most people think Danny Alexander is losing his seat, but the best odds on him winning are 11/5.
So if you think he's going to win, taking the Zero or one option is a good proxy for that.
EDIT see you corrected it to 11/5
Umm...
Is this the moment Kim Sears hurls foul-mouthed abuse at Andy Murray's opponent?
Kim Sears is nicknamed a 'pottymouth' after being caught on camera watching fiancee Andy Murray at the Australian Open. But what is she saying?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/andymurray/11376598/Is-this-the-moment-Andy-Murrays-fiancee-hurls-foul-mouthed-abuse-at-his-Czech-opponent.html
AndyJS said:
Congratulations to Michelle Obama for sticking two fingers up at the Saudis:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-politics/11376192/Michelle-Obamas-Saudia-Arabia-headscarf-snub-was-deliberate.html
--------------------------------------------------
I posted this earlier, in refutation of the above: The Telegraph article is a load of bollocks.
Matt Lee @APDiploWriter 22m22 minutes ago
Classic. It's a brave new (media) world.
@nytimes: Michelle Obama Praised for Bold Stand She Didn’t Take in #Saudi"
http://nyti.ms/1A1juby
And I already did a while back, and him to be next Lib Dem leader.
That's why I backed (and suggested here last Autumn) a Lab + SNP coalition following GE 2015. Whilst not without its problems, this looks far and away the most likely outcome to me ..... and to think those nice folk at Ladbrokes gave me odds of 25/1. I just hope it doesn't cost Shadsy his job!
Just make sure you're not accused of committing a crime in Greece or Bulgaria, where you can be shipped off to a corrupt system without evidence via David and Theresa's EAW.
It can be better to just lose a very tight election, provided your opponent is left in an impossible position. You can come straight back when the Government falls.
A specific example is Joe Clark, Canadian Premier for a very short time (1979-80), He ended seventeen years of Liberal rule in 1979. Without a majority & with fractious coalition partners, his Government fell almost immediately and back came Pierre Trudeau's Liberals for another term.
I think for Labour, it would be better to just lose, and let Cameron struggle on with an impossible hand.
I think a worse result for Labour would be to just edge the Tories, but have to rely on the SNP as a coalition partner or for support
I just can see only one winner from a Labour-SNP coalition. For Labour, it really would be a case of going for a ride with a tiger.
Rotherham Victim Says Abusers 'Untouchable'
A Sky News investigation into child sexual exploitation in Rotherham learns that hundreds of new cases continue to emerge.
http://news.sky.com/story/1416946/rotherham-victim-says-abusers-untouchable
I ###ing told you all. I was accused of banging on about it. Of being obsessed. But I refused to be silenced by the nasty types on here that try to silence any criticism of "oppressed groups" through calling anyone that brings it up as a "neanderthal" or a "bigot". I said that more and more children would be abused unless there was full scale national attention, in Rotherham and Derby and Ipswich and East London and Telford and Birmingham and all the other towns.
And now it's happened. Every single one of you that tried to silence people raising this again and again deserves to be deeply shamed to your hearts. You've all been part of society's conspiracy of silent and it should keep you up at night. The same goes for all those in positions of power in Westminster, Whitehall and journalistic circles who knew of this scandal yet did nothing to try to get action. You're all ####ing collectively guilty for letting this continue. Now hundreds more children have been raped and tortured.
Total managed expenditure is forecast to fall by just under £18bn in real terms in the same period, mostly in the two years 2016-18.
* Or more than all, with a surplus being forecast.
Conviction rates are generally lower overall in countries with an adversarial justice system than they are in those with an inquisitorial system.
Ashcroft poll shows a UKIP squeeze when it comes down to "your seat" and a decent size personal vote for Sanders of the bay.
There is far too much internal political opposition to this inside Labour; it's more likely there'd be a move to oust Ed if he tried.
UKIP did recently hold a Party Conference in Torquay, of course.
Does beg the question why these people are in my country in the first place and why they are voting in my elections?
The Casey report on Rotherham has been with Eric Pickles for nearly two weeks. He may be waiting for a slow news day to release it, or it may be .... delays because you always get delays.
It may shed some light on things - assuming it does eventually see the light of day.
"Gemma" complained that local police "turned up suited an booted" outside her home with a panic alarm - showing neighbours that she was someone who had reported abuse.
"All they care about is getting a statement," she said. "Six months on we've had no arrests, we've had no charges, evidence is still being lost."
http://news.sky.com/story/1416946/rotherham-victim-says-abusers-untouchable
You want to lose the election, but make the winner's victory Pyrrhic.
Labour didn't do that in 2010, as LibDem+Tory has proved very stable.
If the only outcome of May 2015 is an unstable coalition, it may be better to lose it -- and wait for the next bus, which will come along within 12 months.
BTW, what's your prediction of the shape of the Government post the GE. Lots of potential pitfalls however you look at it, but someone has to try and make it work!
There is already grumbling within Welsh Labour of Wales being underfunded compared to Scotland. (Whether the underfunding is real or not is irrelevant, the perception is that Wales is already getting a poor deal in comparison to Scotland.)
I just cannot see how an SNP-Labour coalition, which will inevitably extract concessions for Scotland, can possibly find support from Welsh Labour MPs. Or at least, not without a later reckoning at the ballot box.
I just also cannot see Labour sitting down with the party that has just devoured them in Scotland.
It seems to me to be a recipe for causing more destruction to Labour in Scotland -- and terrible problems elsewhere.
Remember that neither the Prime Minister, nor any of his Cabinet, absolutely have to be MPs, it's just become a convention that they are.
The problems will come with what the SNP want in return for that support.
One element of LibDem incumbency that hasn't got the attention it perhaps deserves is that there are a significant number of LibDem voters who know their MP - feel they have a closer relationship than they have had in the past with their MP - maybe even feel a sense of ownership of their MP - and consequently feel a sense of betrayal from that MP when they went into Govt. with the Tories. Those voters are not coming back, even to keep out the Tories. They will go Green or sit on their hands.
So for these voters, there is a considerable anti-incumbency element.
(BBC ticker)
I wonder which ones they are?
http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/how-islamist-rebels-engineered-israel-s-oil-grab-syria-740568063
That'd be predicated on a few big constitutional reforms (e.g. PR for local elections sans referendum, in exchange for EU referendum) and a couple of joint budgets.
Of course, Labour could just match that spending for Wales. But then the necrotising fasciitis spreads to all their limbs in England...
Last campaign I was involved in we lost the Green's. I have a duck to break.
The Ashcroft effect?
The reason we have not got an enquiry is that the victims are blocking one. I can see no legitimate reason why the chairwomen suggested should not have been appointed. As it stands I can see no likelihood of satisfying the victims demands if their claims of guilt by association continue. As such it will be a long time if ever we get an enquiry.
Con 32.8
Lab 32.6
UKIP 15.6
LD 7.0
Grn 6.5
To consider the extent to which State and non-State institutions have failed in their duty of care to protect children from sexual abuse and exploitation; to consider the extent to which those failings have since been addressed; to identify further action needed to address any failings identified; and to publish a report with recommendations.
So it won't look at all into the street grooming gangs in dozens of towns across the country themselves.
Also, that's just the public inquiry. Why isn't there an Operation Yewtree for street grooming gangs?
Just read the article about the change in rape laws. Completely disagree with the change, so much for "innocent until proven guilty".
I know there are a lot of scumbags who are "getting away with it", but this is not the answer.
It may well raise the conviction rate, but it will also raise the false conviction rate too. Except they won't be "false" in the eyes of the law, as if you cannot prove you got consent: you are guilty.
“We want police and prosecutors to make sure they ask in every case where consent is the issue - [a] how did the suspect know the complainant was saying yes and [b] doing so freely and knowingly?” (my letters)
As regards [a] this is the reasonable belief test already enshrined in the 2003 Act. A belief in consent must be informed by some conduct on behalf of the alleged victim.
[b] is a change in priority, however. It has always been the case that the victim must have the freedom and capacity to consent. For example, there comes a point where someone is too drunk to consent. However the courts have been rather inconsistent about when this is reached (the headline case, Bree, the woman was practically paralytic on the floor yet could, apparently, have consented - but that hasn't gone for all cases). Thus in light of what hasn't been a great approach by the courts the CPS/DPP have stepped in, as far as the judging of evidence at the pre-trial stage, to ask the same question of consent [a] at point [b]. What grounds did the defendant have to believe the alleged victim was able to consent?
Personally, rather than have endless inquiries I would want to see actual prosecutions.
Umm... This is a result for the council... He wanted a 6 bedroom house!
"We want police and prosecutors to make sure they ask in every case where consent is the issue - how did the suspect know the complainant was saying yes and doing so freely and knowingly?" - Alison Saunders, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP)
(my bold)
Men must prove a woman said 'Yes' under tough new rape rules