Superb call from Henry and I'm glad to say I was one of those that got on at the top price. Thank you, MrG !
As it happens, my political and betting preferences coincide in this case. I'd happily vote for SK, even if I hadn't had a bet on him. I would definitely not vote for TJ. Almost any plausible alternative from any Party would get my vote ahead of her.
The Tory side of the slate is looking a bit thin now that Lord Coe has definitely ruled himself out. On the Labour side, there are one or two reasonable alternatives to Khan, but I think he'll get the nomination - and probably go on to win the election.
What's your beef with Tessa Jowell?
The Olympics.
You didn't like the Olympics?!
Sure. I loved the Olympics.
And they did a lot to regenerate the area. And I accept that those that helped make them happen deserved to be rewarded.
But if the Lord helps those that help themselves, the Jowells must have got an awful lot of help.
I'm not quite getting this Peter? Is your objection to Tessa Jowell something on the grounds that through the Olympics she fleeced the taxpayer to line her own pocket? I must be thick because I'm not getting the connection to the Olympics. Can you post some sort of references to this?
If, on the other hand, it's just envy and irritation from one Labour supporter about a Labour politician being wealthy that's a different story. I don't mean that sparkily, I'm curious.
Come the 8th May Ed Miliband will be Prime Minister.
Albeit at the head of a shaky coalition.
Almost certainly not, if only because the negotiations will take place over the weekend of 9th/10th May and quite likely well into the next week or even longer. Cam remains PM in this position until Ed can come up with a deal.
I have a punt myself on a Lab-LD-SNP coalition, but after this week's Labour NHS omnishambles I am thinking of shoring my position with a punt on a Tory minority government or LD-Tory. It just seems to me the whole election narrative is going Tory way. Early days of course.
I'll second that - however all my EdM PM bets are for Ed Miliband to be NEXT Prime Minister, not May 8th PM - If they had May 8th on the betslip I'd tear them up.
Come the 8th May Ed Miliband will be Prime Minister.
Albeit at the head of a shaky coalition.
Almost certainly not, if only because the negotiations will take place over the weekend of 9th/10th May and quite likely well into the next week or even longer. Cam remains PM in this position until Ed can come up with a deal.
I have a punt myself on a Lab-LD-SNP coalition, but after this week's Labour NHS omnishambles I am thinking of shoring my position with a punt on a Tory minority government or LD-Tory. It just seems to me the whole election narrative is going Tory way. Early days of course.
I'll second that - however all my EdM PM bets are for Ed Miliband to be NEXT Prime Minister, not May 8th PM - If they had May 8th on the betslip I'd tear them up.
Should this 33/1 punt come off it will surely be the longest priced winning political wager tipped on this site.
There has been some fantastical stories about some sage from Bedfordshire pulling off a 50/1 shot on Obama winning the presidency in 2008.
However my dear PBers this is a complete urban myth along with unicorns winning the lottery, Peter the Punter buying a round of drinks and Ed Miliband becoming Prime Minister - Absolute tommyrot.
Crap.
Ed is very likely to become PM, and I've heard of many a unicorn winning the lottery.
Yup. Ed is no less likely to be PM as a result of the SNP winning seats off labour in scotland, yet strangely his price has drifted a fair bit.
That's what I thought though I might have played my hand badly by backing snp coalitions
Certainly nothing for tories to get too excited about, though they are anyway
so that's a big ask with scarcely more than three months to go.
You, seriously, think 3 months is a short time in politics? With the campaigns only just kicking off, if at all, the country still half asleep about it and a General Election Budget still to come (not to mention hopefully a nice healthy royal baby*) and the Conservatives already moving ahead in the opinion polls (poll average over last week 0.33% ahead)?
A week can be a game changer. 3 months and a week is an enormous length of time. I'm confident.
* don't take umbrage about the royal baby: it's light-hearted, although with a vapour trail of truth.
Come the 8th May Ed Miliband will be Prime Minister.
Albeit at the head of a shaky coalition.
Almost certainly not, if only because the negotiations will take place over the weekend of 9th/10th May and quite likely well into the next week or even longer. Cam remains PM in this position until Ed can come up with a deal.
I have a punt myself on a Lab-LD-SNP coalition, but after this week's Labour NHS omnishambles I am thinking of shoring my position with a punt on a Tory minority government or LD-Tory. It just seems to me the whole election narrative is going Tory way. Early days of course.
I'll second that - however all my EdM PM bets are for Ed Miliband to be NEXT Prime Minister, not May 8th PM - If they had May 8th on the betslip I'd tear them up.
Come the 8th May Ed Miliband will be Prime Minister.
Albeit at the head of a shaky coalition.
Almost certainly not, if only because the negotiations will take place over the weekend of 9th/10th May and quite likely well into the next week or even longer. Cam remains PM in this position until Ed can come up with a deal.
I have a punt myself on a Lab-LD-SNP coalition, but after this week's Labour NHS omnishambles I am thinking of shoring my position with a punt on a Tory minority government or LD-Tory. It just seems to me the whole election narrative is going Tory way. Early days of course.
I'll second that - however all my EdM PM bets are for Ed Miliband to be NEXT Prime Minister, not May 8th PM - If they had May 8th on the betslip I'd tear them up.
Because coalition negotiations take a while, last time Dave became PM 5 days after the election.
So back in 2010, if you had a bet on Dave being PM on the 7th of May, it would have been a loser, but Dave as next PM would have become a winner on the 11th of May 2010.
There's something slightly odd about those figures. They add up to 97% whereas at the 2010 election the same parties polled 94%. With the SNP up, you wouldn't expect the 3 point increase.
Ukrainian Armed Forces Chief of Staff Lieutenant General Victor Muzhenko confirms there aren't, and never have been, Russian combat units in the Ukraine. Another example where our leaders and the supposedly free press have been systematically lying to engineer us into a conflict.
The Russian "volunteers" do seem to have been able to bring heavy equipment with them. I think they are "volunteers" in the sense that the German and Italian forces in the Spanish Civil War were "volunteers".
There's no evidence that Russia has provided any tanks and no good reason to believe it has. Enjoy this comprehensive report on the armaments being used in the Ukrainian civil war:
ARES has assessed that it is very likely that pro-Russian separatist forces have received some level of support from one or more external parties, however the level of state complicity in such activity remains unclear. Despite the presence of arms, munitions, and armoured vehicles designed, produced, and allegedly even sourced from Russia, there remains no direct evidence of Russian government complicity in the trafficking of arms into the area (Reuters, 2014c). The majority of arms and munitions documented in service with separatist forces have evidently been appropriated from the Ukrainian security forces and their installations within Ukraine.
Maskirovka.
Confirms that support for the rebels is very low cost for Russia. Volunteers are there of their own volition, a few GRU officers and advisors are of little expense. Similarly Russia has an abundance of out of date small arms and ammunition of little worth, as do many Lords of War, to resupply. Humanitarian aid is beside the point even if it is the greatest cost.
Ultimately the war is unsustainable for Kiev, they cannot afford it and nor do they have popular support, the rest of Ukraine will turn on Galicia. The US are wrong to believe they can perpetuate the war forever to harm Russia.
Should this 33/1 punt come off it will surely be the longest priced winning political wager tipped on this site.
There has been some fantastical stories about some sage from Bedfordshire pulling off a 50/1 shot on Obama winning the presidency in 2008.
However my dear PBers this is a complete urban myth along with unicorns winning the lottery, Peter the Punter buying a round of drinks and Ed Miliband becoming Prime Minister - Absolute tommyrot.
Crap.
Ed is very likely to become PM, and I've heard of many a unicorn winning the lottery.
Yup. Ed is no less likely to be PM as a result of the SNP winning seats off labour in scotland, yet strangely his price has drifted a fair bit.
That's what I thought though I might have played my hand badly by backing snp coalitions
Certainly nothing for tories to get too excited about, though they are anyway
so that's a big ask with scarcely more than three months to go.
You, seriously, think 3 months is a short time in politics? With the campaigns only just kicking off, if at all, the country still half asleep about it and a General Election Budget still to come (not to mention hopefully a nice healthy royal baby*) and the Conservatives already moving ahead in the opinion polls (poll average over last week 0.33% ahead)?
A week can be a game changer. 3 months and a week is an enormous length of time. I'm confident.
* don't take umbrage about the royal baby: it's light-hearted, although with a vapour trail of truth.
I think you are right about the budget. Not so much in terms of a 'give away' but in terms of the narrative that the Tories can spin with it. Not sure about the LDs, if they can make something out of it.
There's something slightly odd about those figures. They add up to 97% whereas at the 2010 election the same parties polled 94%. With the SNP up, you wouldn't expect the 3 point increase.
There's something slightly odd about those figures. They add up to 97% whereas at the 2010 election the same parties polled 94%. With the SNP up, you wouldn't expect the 3 point increase.
Come the 8th May Ed Miliband will be Prime Minister.
Albeit at the head of a shaky coalition.
Almost certainly not, if only because the negotiations will take place over the weekend of 9th/10th May and quite likely well into the next week or even longer. Cam remains PM in this position until Ed can come up with a deal.
I have a punt myself on a Lab-LD-SNP coalition, but after this week's Labour NHS omnishambles I am thinking of shoring my position with a punt on a Tory minority government or LD-Tory. It just seems to me the whole election narrative is going Tory way. Early days of course.
I'll second that - however all my EdM PM bets are for Ed Miliband to be NEXT Prime Minister, not May 8th PM - If they had May 8th on the betslip I'd tear them up.
Good morning. It didn't snow in London - at least my part - last night. And there I was getting out the old snow shoes, sledge, and all the paraphernalia for a journey to the local Mini-market. I wish those BBC weather walla's would be more on the ball; after all what do we have the BBC for, if not for it's famous weather forecasting.
Good morning. It didn't snow in London - at least my part - last night. And there I was getting out the old snow shoes, sledge, and all the paraphernalia for a journey to the local Mini-market. I wish those BBC weather walla's would be more on the ball; after all what do we have the BBC for, if not for it's famous weather forecasting.
A final problem: "default" sounds like you get away with not paying. But you still owe the money to the IMF and the ECB ad the EU. There will be negotiations and reschedulings, and the like, but you will still end up paying something, or all the foreign assets of the Greek state will get confiscated through the courts.
And it's hard to see this all happening without terrible social unrest in Greece. Terrible social unrest does nothing for a country so dependent on tourism.
There are at least suggestions that Greece will start using its veto in the EU to foul everything up to put extra pressure on getting its way, if they get pushed out the Euro I expect them to follow this with a vengeance and basically try and grind any further treaty progress to a halt.
Come the 8th May Ed Miliband will be Prime Minister.
Albeit at the head of a shaky coalition.
Almost certainly not, if only because the negotiations will take place over the weekend of 9th/10th May and quite likely well into the next week or even longer. Cam remains PM in this position until Ed can come up with a deal.
I have a punt myself on a Lab-LD-SNP coalition, but after this week's Labour NHS omnishambles I am thinking of shoring my position with a punt on a Tory minority government or LD-Tory. It just seems to me the whole election narrative is going Tory way. Early days of course.
I'll second that - however all my EdM PM bets are for Ed Miliband to be NEXT Prime Minister, not May 8th PM - If they had May 8th on the betslip I'd tear them up.
Sorry to go off-topic, but I'd like to reply to this post by foxinsoxuk from last night in response to something I wrote, because it raises an important point:
It is not as simple as that. The NHS has to think wider and balance the short term interest with the wider public health and long term interest.
So if a locality outsources all its knee and hip surgery to a private ISTC, the waiting list will come down, and the individuals will probably benefit (though some ISTCs have not worked too well, google Shepton Mallet scandal or Birkdale) but there will be no training of Medical Students, Junior Doctors or Theatre Nurses. It will also mean that the local NHS unit may not be viable in offering a fracture service as without the bread and butter work it is impossible to maintain the staffing and expertise required to run the out of hours. You think GP out of hours is a mess, wait until your local A and E closes because the fracture unit is no longer viable.
This is wrong, wrong, wrong! What essentially it is saying is that the NHS should pay over the odds for the routine knee and hip surgery in order to subsidise other things, such a training and out-of-hours staffing.
But that is not in any sense an argument for not using private providers. It's an argument for recognising that training and A & E are both expensive and essential. If the NHS wants doctors to be trained, which of course it does, then it needs to factor those training costs into its budget. If the most effective way of doing that is for private routine-surgery providers to provide training as well, then write that into the contract. Similarly, if out-of-hours service is expensive to provide, then it is expensive to provide and the budget should be set to recognise that. Paying more for routine work, in order to bodge the budget for out-of-hours work, is simply obfuscating the problem with artificially-inflated transfer pricing.
Of course fox is right when he says this is not a simple calculation, and that the NHS commissioning body has to look at the whole picture. Indeed so, but you don't do that by fiddling the budget or by automatically assuming an NHS provider should be preferred. You do it by working out what you want, as a whole, and figuring out the most efficient way of getting it.
I know subsample, subsample, etc but WTF is going on...How can some pollsters have a 20+% lead for SNP in Scotland, Populus has Labour ahead.
Sub samples are unreliable.
Always best to stick larger sample sized polls.
Populus internals have been a bit weird throughout this parliament, they've had far too many UKIP respondents compared even to other online panels for instance.
I know subsample, subsample, etc but WTF is going on...How can some pollsters have a 20+% lead for SNP in Scotland, Populus has Labour ahead.
A subsample of 180 is more dangerous than a splash around with a ravenous Great White. It alarms me slightly that Peter_the_P's response was 'WOW!' (no offence, Peter).
Come the 8th May Ed Miliband will be Prime Minister.
Albeit at the head of a shaky coalition.
Almost certainly not, if only because the negotiations will take place over the weekend of 9th/10th May and quite likely well into the next week or even longer. Cam remains PM in this position until Ed can come up with a deal.
I have a punt myself on a Lab-LD-SNP coalition, but after this week's Labour NHS omnishambles I am thinking of shoring my position with a punt on a Tory minority government or LD-Tory. It just seems to me the whole election narrative is going Tory way. Early days of course.
I'll second that - however all my EdM PM bets are for Ed Miliband to be NEXT Prime Minister, not May 8th PM - If they had May 8th on the betslip I'd tear them up.
Eh ?
He'll be negotiating with the SNP and Lib Dems.
For those who have the money and the interest, it might be a good weekend to hold a lot of shares in short positions, ready for the markets to open and fall on Monday morning :-)
Come the 8th May Ed Miliband will be Prime Minister.
Albeit at the head of a shaky coalition.
Almost certainly not, if only because the negotiations will take place over the weekend of 9th/10th May and quite likely well into the next week or even longer. Cam remains PM in this position until Ed can come up with a deal.
I have a punt myself on a Lab-LD-SNP coalition, but after this week's Labour NHS omnishambles I am thinking of shoring my position with a punt on a Tory minority government or LD-Tory. It just seems to me the whole election narrative is going Tory way. Early days of course.
I'll second that - however all my EdM PM bets are for Ed Miliband to be NEXT Prime Minister, not May 8th PM - If they had May 8th on the betslip I'd tear them up.
Eh ?
He'll be negotiating with the SNP and Lib Dems.
If they want to govern, they'll have no choice - they're hardly likely to hand things to the Tories on a plate are they?
Populus have almost constantly returned smaller SNP numbers than other pollsters.
Over their last 6 polls:
SNP 32.8 Labour 30 Tory 21.5
Yes, good point. They're also the least conducive to Conservative leads. The last one was back in August.
Incidentally, this might be an appropriate moment to mention that 9 out of every 10 polls this parliament have overstated Labour's share compared to actual vote shares received at elections (all by elections and Europeans), sometimes by huge amounts.
" But the losses have not been distributed equally. Women have done less poorly than men, primarily because they are more disproportionately likely to work in the public sector, where real earnings have fallen by less than in the private sector. Weekly earnings for a woman smack in the middle of the income distribution (the median) fell by 2.8% between 2008 and 2014; for the equivalent man they fell by 9%. "
I suspect if earnings for women had fallen more than those of men we would have endless condemnation of it from politicians and pressure groups.
I thought public sector workers had suffered terribly (compared to the private sector) over the past six years.
There have been a lot of redundancies in the public sector over the last six years, but if you've kept your job you've usually done OK in terms of headline pay. That being said, there has been a trimming of benefits on the public sector, that is largely unremarked on. Shifting the pensionable age of teachers, for example, is effectively a massive cut in benefits promised.
''If you've only been a member of the Teachers’ Pension Scheme since 1 January 2007 you will have a Normal Pension Age (NPA) of 65. However, if you were a member of the Teachers’ Pension Scheme (or its equivalent in Scotland or Northern Ireland) before 1 January 2007 then things are different. Your normal pension age will be 60 – provided you haven’t had a break in service of more than five years.'' https://www.teacherspensions.co.uk/members/the-scheme/active-teacher/when-can-i-retire.aspx
So long term teachers still retire at 60. After all thats what their contributions were based on. Essentially new entrants will retire later. I think teachers pensions are a 'proper' funded scheme.
* don't take umbrage about the royal baby: it's light-hearted, although with a vapour trail of truth.
William and Catherine were married in April 2011. The warmest April in England in records going back to 1659.
Prince George was born in July 2013. The warmest July since the record-setting 2006, the 10th warmest July in the 357 year long record and the first July in the top 50 since Gordon "summer floods" Brown became PM*.
Next baby is expected in April 2015. Suffice it to say that I'm gutted not to have much of my annual leave allowance available to take.
* The rankings for July from 2007 onwards are: 2007 - 257th (coldest since 1993) 2008 - 123rd 2009 - 133rd 2010 - 62nd 2011 - 256th 2012 - 207th 2013 - 10th 2014 - 31st
We didn't have a July in the warmest third under Gordon Brown. The probability** of that happening by chance is less than 4%...
Good morning. It didn't snow in London - at least my part - last night. And there I was getting out the old snow shoes, sledge, and all the paraphernalia for a journey to the local Mini-market. I wish those BBC weather walla's would be more on the ball; after all what do we have the BBC for, if not for it's famous weather forecasting.
Looking at the average of the Populus polls for January (8 polls) and comparing them with the average over the past 12 months, the main shifts in 2010 voters are:
No material change in how 2010 C voters are proposing to vote now. 65% will vote C, 5% L, 16% UKIP and 11% don't know.
2.5% drop in 2010 L voters planning to vote L with corresponding 1% increase in SNP and 1.5% don't knows. 73% will vote L, 4% C, 2% LD, 3% Nats, 5% UKIP, 2% G, and 11% don't know.
2.4% drop in 2010 LD planning to vote L, with a corresponding increase 2.6% for G. 27% will vote LD, 22% L, 11% C, 7% UKIP, 8% G and 22% don't know.
There is still a very high don't know for 2010LD twice as high as the other main parties.
In todays poll there was a high 2010LD retention (32%) which helped the LD's to 10%. This could well be normal polling fluctuation.
@AndyJS I'll frame you a bet if you like, £20 at Evens to charity (Or the site if you like) that Labour negotiate with the SNP, I'll throw in Ed Miliband being leader of the Labour party whilst negotiations are in place too in order for me to win.
Bet void if Conservative + Lib Dem seat numbers are over 326 or Labour + Lib Dem is over 326.
For Attention of Nick Palmer....More evidence about what I said about non-stunning Halal slaughter and your claims are well out of date now. It isn't 1 or 2 animals here and there now, 20% of animals of slaughter using Halal methods are not stunned and this is growing rapidly.
Increase in animals not being stunned before they are Halal slaughtered
The number of cattle killed according to the principles of Islamic Halal slaughter without being stunned rose by nearly a third between 2011 and 2013, while the number of sheep not being stunned increased by half.
I know subsample, subsample, etc but WTF is going on...How can some pollsters have a 20+% lead for SNP in Scotland, Populus has Labour ahead.
A subsample of 180 is more dangerous than a splash around with a ravenous Great White. It alarms me slightly that Peter_the_P's response was 'WOW!' (no offence, Peter).
It alarms me slightly that you seem incapable of differentiating between one poster on here and another, especially when both have been active for at least 8 or 9 years!
Back on topic; Yep, a great tip by Hnery G. I was one of those who jumped on at the time.
Having said that, I think it is foolish to assume that Labour will have this in the bag. A huge amount depends on what happens in May 2015. Currently the betting markets assume a roughly Evens chance of the Prime Minister being Ed Miliband, and quite probably Ed Miliband heading a minority government. If that comes to pass, and given the total lack of any coherent policies and the need to continue to cut public spending, then by May 2016 Labour are going to be very unpopular indeed - we are talking François Hollande-style unpopularity (before he was boosted by the French rallying around because of the Charlie Hebdo murders). That would be a very weak background for a Labour mayoral candidate.
Of course it is true that the Conservatives would need a charismatic candidate to have a good chance. Who might that be? Dunno, but I can think of one possibility, and so can Boris:
Looking at the average of the Populus polls for January (8 polls) and comparing them with the average over the past 12 months, the main shifts in 2010 voters are:
No material change in how 2010 C voters are proposing to vote now. 65% will vote C, 5% L, 16% UKIP and 11% don't know.
2.5% drop in 2010 L voters planning to vote L with corresponding 1% increase in SNP and 1.5% don't knows. 73% will vote L, 4% C, 2% LD, 3% Nats, 5% UKIP, 2% G, and 11% don't know.
2.4% drop in 2010 LD planning to vote L, with a corresponding increase 2.6% for G. 27% will vote LD, 22% L, 11% C, 7% UKIP, 8% G and 22% don't know.
There is still a very high don't know for 2010LD twice as high as the other main parties.
In todays poll there was a high 2010LD retention (32%) which helped the LD's to 10%. This could well be normal polling fluctuation.
What's the Conservative -> Lib Dem movement in the internals ?
So currently Labour lead with Populus, ICM, Opinium, Ipsos Mori.
It's tied with YouGov, Ashcroft (although under previous methodology Lab have 1 pt lead), TNS-BRMB
And the Tories have to rely on a slender 1 pt lead with *ahem* Survation (UKIP at 23% - yeah right) and (fair enough) ComRes.
Keep telling yourself that...The trend is clear and it is now neck and neck. What we aren't seeing is the Tories really gaining, it is all Labour losses, which for Tories has to be worrying.
Hung parliament is looking most likely...the question is Labour beaten on %, but more seats and a coalition with SNP or Lib Dems, or Tories most seats but well short of a majority.
Back on topic; Yep, a great tip by Hnery G. I was one of those who jumped on at the time.
Having said that, I think it is foolish to assume that Labour will have this in the bag. A huge amount depends on what happens in May 2015. Currently the betting markets assume a roughly Evens chance of the Prime Minister being Ed Miliband, and quite probably Ed Miliband heading a minority government. If that comes to pass, and given the total lack of any coherent policies and the need to continue to cut public spending, then by May 2016 Labour are going to be very unpopular indeed - we are talking François Hollande-style unpopularity (before he was boosted by the French rallying around because of the Charlie Hebdo murders). That would be a very weak background for a Labour mayoral candidate.
Of course it is true that the Conservatives would need a charismatic candidate to have a good chance. Who might that be? Dunno, but I can think of one possibility, and so can Boris:
I was going through exactly the same thought processes and came to the conclusion that I diametrically disagreed with OGH's conclusion that backing SK at 6/1 to win the Mayoral Election was a better bet than backing him to be Labour's nominee at 4/1 which I would favour. DYOR.
Back on topic; Yep, a great tip by Hnery G. I was one of those who jumped on at the time.
Having said that, I think it is foolish to assume that Labour will have this in the bag. A huge amount depends on what happens in May 2015. Currently the betting markets assume a roughly Evens chance of the Prime Minister being Ed Miliband, and quite probably Ed Miliband heading a minority government. If that comes to pass, and given the total lack of any coherent policies and the need to continue to cut public spending, then by May 2016 Labour are going to be very unpopular indeed - we are talking François Hollande-style unpopularity (before he was boosted by the French rallying around because of the Charlie Hebdo murders). That would be a very weak background for a Labour mayoral candidate.
Of course it is true that the Conservatives would need a charismatic candidate to have a good chance. Who might that be? Dunno, but I can think of one possibility, and so can Boris:
I was going through exactly the same thought processes and came to the conclusion that I diametrically disagreed with OGH's conclusion that backing SK at 6/1 to win the Mayoral Election was a better bet than backing him to be Labour's nominee at 4/1 which I would favour. DYOR.
I thought that strange... Surely the 4/1 is a lot better?
I know subsample, subsample, etc but WTF is going on...How can some pollsters have a 20+% lead for SNP in Scotland, Populus has Labour ahead.
All the pollsters are going up the creek without a paddle in this coming GE.
Your prediction of 80 Ukip MP's is the titanic of creek paddling hopelessness.
My dear JackW, I have spoken of 40+ seats and the talk of, on a very good day, 102 seats, but never to my recollection have I spoken of 80 seats. Have you, in your excitement, plucked the figure 80 from the remains of a Burns Night haggis?
I am beginning to think that the real value might now lie in the betting on another General Election within six months or a year of May 2015. I can't see either Lab or Con winning a majority, unless Lab manages to stage a remarkable recovery in Scotland (very unlikely in my view). All the minor parties will be playing hard ball on any coalition deal (having seen what's happened to the LDs). So, there will be some kind(s) of loose agreement between parties - but they are unlikely to survive the first serious contention (around the next budget and round of spending cuts, for example).
Hence, inability to sustain a viable government will precipitate another election. Then a lot is going to what happens to the main parties. A return from the wilderness of Darling or the postie might be enough to see Labour returned to power - replacement of EdM by Burnham or Chuka would not in my view - it'd just be a continuation of the same vacuous nonsense we're getting from them at the moment. On the other side we might have a Boris led Tory party, which I could also see generating enough momentum to win - where May, Hammond or Javid would not.
Shade ironic to have a chap proposing anti-white quotas in the lead to run a city with a white minority.
As about 60% of medical students are female and about 40% in Leicester are BME, there are now serious discussions on how we can encourage diversity by recruiting more white male doctors. How times have changed when white men are under represented (and I havent seen a Jewish Med Student in years!)
We are not planning quotas, just looking at other ways of indirectly smoothing the path.
Is there some stealth social engineering going on to begin with, that we should end up with a 60:40 female:male ratio? AIUI medicine is a high IQ profession, and women's IQ is the same on average, but bunched around the middle. So there are fewer female geniuses than male, fewer female idiots than male, and on average the same score.
This being so I'd expect broadly to see more men than women in the medical profession. What would temper this is if it were so small as a field that there were more suitable applicants than places.
There are more women then men at Cambridge University, for example, but there are only 3,000 a year let in and probably 15,000 with equivalent A-Level grades. Of those 15,000 you'd expect there to be more men than women, so it's plausible there could be 11,000 men and 4,000 women, of whom 1,000 and 2,000 end up there.
Of course A Levels are an imperfect example because they've been gerrymandered to make them easier for girls to pass.
For Attention of Nick Palmer....More evidence about what I said about non-stunning Halal slaughter and your claims are well out of date now. It isn't 1 or 2 animals here and there now, 20% of animals of slaughter using Halal methods are not stunned and this is growing rapidly.
Increase in animals not being stunned before they are Halal slaughtered
The number of cattle killed according to the principles of Islamic Halal slaughter without being stunned rose by nearly a third between 2011 and 2013, while the number of sheep not being stunned increased by half.
So currently Labour lead with Populus, ICM, Opinium, Ipsos Mori.
It's tied with YouGov, Ashcroft (although under previous methodology Lab have 1 pt lead), TNS-BRMB
And the Tories have to rely on a slender 1 pt lead with *ahem* Survation (UKIP at 23% - yeah right) and (fair enough) ComRes.
Keep telling yourself that...The trend is clear and it is now neck and neck. What we aren't seeing is the Tories really gaining, it is all Labour losses, which for Tories has to be worrying.
Partially true.
However other Labour related factors have to be allowed for :
1. How long will the slow decline in the Labour poll rating continue? 2. Labour have under performed their poll rating in actual elections. 3. The voters are as yet not fully engaged in the election campaign. 4. The continuing SNP threat to Labour. 5. The media critique of Ed during the actual campaign.
And most importantly :
6. The actual prospect of Ed as PM as voters enter the polling booth - Kinnock 1992 Syndrome.
Shade ironic to have a chap proposing anti-white quotas in the lead to run a city with a white minority.
As about 60% of medical students are female and about 40% in Leicester are BME, there are now serious discussions on how we can encourage diversity by recruiting more white male doctors. How times have changed when white men are under represented (and I havent seen a Jewish Med Student in years!)
We are not planning quotas, just looking at other ways of indirectly smoothing the path.
Is there some stealth social engineering going on to begin with, that we should end up with a 60:40 female:male ratio? AIUI medicine is a high IQ profession, and women's IQ is the same on average, but bunched around the middle. So there are fewer female geniuses than male, fewer female idiots than male, and on average the same score.
This being so I'd expect broadly to see more men than women in the medical profession. What would temper this is if it were so small as a field that there were more suitable applicants than places.
There are more women then men at Cambridge University, for example, but there are only 3,000 a year let in and probably 15,000 with equivalent A-Level grades. Of those 15,000 you'd expect there to be more men than women, so it's plausible there could be 11,000 men and 4,000 women, of whom 1,000 and 2,000 end up there.
Of course A Levels are an imperfect example because they've been gerrymandered to make them easier for girls to pass.
After centuries of male dominance in the medical profession, I can't get too excited about it leaning marginally the other way.
There are more women then men at Cambridge University, for example
Given the geeky, bicycle clipped make up of the titanic natural science and engineering departments, the arts courses must be very very heavily weighted to women these days.
So currently Labour lead with Populus, ICM, Opinium, Ipsos Mori.
It's tied with YouGov, Ashcroft (although under previous methodology Lab have 1 pt lead), TNS-BRMB
And the Tories have to rely on a slender 1 pt lead with *ahem* Survation (UKIP at 23% - yeah right) and (fair enough) ComRes.
Yes but your list shows that most of the polls with Labour leads are the plder ones - ICM, Opinium and Mori. The recent position shows movement to the blues. Still if it keeps your hopes up.
So currently Labour lead with Populus, ICM, Opinium, Ipsos Mori.
It's tied with YouGov, Ashcroft (although under previous methodology Lab have 1 pt lead), TNS-BRMB
And the Tories have to rely on a slender 1 pt lead with *ahem* Survation (UKIP at 23% - yeah right) and (fair enough) ComRes.
Keep telling yourself that...The trend is clear and it is now neck and neck. What we aren't seeing is the Tories really gaining, it is all Labour losses, which for Tories has to be worrying.
Hung parliament is looking most likely...the question is Labour beaten on %, but more seats and a coalition with SNP or Lib Dems, or Tories most seats but well short of a majority.
I've said since 2010 that this election was going to throw up a hung parliament.
I also said that 37% in a national election was the high watermark for the Tories given the inevitable failure that their austerity progarmme was going to be (and that they were loathed in too many places in the country to ever gain a majority again) and its decline in the polls to 2015 would be offset by the fact the Unions foisted Ed Miliband on Labour.
Still my minimum wish is for the Tories to be ousted, and I'm still confident that is going to happen.
A pity about the shaky coalition, but I despise FPTP, so I'm willing to see it discredited in consecutive elections if that is what it takes to get people to take notice of how it skews public debate in this country.
For Attention of Nick Palmer....More evidence about what I said about non-stunning Halal slaughter and your claims are well out of date now. It isn't 1 or 2 animals here and there now, 20% of animals of slaughter using Halal methods are not stunned and this is growing rapidly.
Increase in animals not being stunned before they are Halal slaughtered
The number of cattle killed according to the principles of Islamic Halal slaughter without being stunned rose by nearly a third between 2011 and 2013, while the number of sheep not being stunned increased by half.
But the people who do the slaughtering are very wise. They do not dress up in red coats and shout 'yoohaloo...!' Otherwise the left wing nutjobs would be out in force.
On topic - interesting odds...but isn't Sadiq's path to the Mayoralty quite a difficult one?
If he loses his seat in May, then he will be tarnished as a "loser" and you can't see Labour selecting him for the Mayoralty.
If he wins his seat in May, that would suggest the Tories haven't broken through to capture seats like his with a 2.5k majority and aren't going to form a majority, so he would likely be a cabinet minister in a Labour govt or Labour-led govt. Why would he give that up for a punt at the Mayoralty, which could be difficult for Labour mid-term?
So surely for the tip to pay off, he has to win Tooting, but Labour has to be out of government. That's not impossible, it happened in 2010. But obviously on top of that he'd have to win the selection and the election, again not impossible...
I know subsample, subsample, etc but WTF is going on...How can some pollsters have a 20+% lead for SNP in Scotland, Populus has Labour ahead.
A subsample of 180 is more dangerous than a splash around with a ravenous Great White. It alarms me slightly that Peter_the_P's response was 'WOW!' (no offence, Peter).
It alarms me slightly that you seem incapable of differentiating between one poster on here and another, especially when both have been active for at least 8 or 9 years!
Haha but I do apologise most sincerely. Please don't put it down to malice aforethought. My poor ageing eyes struggle at the best of times, and these are not those: Peter_the_Punter and Peter_from_Putney blurred into one even though you are, I'm sure, literally and figuratively polls apart. I think I might have had this blurred vision once before. Ignorantia legis neminem excusat.
Back on topic; Yep, a great tip by Hnery G. I was one of those who jumped on at the time.
Having said that, I think it is foolish to assume that Labour will have this in the bag. A huge amount depends on what happens in May 2015. Currently the betting markets assume a roughly Evens chance of the Prime Minister being Ed Miliband, and quite probably Ed Miliband heading a minority government. If that comes to pass, and given the total lack of any coherent policies and the need to continue to cut public spending, then by May 2016 Labour are going to be very unpopular indeed - we are talking François Hollande-style unpopularity (before he was boosted by the French rallying around because of the Charlie Hebdo murders). That would be a very weak background for a Labour mayoral candidate.
Of course it is true that the Conservatives would need a charismatic candidate to have a good chance. Who might that be? Dunno, but I can think of one possibility, and so can Boris:
I was going through exactly the same thought processes and came to the conclusion that I diametrically disagreed with OGH's conclusion that backing SK at 6/1 to win the Mayoral Election was a better bet than backing him to be Labour's nominee at 4/1 which I would favour. DYOR.
I thought that strange... Surely the 4/1 is a lot better?
It depends if you think Labour should be as short as 2-5 for the Election.
Is there some stealth social engineering going on to begin with, that we should end up with a 60:40 female:male ratio? AIUI medicine is a high IQ profession, and women's IQ is the same on average, but bunched around the middle. So there are fewer female geniuses than male, fewer female idiots than male, and on average the same score.
This being so I'd expect broadly to see more men than women in the medical profession. What would temper this is if it were so small as a field that there were more suitable applicants than places.
There are more women then men at Cambridge University, for example, but there are only 3,000 a year let in and probably 15,000 with equivalent A-Level grades. Of those 15,000 you'd expect there to be more men than women, so it's plausible there could be 11,000 men and 4,000 women, of whom 1,000 and 2,000 end up there.
Of course A Levels are an imperfect example because they've been gerrymandered to make them easier for girls to pass. After centuries of male dominance in the medical profession, I can't get too excited about it leaning marginally the other way.
I was more or less following that until we got to the bit about 'A' levels being gerrymandered to make them easier for girls to pass. It's a bit like having what you think is an intelligent and reasonable conversation with someone, who then suddenly blurts out 'I am the reincarnation of Napoleon'.
So currently Labour lead with Populus, ICM, Opinium, Ipsos Mori.
It's tied with YouGov, Ashcroft (although under previous methodology Lab have 1 pt lead), TNS-BRMB
And the Tories have to rely on a slender 1 pt lead with *ahem* Survation (UKIP at 23% - yeah right) and (fair enough) ComRes.
Yes but your list shows that most of the polls with Labour leads are the plder ones - ICM, Opinium and Mori. The recent position shows movement to the blues. Still if it keeps your hopes up.
Shade ironic to have a chap proposing anti-white quotas in the lead to run a city with a white minority.
As about 60% of medical students are female and about 40% in Leicester are BME, there are now serious discussions on how we can encourage diversity by recruiting more white male doctors. How times have changed when white men are under represented (and I havent seen a Jewish Med Student in years!)
We are not planning quotas, just looking at other ways of indirectly smoothing the path.
Is there some stealth social engineering going on to begin with, that we should end up with a 60:40 female:male ratio? AIUI medicine is a high IQ profession, and women's IQ is the same on average, but bunched around the middle. So there are fewer female geniuses than male, fewer female idiots than male, and on average the same score.
This being so I'd expect broadly to see more men than women in the medical profession. What would temper this is if it were so small as a field that there were more suitable applicants than places.
There are more women then men at Cambridge University, for example, but there are only 3,000 a year let in and probably 15,000 with equivalent A-Level grades. Of those 15,000 you'd expect there to be more men than women, so it's plausible there could be 11,000 men and 4,000 women, of whom 1,000 and 2,000 end up there.
Of course A Levels are an imperfect example because they've been gerrymandered to make them easier for girls to pass.
After centuries of male dominance in the medical profession, I can't get too excited about it leaning marginally the other way.
I was more or less following that until we got to the bit about 'A' levels being gerrymandered to make them easier for girls to pass. It's a bit like having what you think is an intelligent and reasonable conversation with someone, who then suddenly blurts out 'I am the reincarnation of Napoleon'.
Mr Bond is 25% crank, 25% insightful and 50% troll. Not a terribly unusual mix on here.
I think the theory is that boys are better at one-off exams than continuous assessment. The current system - as I understand it - has a mixture of both. The change would favour girls (if the above theory is correct), but that doesn't mean it's less "fair" than the old system which favoured boys.
It's all heating up on the GE front and it's all heating up on the European Eastern front. With Greek blows expected daily, things are beginning to frazzle nicely:
MossadNews @MossadNews 2m2 minutes ago U.S. Stock Futures Heading Lower This Morning; As Germany Falls Into Deflation; Leading Russian Banker Calls New... http://fb.me/7lXWw5LYt
I am beginning to think that the real value might now lie in the betting on another General Election within six months or a year of May 2015. I can't see either Lab or Con winning a majority, unless Lab manages to stage a remarkable recovery in Scotland (very unlikely in my view). All the minor parties will be playing hard ball on any coalition deal (having seen what's happened to the LDs). So, there will be some kind(s) of loose agreement between parties - but they are unlikely to survive the first serious contention (around the next budget and round of spending cuts, for example).
Hence, inability to sustain a viable government will precipitate another election. Then a lot is going to what happens to the main parties. A return from the wilderness of Darling or the postie might be enough to see Labour returned to power - replacement of EdM by Burnham or Chuka would not in my view - it'd just be a continuation of the same vacuous nonsense we're getting from them at the moment. On the other side we might have a Boris led Tory party, which I could also see generating enough momentum to win - where May, Hammond or Javid would not.
You are forgetting that the fixed term parliament act now means that 66% of MPs have to vote for an early dissolution so realistically you would need both Con and Lab to agree on this for there to be an early election
I am beginning to think that the real value might now lie in the betting on another General Election within six months or a year of May 2015. I can't see either Lab or Con winning a majority, unless Lab manages to stage a remarkable recovery in Scotland (very unlikely in my view). All the minor parties will be playing hard ball on any coalition deal (having seen what's happened to the LDs). So, there will be some kind(s) of loose agreement between parties - but they are unlikely to survive the first serious contention (around the next budget and round of spending cuts, for example).
Hence, inability to sustain a viable government will precipitate another election. Then a lot is going to what happens to the main parties. A return from the wilderness of Darling or the postie might be enough to see Labour returned to power - replacement of EdM by Burnham or Chuka would not in my view - it'd just be a continuation of the same vacuous nonsense we're getting from them at the moment. On the other side we might have a Boris led Tory party, which I could also see generating enough momentum to win - where May, Hammond or Javid would not.
You are forgetting that the fixed term parliament act now means that 66% of MPs have to vote for an early dissolution so realistically you would need both Con and Lab to agree on this for there to be an early election
Actually, there's a way around that.
It only takes a majority to repeal the fixed term parliament act.
Come the 8th May Ed Miliband will be Prime Minister.
Albeit at the head of a shaky coalition.
Almost certainly not, if only because the negotiations will take place over the weekend of 9th/10th May and quite likely well into the next week or even longer. Cam remains PM in this position until Ed can come up with a deal.
I have a punt myself on a Lab-LD-SNP coalition, but after this week's Labour NHS omnishambles I am thinking of shoring my position with a punt on a Tory minority government or LD-Tory. It just seems to me the whole election narrative is going Tory way. Early days of course.
I'll second that - however all my EdM PM bets are for Ed Miliband to be NEXT Prime Minister, not May 8th PM - If they had May 8th on the betslip I'd tear them up.
Eh ?
He'll be negotiating with the SNP and Lib Dems.
What's that got to do with the price of fish ?
But isn't it obvious? Why should Labour reward a narrow regional party that has just destroyed them in electoral terms? All they are doing is pulling the rug from under themselves, not least since the SNP are a rival left wing party. It merely offers the prospect of the regional party replacing them since by dint of its position the regional party can claim more regional influence compared to the rest of the country. And there as well lies the rub, Labour is sacrificing its English Welsh vote to pacify Scotland. If there were no Labour Party in Scotland it might make more sense. Maybe soon there won't be.
I know subsample, subsample, etc but WTF is going on...How can some pollsters have a 20+% lead for SNP in Scotland, Populus has Labour ahead.
All the pollsters are going up the creek without a paddle in this coming GE.
Your prediction of 80 Ukip MP's is the titanic of creek paddling hopelessness.
My dear JackW, I have spoken of 40+ seats and the talk of, on a very good day, 102 seats, but never to my recollection have I spoken of 80 seats. Have you, in your excitement, plucked the figure 80 from the remains of a Burns Night haggis?
My dear MikeK,
I have followed your Ukip predictions with a reverence I normally only reserve for a fine single malt or the political tips of the "Great Bedford Bald One" (may the betting gods preserve and keep him) and your 80 Ukip MP prognostication was burned into my memory as surely as the emanations coming from Ukip Central Office (Gay Weather Forecasts Branch).
However I note with satisfaction your 102 seat projection - given a fair kipper wind - and as you know I like a bit of wind - Better out than in.
I am beginning to think that the real value might now lie in the betting on another General Election within six months or a year of May 2015. I can't see either Lab or Con winning a majority, unless Lab manages to stage a remarkable recovery in Scotland (very unlikely in my view). All the minor parties will be playing hard ball on any coalition deal (having seen what's happened to the LDs). So, there will be some kind(s) of loose agreement between parties - but they are unlikely to survive the first serious contention (around the next budget and round of spending cuts, for example).
Hence, inability to sustain a viable government will precipitate another election. Then a lot is going to what happens to the main parties. A return from the wilderness of Darling or the postie might be enough to see Labour returned to power - replacement of EdM by Burnham or Chuka would not in my view - it'd just be a continuation of the same vacuous nonsense we're getting from them at the moment. On the other side we might have a Boris led Tory party, which I could also see generating enough momentum to win - where May, Hammond or Javid would not.
You are forgetting that the fixed term parliament act now means that 66% of MPs have to vote for an early dissolution so realistically you would need both Con and Lab to agree on this for there to be an early election
Actually, there's a way around that.
It only takes a majority to repeal the fixed term parliament act.
I honestly can't see this being the priority of any sort of cobbled together Tory-DUP-UKIP-LDs absteining arrangement or Labour lead rainbow deal.
Well I think we can safely say that Rod Crosby's fabled prediction that the Tories would have consistent polling leads "by January" is another bust for him, following up from his on-the-night prediction that Labour would come third in the Euros.
I am beginning to think that the real value might now lie in the betting on another General Election within six months or a year of May 2015. I can't see either Lab or Con winning a majority, unless Lab manages to stage a remarkable recovery in Scotland (very unlikely in my view). All the minor parties will be playing hard ball on any coalition deal (having seen what's happened to the LDs). So, there will be some kind(s) of loose agreement between parties - but they are unlikely to survive the first serious contention (around the next budget and round of spending cuts, for example).
Hence, inability to sustain a viable government will precipitate another election. Then a lot is going to what happens to the main parties. A return from the wilderness of Darling or the postie might be enough to see Labour returned to power - replacement of EdM by Burnham or Chuka would not in my view - it'd just be a continuation of the same vacuous nonsense we're getting from them at the moment. On the other side we might have a Boris led Tory party, which I could also see generating enough momentum to win - where May, Hammond or Javid would not.
You are forgetting that the fixed term parliament act now means that 66% of MPs have to vote for an early dissolution so realistically you would need both Con and Lab to agree on this for there to be an early election
Yes, a potential obstacle - but I think they'd have to vote for dissolution if it was not possible to form a viable government.
I have a slight lull (snow delaying patients). I agree with your last sentence. The whole package needs to be considered. It is not possible with current tariffs (a system designed by Alan Milburn and fundamentally unchanged) which were designed to get waiting lists down by by favouring waiting list work over emergency work and training.
If the tariff payment system was reformed so that this was taken into account then I would have no problem with private competitors. Under current rules it risks destabilising whole hospital systems.
The HCSB also removed the obligation on the Secretary of State to provide comprehensive health services, so perfectly possible for a Trust to pull the plug on expensive A and E facilities. If forced to act like businesses they will have to cut their losses.
Happy to debate this more tonight if you want to do so.
On topic - interesting odds...but isn't Sadiq's path to the Mayoralty quite a difficult one?
If he loses his seat in May, then he will be tarnished as a "loser" and you can't see Labour selecting him for the Mayoralty.
If he wins his seat in May, that would suggest the Tories haven't broken through to capture seats like his with a 2.5k majority and aren't going to form a majority, so he would likely be a cabinet minister in a Labour govt or Labour-led govt. Why would he give that up for a punt at the Mayoralty, which could be difficult for Labour mid-term?
So surely for the tip to pay off, he has to win Tooting, but Labour has to be out of government. That's not impossible, it happened in 2010. But obviously on top of that he'd have to win the selection and the election, again not impossible...
I love this post, genuinely. It's the sort that contributes intelligent debate to punting.
That having been said I expect a Conservative 40 seat outright majority and for Labour to win Tooting. I haven't time right now to go into the logic of that, but there is one and it's coherent. Part of the answer lies in the cataclysm awaiting the LibDems, part on Sadiq and Tooting itself.
Come the 8th May Ed Miliband will be Prime Minister.
Albeit at the head of a shaky coalition.
Almost certainly not, if only because the negotiations will take place over the weekend of 9th/10th May and quite likely well into the next week or even longer. Cam remains PM in this position until Ed can come up with a deal.
I have a punt myself on a Lab-LD-SNP coalition, but after this week's Labour NHS omnishambles I am thinking of shoring my position with a punt on a Tory minority government or LD-Tory. It just seems to me the whole election narrative is going Tory way. Early days of course.
I'll second that - however all my EdM PM bets are for Ed Miliband to be NEXT Prime Minister, not May 8th PM - If they had May 8th on the betslip I'd tear them up.
Eh ?
He'll be negotiating with the SNP and Lib Dems.
What's that got to do with the price of fish ?
But isn't it obvious? Why should Labour reward a narrow regional party that has just destroyed them in electoral terms? All they are doing is pulling the rug from under themselves, not least since the SNP are a rival left wing party. It merely offers the prospect of the regional party replacing them since by dint of its position the regional party can claim more regional influence compared to the rest of the country. And there as well lies the rub, Labour is sacrificing its English Welsh vote to pacify Scotland. If there were no Labour Party in Scotland it might make more sense. Maybe soon there won't be.
Well the bettors on this site think its definitely likely. And we're voting with our cash.
I am beginning to think that the real value might now lie in the betting on another General Election within six months or a year of May 2015. I can't see either Lab or Con winning a majority, unless Lab manages to stage a remarkable recovery in Scotland (very unlikely in my view). All the minor parties will be playing hard ball on any coalition deal (having seen what's happened to the LDs). So, there will be some kind(s) of loose agreement between parties - but they are unlikely to survive the first serious contention (around the next budget and round of spending cuts, for example).
Hence, inability to sustain a viable government will precipitate another election. Then a lot is going to what happens to the main parties. A return from the wilderness of Darling or the postie might be enough to see Labour returned to power - replacement of EdM by Burnham or Chuka would not in my view - it'd just be a continuation of the same vacuous nonsense we're getting from them at the moment. On the other side we might have a Boris led Tory party, which I could also see generating enough momentum to win - where May, Hammond or Javid would not.
You are forgetting that the fixed term parliament act now means that 66% of MPs have to vote for an early dissolution so realistically you would need both Con and Lab to agree on this for there to be an early election
No it doesn't - you just need a vote of confidence to be lost, and for no new vote of confidence to be won within the next two weeks.
Certainly it's not as simple as the incumbent PM walking up to Buckingham Palace, but it could be fairly easy.
i would also caution about Sadiq's prospects in a mayoral election campaign.
He is by no means a charmer. He will find it difficult to reach out to non-Labour, non-Muslim voters. He doesn't have a personality like Boris's or Ken's, that can appeal cross-party.
He is, at best, a Labour machine politician, and, at worst, a bombastic, narrow-minded opportunist.
On topic - interesting odds...but isn't Sadiq's path to the Mayoralty quite a difficult one?
If he loses his seat in May, then he will be tarnished as a "loser" and you can't see Labour selecting him for the Mayoralty.
If he wins his seat in May, that would suggest the Tories haven't broken through to capture seats like his with a 2.5k majority and aren't going to form a majority, so he would likely be a cabinet minister in a Labour govt or Labour-led govt. Why would he give that up for a punt at the Mayoralty, which could be difficult for Labour mid-term?
So surely for the tip to pay off, he has to win Tooting, but Labour has to be out of government. That's not impossible, it happened in 2010. But obviously on top of that he'd have to win the selection and the election, again not impossible...
No. And I don't think anybody is suggesting any suggestion of a deal with the SNP at all.
We're fighting hard for a majority.
But if Labour don't get a majority, then the facts change...
I still think a formal Lab/SNP coalition is extremely unlikely whatever the result, but it's worth considering that the the single largest obstacle to such an arrangement is 41 rancorous, Nat-hating SLab MPs. If their number is drastically reduced...
It only takes a majority to repeal the fixed term parliament act.
You don't need to repeal it, if you have a simple majority. Just a vote of confidence, wait 14 days, and hold another vote of confidence.
However, by definition in the scenario we are talking about, no one party (and quite possibly no two parties) can muster a majority. That means you need to agree with another party or parties that now is the best time to hold an election. That wouldn't be easy.
So currently Labour lead with Populus, ICM, Opinium, Ipsos Mori.
It's tied with YouGov, Ashcroft (although under previous methodology Lab have 1 pt lead), TNS-BRMB
And the Tories have to rely on a slender 1 pt lead with *ahem* Survation (UKIP at 23% - yeah right) and (fair enough) ComRes.
Yes but your list shows that most of the polls with Labour leads are the plder ones - ICM, Opinium and Mori. The recent position shows movement to the blues. Still if it keeps your hopes up.
On the NHS, Lord Darzai is wrong and most voters are staunchly anti privatisation.
Nope, most voters are simply pro 'not getting a bill for healthcare' i.e. free at the point of use. As long as that continues, I doubt they're really bothered who provides it.
I am beginning to think that the real value might now lie in the betting on another General Election within six months or a year of May 2015. I can't see either Lab or Con winning a majority, unless Lab manages to stage a remarkable recovery in Scotland (very unlikely in my view). All the minor parties will be playing hard ball on any coalition deal (having seen what's happened to the LDs). So, there will be some kind(s) of loose agreement between parties - but they are unlikely to survive the first serious contention (around the next budget and round of spending cuts, for example).
Hence, inability to sustain a viable government will precipitate another election. Then a lot is going to what happens to the main parties. A return from the wilderness of Darling or the postie might be enough to see Labour returned to power - replacement of EdM by Burnham or Chuka would not in my view - it'd just be a continuation of the same vacuous nonsense we're getting from them at the moment. On the other side we might have a Boris led Tory party, which I could also see generating enough momentum to win - where May, Hammond or Javid would not.
You are forgetting that the fixed term parliament act now means that 66% of MPs have to vote for an early dissolution so realistically you would need both Con and Lab to agree on this for there to be an early election
Actually, there's a way around that.
It only takes a majority to repeal the fixed term parliament act.
I honestly can't see this being the priority of any sort of cobbled together Tory-DUP-UKIP-LDs absteining arrangement or Labour lead rainbow deal.
There's only one party that has the resources to fight two elections in a short space of time.
No. And I don't think anybody is suggesting any suggestion of a deal with the SNP at all.
We're fighting hard for a majority.
But if Labour don't get a majority, then the facts change...
I still think a formal Lab/SNP coalition is extremely unlikely whatever the result, but it's worth considering that the the single largest obstacle to such an arrangement is 41 rancorous, Nat-hating SLab MPs. If their number is drastically reduced...
Agreed. It's an absolute non-starter. SLAB loath the SNP. They'd be more amenable to a coalition with UKIP.
SYRIZA to increase Greek minimum wage by 10% from 680 to 751 Euros in direct contravention on the troika requirements. Some how I don't think he is planning on backing down. For added spice they agreed the scrapping of fees for prescriptions and hospital visits, the restoration of collective work agreements, the rehiring of workers laid off in the public sector, the granting of citizenship to migrant children born and raised in Greece.
So currently Labour lead with Populus, ICM, Opinium, Ipsos Mori.
It's tied with YouGov, Ashcroft (although under previous methodology Lab have 1 pt lead), TNS-BRMB
And the Tories have to rely on a slender 1 pt lead with *ahem* Survation (UKIP at 23% - yeah right) and (fair enough) ComRes.
Yes but your list shows that most of the polls with Labour leads are the plder ones - ICM, Opinium and Mori. The recent position shows movement to the blues. Still if it keeps your hopes up.
On the NHS, Lord Darzai is wrong and most voters are staunchly anti privatisation.
Nope, most voters are simply pro 'not getting a bill for healthcare' i.e. free at the point of use. As long as that continues, I doubt they're really bothered who provides it.
It's interesting that university students are now picking much more employable subjects now they're putting their own money forward. That is, in turn, forcing universities to get more competitive about how good their courses are. Perhaps a small fee (£5 for a GP visit) for the NHS might make health consumers start to be more focused on what they are getting for their money. Because right now the standards of politeness, competency and administrative ease are often shockingly poor. Many receptionist staff seem to think of the patients as a nuisance to be either rushed through the system as quick as possible, or rejected, rather than the people paying their wages.
Looking at the average of the Populus polls for January (8 polls) and comparing them with the average over the past 12 months, the main shifts in 2010 voters are:
No material change in how 2010 C voters are proposing to vote now. 65% will vote C, 5% L, 16% UKIP and 11% don't know.
2.5% drop in 2010 L voters planning to vote L with corresponding 1% increase in SNP and 1.5% don't knows. 73% will vote L, 4% C, 2% LD, 3% Nats, 5% UKIP, 2% G, and 11% don't know.
2.4% drop in 2010 LD planning to vote L, with a corresponding increase 2.6% for G. 27% will vote LD, 22% L, 11% C, 7% UKIP, 8% G and 22% don't know.
There is still a very high don't know for 2010LD twice as high as the other main parties.
In todays poll there was a high 2010LD retention (32%) which helped the LD's to 10%. This could well be normal polling fluctuation.
What's the Conservative -> Lib Dem movement in the internals ?
On topic - interesting odds...but isn't Sadiq's path to the Mayoralty quite a difficult one?
If he loses his seat in May, then he will be tarnished as a "loser" and you can't see Labour selecting him for the Mayoralty.
If he wins his seat in May, that would suggest the Tories haven't broken through to capture seats like his with a 2.5k majority and aren't going to form a majority, so he would likely be a cabinet minister in a Labour govt or Labour-led govt. Why would he give that up for a punt at the Mayoralty, which could be difficult for Labour mid-term?
So surely for the tip to pay off, he has to win Tooting, but Labour has to be out of government. That's not impossible, it happened in 2010. But obviously on top of that he'd have to win the selection and the election, again not impossible...
I love this post, genuinely. It's the sort that contributes intelligent debate to punting.
That having been said I expect a Conservative 40 seat outright majority and for Labour to win Tooting. I haven't time right now to go into the logic of that, but there is one and it's coherent. Part of the answer lies in the cataclysm awaiting the LibDems, part on Sadiq and Tooting itself.
@AudreyAnne - a genuine tip for you, I think I've wasted a fiver on it but if you believe in a Lib Dem cataclysm then sure the Tories are taking BATH.
William Hills go 6-1 top price and Ladbrokes are 1-7 Lib Dem (UKIP & Labour have no chance here) so mathematically it is OK (There is a 2% overround on top prices)
Don Foster is standing down here so there's no Lib Dem incumbency to worry about.
Personally I think I've wasted a fiver on it, but with your take on the Lib-Dem/Conservative battleground, it's a great bet.
Comments
If, on the other hand, it's just envy and irritation from one Labour supporter about a Labour politician being wealthy that's a different story. I don't mean that sparkily, I'm curious.
Labour 30%
SNP 29%
Conservative 21%
[There are some GB figures too]
Lab 35%
Con 34%
UKIP 14%
Lib 10%
Grn 4%
Con 34 (nc) Lab 35 (nc) LD 10 (+1) UKIP 14 (+1) Greens 4 (-2)
http://populus.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/OmOnline_Vote_30-01-2015_BPC.pdf
You, seriously, think 3 months is a short time in politics? With the campaigns only just kicking off, if at all, the country still half asleep about it and a General Election Budget still to come (not to mention hopefully a nice healthy royal baby*) and the Conservatives already moving ahead in the opinion polls (poll average over last week 0.33% ahead)?
A week can be a game changer. 3 months and a week is an enormous length of time. I'm confident.
* don't take umbrage about the royal baby: it's light-hearted, although with a vapour trail of truth.
He'll be negotiating with the SNP and Lib Dems.
So back in 2010, if you had a bet on Dave being PM on the 7th of May, it would have been a loser, but Dave as next PM would have become a winner on the 11th of May 2010.
Third one point lead in last four.
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=2&hl=en&ie=UTF8&nv=1&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://www.unian.net/society/1036884-na-ternopolschine-voennoobyazannyie-mujchinyi-massovo-begut-za-granitsu-genshtab.html&usg=ALkJrhjJXYqYMa9YwDK0HUdgCvbqZtPXxg
Ultimately the war is unsustainable for Kiev, they cannot afford it and nor do they have popular support, the rest of Ukraine will turn on Galicia. The US are wrong to believe they can perpetuate the war forever to harm Russia.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/live/bbcparliament
Always best to stick larger sample sized polls.
But that is not in any sense an argument for not using private providers. It's an argument for recognising that training and A & E are both expensive and essential. If the NHS wants doctors to be trained, which of course it does, then it needs to factor those training costs into its budget. If the most effective way of doing that is for private routine-surgery providers to provide training as well, then write that into the contract. Similarly, if out-of-hours service is expensive to provide, then it is expensive to provide and the budget should be set to recognise that. Paying more for routine work, in order to bodge the budget for out-of-hours work, is simply obfuscating the problem with artificially-inflated transfer pricing.
Of course fox is right when he says this is not a simple calculation, and that the NHS commissioning body has to look at the whole picture. Indeed so, but you don't do that by fiddling the budget or by automatically assuming an NHS provider should be preferred. You do it by working out what you want, as a whole, and figuring out the most efficient way of getting it.
Over their last 6 polls:
SNP 32.8 Labour 30 Tory 21.5
Incidentally, this might be an appropriate moment to mention that 9 out of every 10 polls this parliament have overstated Labour's share compared to actual vote shares received at elections (all by elections and Europeans), sometimes by huge amounts.
However, if you were a member of the Teachers’ Pension Scheme (or its equivalent in Scotland or Northern Ireland) before 1 January 2007 then things are different. Your normal pension age will be 60 – provided you haven’t had a break in service of more than five years.''
https://www.teacherspensions.co.uk/members/the-scheme/active-teacher/when-can-i-retire.aspx
So long term teachers still retire at 60. After all thats what their contributions were based on. Essentially new entrants will retire later. I think teachers pensions are a 'proper' funded scheme.
Prince George was born in July 2013. The warmest July since the record-setting 2006, the 10th warmest July in the 357 year long record and the first July in the top 50 since Gordon "summer floods" Brown became PM*.
Next baby is expected in April 2015. Suffice it to say that I'm gutted not to have much of my annual leave allowance available to take.
* The rankings for July from 2007 onwards are:
2007 - 257th (coldest since 1993)
2008 - 123rd
2009 - 133rd
2010 - 62nd
2011 - 256th
2012 - 207th
2013 - 10th
2014 - 31st
We didn't have a July in the warmest third under Gordon Brown. The probability** of that happening by chance is less than 4%...
** I know: data-mining, field significance.
No material change in how 2010 C voters are proposing to vote now. 65% will vote C, 5% L, 16% UKIP and 11% don't know.
2.5% drop in 2010 L voters planning to vote L with corresponding 1% increase in SNP and 1.5% don't knows. 73% will vote L, 4% C, 2% LD, 3% Nats, 5% UKIP, 2% G, and 11% don't know.
2.4% drop in 2010 LD planning to vote L, with a corresponding increase 2.6% for G. 27% will vote LD, 22% L, 11% C, 7% UKIP, 8% G and 22% don't know.
There is still a very high don't know for 2010LD twice as high as the other main parties.
In todays poll there was a high 2010LD retention (32%) which helped the LD's to 10%. This could well be normal polling fluctuation.
Bet void if Conservative + Lib Dem seat numbers are over 326 or Labour + Lib Dem is over 326.
Increase in animals not being stunned before they are Halal slaughtered
The number of cattle killed according to the principles of Islamic Halal slaughter without being stunned rose by nearly a third between 2011 and 2013, while the number of sheep not being stunned increased by half.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/increase-in-animals-not-being-stunned-before-they-are-halal-slaughtered-10012559.html
Having said that, I think it is foolish to assume that Labour will have this in the bag. A huge amount depends on what happens in May 2015. Currently the betting markets assume a roughly Evens chance of the Prime Minister being Ed Miliband, and quite probably Ed Miliband heading a minority government. If that comes to pass, and given the total lack of any coherent policies and the need to continue to cut public spending, then by May 2016 Labour are going to be very unpopular indeed - we are talking François Hollande-style unpopularity (before he was boosted by the French rallying around because of the Charlie Hebdo murders). That would be a very weak background for a Labour mayoral candidate.
Of course it is true that the Conservatives would need a charismatic candidate to have a good chance. Who might that be? Dunno, but I can think of one possibility, and so can Boris:
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-urges-tory-mp-zac-goldsmith-to-run-for-mayor-of-london-9656759.html
It's tied with YouGov, Ashcroft (although under previous methodology Lab have 1 pt lead), TNS-BRMB
And the Tories have to rely on a slender 1 pt lead with *ahem* Survation (UKIP at 23% - yeah right) and (fair enough) ComRes.
Ooo look: Good old Gordon
Hung parliament is looking most likely...the question is Labour beaten on %, but more seats and a coalition with SNP or Lib Dems, or Tories most seats but well short of a majority.
DYOR.
Hence, inability to sustain a viable government will precipitate another election. Then a lot is going to what happens to the main parties. A return from the wilderness of Darling or the postie might be enough to see Labour returned to power - replacement of EdM by Burnham or Chuka would not in my view - it'd just be a continuation of the same vacuous nonsense we're getting from them at the moment. On the other side we might have a Boris led Tory party, which I could also see generating enough momentum to win - where May, Hammond or Javid would not.
This being so I'd expect broadly to see more men than women in the medical profession. What would temper this is if it were so small as a field that there were more suitable applicants than places.
There are more women then men at Cambridge University, for example, but there are only 3,000 a year let in and probably 15,000 with equivalent A-Level grades. Of those 15,000 you'd expect there to be more men than women, so it's plausible there could be 11,000 men and 4,000 women, of whom 1,000 and 2,000 end up there.
Of course A Levels are an imperfect example because they've been gerrymandered to make them easier for girls to pass.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-11389598
It's good to be consistent, isn't it.
However other Labour related factors have to be allowed for :
1. How long will the slow decline in the Labour poll rating continue?
2. Labour have under performed their poll rating in actual elections.
3. The voters are as yet not fully engaged in the election campaign.
4. The continuing SNP threat to Labour.
5. The media critique of Ed during the actual campaign.
And most importantly :
6. The actual prospect of Ed as PM as voters enter the polling booth - Kinnock 1992 Syndrome.
Given the geeky, bicycle clipped make up of the titanic natural science and engineering departments, the arts courses must be very very heavily weighted to women these days.
Even the Beeb is sensing Ed's 'weapon' is looking a bit blunt:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31052010
I also said that 37% in a national election was the high watermark for the Tories given the inevitable failure that their austerity progarmme was going to be (and that they were loathed in too many places in the country to ever gain a majority again) and its decline in the polls to 2015 would be offset by the fact the Unions foisted Ed Miliband on Labour.
Still my minimum wish is for the Tories to be ousted, and I'm still confident that is going to happen.
A pity about the shaky coalition, but I despise FPTP, so I'm willing to see it discredited in consecutive elections if that is what it takes to get people to take notice of how it skews public debate in this country.
So I'm quite satisfied at the moment.
May2015.com 's Poll of Polls, 30/1: We're tied…
CON—33.5
LAB—33.4
UKP—14.9
LD—7.2
GRN—6.1
(CON +0.1%.)
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B8l3JS5IEAEJGLL.png
Robert Kimbell @RedHotSquirrel 1m1 minute ago East, England
THE stat of 2015. Votes cast at parliamentary by-elections 2013-14:
80,884 UKIP
70,257 CON
49,205 LAB
18,164 LDEM
5,055 GRN
If he loses his seat in May, then he will be tarnished as a "loser" and you can't see Labour selecting him for the Mayoralty.
If he wins his seat in May, that would suggest the Tories haven't broken through to capture seats like his with a 2.5k majority and aren't going to form a majority, so he would likely be a cabinet minister in a Labour govt or Labour-led govt. Why would he give that up for a punt at the Mayoralty, which could be difficult for Labour mid-term?
So surely for the tip to pay off, he has to win Tooting, but Labour has to be out of government. That's not impossible, it happened in 2010. But obviously on top of that he'd have to win the selection and the election, again not impossible...
To double check, @OGH is recommending Labour at 2-5 for the Mayoralty ?
Top price Labour 4-11, Conservatives available at 3-1 - so indeed the 6-1 does indeed appear to be the bet...
James Bond
Is there some stealth social engineering going on to begin with, that we should end up with a 60:40 female:male ratio? AIUI medicine is a high IQ profession, and women's IQ is the same on average, but bunched around the middle. So there are fewer female geniuses than male, fewer female idiots than male, and on average the same score.
This being so I'd expect broadly to see more men than women in the medical profession. What would temper this is if it were so small as a field that there were more suitable applicants than places.
There are more women then men at Cambridge University, for example, but there are only 3,000 a year let in and probably 15,000 with equivalent A-Level grades. Of those 15,000 you'd expect there to be more men than women, so it's plausible there could be 11,000 men and 4,000 women, of whom 1,000 and 2,000 end up there.
Of course A Levels are an imperfect example because they've been gerrymandered to make them easier for girls to pass. After centuries of male dominance in the medical profession, I can't get too excited about it leaning marginally the other way.
I was more or less following that until we got to the bit about 'A' levels being gerrymandered to make them easier for girls to pass. It's a bit like having what you think is an intelligent and reasonable conversation with someone, who then suddenly blurts out 'I am the reincarnation of Napoleon'.
Move to the BLues? Where? I see a decline in Labour share for sure, but the Blues are still flatlining I'm afraid.
I think the theory is that boys are better at one-off exams than continuous assessment. The current system - as I understand it - has a mixture of both. The change would favour girls (if the above theory is correct), but that doesn't mean it's less "fair" than the old system which favoured boys.
I am not the reincarnation of Napolean.
With Greek blows expected daily, things are beginning to frazzle nicely:
MossadNews @MossadNews 2m2 minutes ago
U.S. Stock Futures Heading Lower This Morning; As Germany Falls Into Deflation; Leading Russian Banker Calls New... http://fb.me/7lXWw5LYt
England are going to blow this aren't they
It only takes a majority to repeal the fixed term parliament act.
Most voters are pro best care, free at the point of use. They don't care who provides it.
I have followed your Ukip predictions with a reverence I normally only reserve for a fine single malt or the political tips of the "Great Bedford Bald One" (may the betting gods preserve and keep him) and your 80 Ukip MP prognostication was burned into my memory as surely as the emanations coming from Ukip Central Office (Gay Weather Forecasts Branch).
However I note with satisfaction your 102 seat projection - given a fair kipper wind - and as you know I like a bit of wind - Better out than in.
Your truly,
JackW of PB.
90 odd days to go.
I have a slight lull (snow delaying patients). I agree with your last sentence. The whole package needs to be considered. It is not possible with current tariffs (a system designed by Alan Milburn and fundamentally unchanged) which were designed to get waiting lists down by by favouring waiting list work over emergency work and training.
If the tariff payment system was reformed so that this was taken into account then I would have no problem with private competitors. Under current rules it risks destabilising whole hospital systems.
The HCSB also removed the obligation on the Secretary of State to provide comprehensive health services, so perfectly possible for a Trust to pull the plug on expensive A and E facilities. If forced to act like businesses they will have to cut their losses.
Happy to debate this more tonight if you want to do so.
That having been said I expect a Conservative 40 seat outright majority and for Labour to win Tooting. I haven't time right now to go into the logic of that, but there is one and it's coherent. Part of the answer lies in the cataclysm awaiting the LibDems, part on Sadiq and Tooting itself.
Certainly it's not as simple as the incumbent PM walking up to Buckingham Palace, but it could be fairly easy.
i would also caution about Sadiq's prospects in a mayoral election campaign.
He is by no means a charmer. He will find it difficult to reach out to non-Labour, non-Muslim voters. He doesn't have a personality like Boris's or Ken's, that can appeal cross-party.
He is, at best, a Labour machine politician, and, at worst, a bombastic, narrow-minded opportunist.
N.B. I do know him quite well.
However, by definition in the scenario we are talking about, no one party (and quite possibly no two parties) can muster a majority. That means you need to agree with another party or parties that now is the best time to hold an election. That wouldn't be easy.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11377416/General-Election-2015-the-seats-that-will-decide-who-wins.html
They might wish to make use of that advantage.
Given the demographics, does he even need to?
What's to stop him running the nastiest, most divisive campaign in history?
It'll be interesting to see if single voter registration affects the seat of the delightful Mr Khan.
William Hills go 6-1 top price and Ladbrokes are 1-7 Lib Dem (UKIP & Labour have no chance here) so mathematically it is OK (There is a 2% overround on top prices)
Don Foster is standing down here so there's no Lib Dem incumbency to worry about.
Personally I think I've wasted a fiver on it, but with your take on the Lib-Dem/Conservative battleground, it's a great bet.