Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Anybody betting on two general elections this year should f
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Anybody betting on two general elections this year should first read this analysis by Chris Huhne
Nearly a year ago the former LD cabinet minister, Chris Huhne, wrote an excellent piece in the Guardian on how the Fixed Term Parliament Act would make it difficult for a second general election shortly after an indecisive outcome – as looks highly likely in May.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
The original post:
MikeK said:
Sarah Palin News @SarahPalinLinks 9m9 minutes ago
150 years after sinking, Confederate submarine slowly reveals its secrets | http://fxn.ws/1wJlTQY #TenthAmendment
---------------------------------
Speedy said:
» show previous quotes
?
So the final 2016 update for tonight will include Sarah Palin, you asked for it, watch the video and scream:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/01/27/jon_stewart_mocks_iowa_summit_of_a_lot_of_republicans_who_will_never_be_president.html
-------------------------------------------
What do you mean: "you asked for it?" I posted a a tweet about a Confederate Sub; the first sub ever to sink a ship. Nothing to do with Sara Palin, except she thought it important to tweet.
You, @Speedy, are a really stupid berk, showing only a hatred of things that you do not understand.
Edited for added innocent smirk
You'll just have to rely on some PBer of considerable betting repute to land the odd 50/1 winner .... but where would one find such a colossus ?!?
.....................................................
Goodnight all .....
But the reality is that a government would just govern by executive fiat and then put up the occasional populist bill and dare the opposition to vote it down.
Whatever happens in the GE, (hung parliament or not) I believe that FPTP is entering its final period of life.
Bear in mind that no one will want an election in December and there's a summer recess from July to October, and the odds of two elections in the calendar year in practice depend on an immediate collapse of the current government with no alternative able to command the confidence of Parliament even briefly.
I just don't see it.
"Margaret Thatcher, the former prime minister, was kept fully informed about an investigation into a senior diplomat who was embroiled in a paedophile scandal, newly-released secret documents show.
Mrs Thatcher received a stream of memos from officials about the “unnatural sexual proclivities” of Sir Peter Hayman.
The prime minister was carefully coached on how to deflect difficult questions about the affair after it was finally exposed by Private Eye magazine in 1980. "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11381191/Margaret-Thatcher-warned-of-paedophile-scandal-secret-documents-reveal.html
I will chase them up tomorrow.
:-)
(I think Grrhh!! is a small town in Hungary).
If your spouse has taken some speeding points for you DON'T COMMIT ADULTERY
I also seem to have the following extant with them; I think I was taking the Con bands on the basis of a reduction to 600 MPs, but I'll take them!
Con 250-274 @ 7/1
Con 275-299 @ 11/2
Simon Hughes @ 33/1
After all trying to stop a Second Indyref is pretty much their only hope of stopping Independence.
He is still taking my business - but this payout might make him reconsider. And when he has to pay me out at 17/1 on Sunday when Villa beat Arsenal he is going to be even grumpier. Not to mention how he will feel when he has to pay me out at 66/1 each way when Villa win the FA Cup ....
:-)
Also, forget the idea of a Grand Coalition. It ain't gonna happen, for the very simple reason that it is no-one's interest for it to happen. Why would either main party tie itself to the other? They'd be wanting to tear chunks out of each other and apportion blame, not cooperate to make life easy for the other side. Their entire focus would be on how to maximise advantage for the next election.
What might happen, in some circumstances, is one of the two main parties grudgingly propping up the other by abstention, whilst waiting for the best opportunity to attempt to force the issue to a vote of confidence. But that is different from a grand coalition.
Both Labour and Conservative would say "let's stop messing around and have a majority government - us or them" and squeeze the other parties.
Key sentence in the middle of the first paragraph: "Loss of Supply is interpreted as indicating a loss of confidence in the government" [where Supply refers to the supply of funds from the Exchequer]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_of_supply
In a rally that may spur speculation that a seven-month price collapse has ended, global benchmark Brent crude shot up to more than $53 per barrel, its highest in more than three weeks in its biggest one-day gain since 2009.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/30/us-markets-oil-idUSKBN0L305Q20150130
It is not the PM's job and should not be to institute criminal proceedings against anybody. Ask Dr Kelly's family what happens when politicians start to pick on diplomats.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nxh9xpqGCg4
''Israel’s story is by no means unblemished'' - well theres a thing.
And real Fruit Ninja played by the Deputy PM with a disabled man with a sword attached to his prosthetic leg!
Not to mention the Greek financial crises in the medium of interpretive dance...
There's also the point that a coalition can break up just as a supply and confidence arrangement can. There's a little more firmness to a coalition as presumably there are some bills going through parliament which the minor party is keen on, whereas that's less likely under S&C, and the presentation of withdrawal is harder from government, but if push comes to shove a break-up may happen anyway.
I agree with Huhne's point that minority governments will be less popular in the future. However, it may take the existence and failure of one to prove the point.
Err anything that is then said can be disregarded then .... Except here?
But it might be doubly unpopular for a Labour partner who finds itself shackled to a party representing a devolved govt. How does Labour square pandering to the SNP - a regional party with its own narrow outlook - with its English voters and MPs? Not to mention the wider electorate.
Labour are the most at risk to a backlash in either country England or Wales according to what it does. I do not see any relevance to 'inconvenient timing' - it would get its desserts from one or the other no matter what it did.
(sorry, I'm not making mock, I'm just trying to think of people that Con hate a bit and Lab hate a lot)
http://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/market?id=1.101416490&exp=e
The 2015 election will be first in which seats are decided by foreign voters, a new study has found found.
In two seats, East Ham and Brent North, the majority of voters were born overseas, while across the country almost 4 million voters – about one in 10 of the entire electorate in England and Wales – were born abroad.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11376781/Foreign-voters-will-decide-constituencies-for-the-first-time.html
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/13331381/L&N.PNG
When will people, here especially, learn not to be deceived by mid-term polls?
http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/11748713.One_in_20_Bradfordians_drop_off_electoral_roll_as_side_effect_of_fraud_clampdown/
i) every vote in the nation directly and equally influences the overall result
ii) parties are treated fairly, as far as possible, in where they obtain their seats.
iii) voters have some choice, as far as possible, between candidates of the same party.
Who could argue with any of the above statements, or deny that FPTP violates all three?
However, the Lab majority odds have belatedly fallen into line with L&N.
I suspect the Tory majority odds will shortly move in their direction also...
Sturgeon enjoys a mahoosive ratings lead over both Cameron and Miliband up north...
I'll add £20 of it at that price - they only need to hold Sherwood according to the seat calcs !
The main unknowns are
i) coalition, not unheard of however, and the model copes pretty well with historical examples.
ii) rise of "new" parties, UKIP, SNP. Again not unheard of; Alliance 1980s, SNP 1974, again the model copes well.
I still maintain that Conservative majority was way too short a couple of years back - meanwhile we have level polls, so there may well be something in your theories
Adjusted the Overall Majority book a bit.
Lab -41.41 NOM 146.15 Con 188.78
Perfectly do-able. Stranger things have happened at every general election within living memory...
Latest Betfair Sportsbook odds:
Lab 2.37
Con 2.87
UKIP 3.75
https://www.betfair.com/sport/politics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queensland_state_election,_2015
The previous election in 2012 was a landslide for the Liberals, winning 78 seats to Labor's 7.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Spanish_general_election,_2015#National
The survey, conducted by Spanish daily El País, showed that the left-wing party is ahead with at least 28 percent of the votes while the ruling People’s Party is lagging behind with 19 percent."
http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/01/26/394797/Spain-antiausterity-party-leads-in-opinion-poll
Con 31 (31 and 5/12)
Lab 32 (31 and 7/12)
UKP 14 (13 and 7/12)
Lib 9 (8 and 2/3)
Grn 8 (8 and 1/3)
Effectively a dead heat between Labour and Conservative for the lead and between Liberal Democrats and Greens for fourth.
a) Introduce a few populist and non contentious bills
b) Agree to repeal the FTP act and call a new election exactly one year later.
Sticking point would be how PM and Ministers were chosen, but that could be sorted out and it would only be for one year anyway.