In other news I'm putting the finishing touches to my GE projection algorithm. Will post the first of my 4 projections here on May 8th. Sadly I've had to rule out Heart and Hunch and stick with Head, so far as possible: I'm using it myself for my betting.
Is there not a serious risk of aftertiming in making projections on May 8th?
I plan to use one of the Sunday threads as an open thread where people post what they consider their best and worst bets for the forthcoming election as well as their general predictions.
It'll be a hoot and a half rereading that thread after the election.
£20 on the Tories to win Twickenham is a stinker I got convinced by someone...
I think the Lib Dems making net gains in May might be my worst stinker.
Interesting to see the Tories 4% ahead in England. Fully expect that lead to grow substantially before 7th May.
Tories on 34 and UKIP on 17 equals more than half the English electorate.
I wonder whether Norman Baker might suddenly step down if he realises he might lose the seat? He's got about 9 weeks to go until the campaign starts.
Norman Baker is very safe in Lewes . I expect his majority will increase . Conservative support in the Seaford area in particular has gone over to UKIP .
I think the LD majority will probably go up in Eastbourne but I'd be surprised if it happened in Lewes given that Baker already increased it a lot in 2010.
Mr. 565, 'more' sounds better. People always want 'more'.
Ask if they want more freedom. More money. More choice. They will, even though those are associated with smaller government.
Likewise, people want more taxes paid by the wealthy for vital services, where 'the wealthy' are anyone earning more than the individual answering, and 'vital services' are whatever services the individual uses.
In other news I'm putting the finishing touches to my GE projection algorithm. Will post the first of my 4 projections here on May 8th. Sadly I've had to rule out Heart and Hunch and stick with Head, so far as possible: I'm using it myself for my betting.
Fat lot of use May 8th will be.
Assuming Houghton & Sunderland South will declare at 1am, she'll have an hour
I remember the Labour lady dancing round like they'd won the bloody election... as if holding Sunderland South was the second coming for Labour.
In other news I'm putting the finishing touches to my GE projection algorithm. Will post the first of my 4 projections here on May 8th. Sadly I've had to rule out Heart and Hunch and stick with Head, so far as possible: I'm using it myself for my betting.
Bit perplexing why Labour should be holding up so well. There's obviously a residual dislike of anything Tory but I can't help feeling Labour aren't doing enough to capitalize on it. It's a pity the Lib Dems didn't realize quite how toxic association with the Tories was going to be a little earlier.
Their dilemma whether it's better to try to claim credit for the governments actions over the last five years or whether to distance themselves from it seems a no brainer. It's all there for them in the Scottish referendum but it must have passed them by
Ask if they want more freedom. More money. More choice. They will, even though those are associated with smaller government..
Sure, they'd want those things too in an ideal world. But the question shows that, if forced to choose between more government services and more money/freedom, they'd prefer more government services.
I see Lord A has dropped the extra data table 4 that he introduced in the last poll . I wonder why ?
LDs should be on 9 not 8.
Lab 172+10 (10 from 50% 13+6 in table 2) Con 172+11 (11 from 50% 19+3 in table 2) LD 43+10 (10 from 50% 12+7 in table 2) UKIP 85 LD 52
total sample 560+10+11+10 = 591
Oh, you're applying the spiral of silence adjustment yourself. I think you have done it wrong, though, as you could be including people who have answered that they are unlikely to vote in Qn1.
It doesn't look like Ashcroft has included all the information you would need to reconstruct his headline numbers (and therefore calculate them to 1 decimal place).
It looks like the percentages are identical in Tabs 3 AND 4 - my worry is: has the spiral even been applied?
Sunil, no disrespect, but I think the people who do Lord Ashcroft's fieldwork probably know what they're doing, even if they don't show all their working. Perhaps you should stop trying to find "errors" in every poll result?
Given the c**k up that happened with the Ashcroft poll in Ed M's seat you seem to be a bit optimistic in your view that they know what they are doing .
Not sure why everyone is so excited about Wednesday - it will show the SNP doing better than 2010 but showing a greater level of support than they will actually poll in May.
Care to put numbers to your prediction, just for the record like?
Is there anything that better exemplifies what is so horribly wrong with British politics, that Liz Kendall is being tipped in some quarters as a potential leadership candidate?
I have nothing at all against Liz or her politics. She seems, from what limited information is available, to be a decent sort. But all she has done is made a speech. Quite a good speech, granted. A speech that burnished her credentials as a pragmatist and centrist. But it's only a speech. She has been in parliament for five years, and spent 3 1/2 of them as an unremarkable shadow care minister, attending a barely noticeable shadow cabinet. She might in time become a fine politician, with a clear ideology, broad vision, depth of experience and the political acumen that comes from having witnessed major political events at close quarters and from having run ministries or large shadow operations. But she's not even close to that yet.
Instead, one speech and boom! Leadership contender. It is utterly mad. And it will probably hurt her in the long run, whether or not she obtains high office.
Of course, this isn't new, and it's not really about Liz at all. Cameron had the briefest of political educations before assuming the leadership, Osborne was barely in his 30s when he started shadowing Gordon Brown and before them William Hague did not have a particularly significant political hinterland. In the current Labour party Chuka Umunna and Rachel Reeves are viewed as rising stars (and in at least one case, leadership favourite), without having a single noteworthy achievement to their name.
I am not saying the job should be available only to gnarled and worldly 50-somethings, with 20 years of experience dealing with constituency issues, a glittering portfolio of parliamentary oratory, 15 years on the front bench and at least a term at one of the great ministries (or shadowing). But it would be nice if for a change a leadership candidate could emerge who is serious, credible and tested on the national (or better still, international) stage. Miliband has suffered greatly for having to learn on the job, having to define his political philosophy in real time, and having to demonstrate a breadth of political vision that in his short time at the DECC he had no time of developing. Cameron has disappointed in part because he hasn't had the departmental experience necessary to know how policy is implemented. And in the meantime capable MPs and ministers in both parties see their careers stall because the perception is if you're not on star track by the time you're 38, your career is over. Just look at the battery of Labour heavyweights who could be adding decades of ministerial experience to the Labour party now, but who at 55-60 are effectively on the scrapheap, while callow youths sneer at them dismissively.
We have to change. And we can start by viewing Liz, Chuka et al as the potential leaders of 2025, not 2015.
In terms of product regulation, your sources documents the opposite of your position. They are criticising the reduction of product regulation, not the increase which you claim will happen.
Fair enough on labour migration, it's just for temporary work travels - nothing permanent.
Was I claiming increased product regulation? The point is common product regulation, agreed product regulation. You seem happy about immigration for work - which is what we have here now. You are remarkably sanguine about 'temporary'. The point is that these trade agreements are not just about trade in goods they are also about movements of people - both ways of course - and after say 3 years you will either get an extension or be replaced by someone else.
I make no comment about wisdom of any of this - I just point to what is involved and what the UK, if not in the EU, would be agreeing to. All of which would be complex to agree and leave us little different. Joining the EEA would be probably easier but not much different either. The CE mark applies to products within the European Economic Area . It also appears on many products that are produced and sold outside of the EEA
Canada - a major country on the other side of the Atlantic far removed from the EU - has a significant number of immigrants each year and a large immigrant population - on a par with Switzerland. To pretend that all will suddenly change by us leaving the EU is naive.
Off topic. I had commented previously that Hillary might not even run. It appears that others, while still thinking that to be highly unlikely, are now at least thinking about the prospect. Here is a very Clintonista take on the issue:
How likely do you think it is that Clinton won't run, and are you willing to bet on it?
I think 1-10% is probably right at the moment, and no, I don't bet, even though this is a betting site. [I bet tim once and won, but didn't bother to collect - a bet on Obama's winning margin in 2012].
Looked at the issue rationally, Clinton will run, probably essentially unopposed. I just have this nagging persistent feeling that she may not as there is simply no enthusiasm for her run, outside the true Clintonistas which is a shrinking clan - just a sense of inevitability. Furthermore, she is hardly exuding confidence and occupying the space with brio. And we know that 'inevitability' is a very fragile thing, particularly if something shiny, new and sexy unexpectedly pops up.
Very little assuming Clinton runs (which she will).
Even though I doubt anyone could beat Clinton to the Democrat nomination, I'd like to see someone give her a run for her money in the primaries and force her to a more anti-big business position.
In other news I'm putting the finishing touches to my GE projection algorithm. Will post the first of my 4 projections here on May 8th. Sadly I've had to rule out Heart and Hunch and stick with Head, so far as possible: I'm using it myself for my betting.
I shall be using my own highly-idiosyncratic Al Gore Rhythm.
It currently predicts the Democrats will win Cambridge. However, that might just be Cambridge, Massachussetts.......
Regarding election night, I have spreadsheets prepared showing how the results came in for every election from Oct 1974 to 2010 with all the juicy details: running totals, running percentage change, running swing, etc.
Regarding election night, I have spreadsheets prepared showing how the results came in for every election from Oct 1974 to 2010 with all the juicy details: running totals, running percentage change, running swing, etc.
After the Sunderland seats, which are usually the earliest results to come in?
Is there anything that better exemplifies what is so horribly wrong with British politics, that Liz Kendall is being tipped in some quarters as a potential leadership candidate?
I have nothing at all against Liz or her politics. She seems, from what limited information is available, to be a decent sort. But all she has done is made a speech. Quite a good speech, granted. A speech that burnished her credentials as a pragmatist and centrist. But it's only a speech. She has been in parliament for five years, and spent 3 1/2 of them as an unremarkable shadow care minister, attending a barely noticeable shadow cabinet. She might in time become a fine politician, with a clear ideology, broad vision, depth of experience and the political acumen that comes from having witnessed major political events at close quarters and from having run ministries or large shadow operations. But she's not even close to that yet.
Instead, one speech and boom! Leadership contender. It is utterly mad. And it will probably hurt her in the long run, whether or not she obtains high office.
Of course, this isn't new, and it's not really about Liz at all. Cameron had the briefest of political educations before assuming the leadership, Osborne was barely in his 30s when he started shadowing Gordon Brown and before them William Hague did not have a particularly significant political hinterland. In the current Labour party Chuka Umunna and Rachel Reeves are viewed as rising stars (and in at least one case, leadership favourite), without having a single noteworthy achievement to their name
......
We have to change. And we can start by viewing Liz, Chuka et al as the potential leaders of 2025, not 2015.
The true legacy of Gordon Brown. He salted the fields for a generation of Labour hopefuls.
Rachel Reeves. Leadership contender? For the local Girl Guides maybe.
In December 2010, Burstow said he was "embarrassed" after being secretly taped by The Daily Telegraph saying voters should not trust David Cameron. Burstow told undercover reporters: "I don't want you to trust David Cameron... in the sense that you believe he's suddenly become a cuddly Liberal. Well, he hasn't. He's still a Conservative and he has values that I don't share."[8] Burstow later told the BBC that he was sorry at the way his remarks had been construed and that he had "full trust" in David Cameron.[8] Burstow was sacked as Health minister in September 2012.[7] Just hours after losing his government job, he criticised plans to cut hospital services in London. Burstow said that a plan to axe a casualty and maternity unit in south-west London put patient safety at risk and warned they were likely to lead to "more mothers giving birth in the back of their car"
That's obviously the recipe to have a fighting chance to hold your seat in a Con-LD marginal.
Sean_F, I agree. It astounds me how many Tories are still lazily assuming Ukip voters are going to come home en masse at the election. I think a small number will, and more "Ukip switchers" will switch to the Conservatives than to Labour. But my gut feel is that will be worth less than 2pts net for the Tories. More likely both parties will benefit a little (probably only a little) from Ukip leaners staying at home. .
I think that's right. My perception in the last few weeks is that in my marginal the Kippers are fading a bit to be benefit of both major parties - I wouldn't swear to it since I don't have previous voting intentions to compare with (not many Kippers in 2010), but areas that I'd expect to be Kipper-friendly are proving not to be.
That's probably just a Con/Lab marginal effect - I expect it's very different in Essex.
Fisher's article is interesting, and essentially bears out my thesis that things aren't likely to change very much now. What was it that went awry in the Labour campaign in 2001, I can't remember? (We didn't lose any seats, but going by Fisher were expecting to gain.)
In terms of product regulation, your sources documents the opposite of your position. They are criticising the reduction of product regulation, not the increase which you claim will happen.
Fair enough on labour migration, it's just for temporary work travels - nothing permanent.
Was I claiming increased product regulation? The point is common product regulation, agreed product regulation.
It sounds like we are agreed that outside the EU, we could have common, but reduced, product regulation. This is an argument for leaving.
You seem happy about immigration for work - which is what we have here now. You are remarkably sanguine about 'temporary'. The point is that these trade agreements are not just about trade in goods they are also about movements of people - both ways of course - and after say 3 years you will either get an extension or be replaced by someone else.
I will be honest that I did not appreciate that the temporary visas would be as long as three years. That is something that would make me a bit uncomfortable in the UK case. However, that is a huge difference to indefinite categories from the start, which form a pathway to settlement and citizenship. Being replaced by someone else is a one in, one out system, rather than a two in system. Or an unlimited in system, with no connection to employment, which is what we have now.
Canada - a major country on the other side of the Atlantic far removed from the EU - has a significant number of immigrants each year and a large immigrant population - on a par with Switzerland. To pretend that all will suddenly change by us leaving the EU is naive.
But Canada is quite sanguine about immigration because it is a very low population density country that has plenty of land available to expand her cities. The UK, particularly in the south east, however, is a highly overcrowded country with insufficient housing. And Canadian immigration is highly skilled - it's the only country in the world where immigrant children do as well as the local in school.
Sean_F, I agree. It astounds me how many Tories are still lazily assuming Ukip voters are going to come home en masse at the election. I think a small number will, and more "Ukip switchers" will switch to the Conservatives than to Labour. But my gut feel is that will be worth less than 2pts net for the Tories. More likely both parties will benefit a little (probably only a little) from Ukip leaners staying at home. .
I think that's right. My perception in the last few weeks is that in my marginal the Kippers are fading a bit to be benefit of both major parties - I wouldn't swear to it since I don't have previous voting intentions to compare with (not many Kippers in 2010), but areas that I'd expect to be Kipper-friendly are proving not to be.
That's probably just a Con/Lab marginal effect - I expect it's very different in Essex.
Fisher's article is interesting, and essentially bears out my thesis that things aren't likely to change very much now. What was it that went awry in the Labour campaign in 2001, I can't remember? (We didn't lose any seats, but going by Fisher were expecting to gain.)
Is there anything that better exemplifies what is so horribly wrong with British politics, that Liz Kendall is being tipped in some quarters as a potential leadership candidate?
I have nothing at all against Liz or her politics. She seems, from what limited information is available, to be a decent sort. But all she has done is made a speech. Quite a good speech, granted. A speech that burnished her credentials as a pragmatist and centrist. But it's only a speech. She has been in parliament for five years, and spent 3 1/2 of them as an unremarkable shadow care minister, attending a barely noticeable shadow cabinet. She might in time become a fine politician, with a clear ideology, broad vision, depth of experience and the political acumen that comes from having witnessed major political events at close quarters and from having run ministries or large shadow operations. But she's not even close to that yet.
Instead, one speech and boom! Leadership contender. It is utterly mad. And it will probably hurt her in the long run, whether or not she obtains high office.
Of course, this isn't new, and it's not really about Liz at all. Cameron had the briefest of political educations before assuming the leadership, Osborne was barely in his 30s when he started shadowing Gordon Brown and before them William Hague did not have a particularly significant political hinterland. In the current Labour party Chuka Umunna and Rachel Reeves are viewed as rising stars (and in at least one case, leadership favourite), without having a single noteworthy achievement to their name
......
We have to change. And we can start by viewing Liz, Chuka et al as the potential leaders of 2025, not 2015.
The true legacy of Gordon Brown. He salted the fields for a generation of Labour hopefuls.
Rachel Reeves. Leadership contender? For the local Girl Guides maybe.
Is there anything that better exemplifies what is so horribly wrong with British politics, that Liz Kendall is being tipped in some quarters as a potential leadership candidate?
I have nothing at all against Liz or her politics. She seems, from what limited information is available, to be a decent sort. But all she has done is made a speech. Quite a good speech, granted. A speech that burnished her credentials as a pragmatist and centrist. But it's only a speech. She has been in parliament for five years, and spent 3 1/2 of them as an unremarkable shadow care minister, attending a barely noticeable shadow cabinet. She might in time become a fine politician, with a clear ideology, broad vision, depth of experience and the political acumen that comes from having witnessed major political events at close quarters and from having run ministries or large shadow operations. But she's not even close to that yet.
Instead, one speech and boom! Leadership contender. It is utterly mad. And it will probably hurt her in the long run, whether or not she obtains high office.
Of course, this isn't new, and it's not really about Liz at all. Cameron had the briefest of political educations before assuming the leadership, Osborne was barely in his 30s when he started shadowing Gordon Brown and before them William Hague did not have a particularly significant political hinterland. In the current Labour party Chuka Umunna and Rachel Reeves are viewed as rising stars (and in at least one case, leadership favourite), without having a single noteworthy achievement to their name
......
We have to change. And we can start by viewing Liz, Chuka et al as the potential leaders of 2025, not 2015.
The true legacy of Gordon Brown. He salted the fields for a generation of Labour hopefuls.
Rachel Reeves. Leadership contender? For the local Girl Guides maybe.
Don't think it is fair to blame Brown. Alan Johnson is not in his 40s, nor is Darling, nor John Reid... I could go on. There's a whole crowd of experienced Labour ex-ministers who have ducked the chance to be leader. Indeed, Johnson ducked within the last couple of months.
Regarding election night, I have spreadsheets prepared showing how the results came in for every election from Oct 1974 to 2010 with all the juicy details: running totals, running percentage change, running swing, etc.
Youth is good. Alexander the Great, the greatest military strategist ever after Caesar, created a great empire before he was 30
Caesar lost battles. Alexander didn't.
Caesar's name became a byword for Kings.
Caesar was a humble pleb*, Alexander was the son of a King.
Given their backgrounds Caesar's achievements were astonishing.
*Not a pleb, but very humble background compared to a King.
Alexander was the son of a minor kingdom that wasn't even considered properly Greek. He went on to become Pharoah of Egypt, Shah of Persia and King of Asia, conquering to the edge of the known world. Twenty cities bore his name, including what became the centre of learning in the ancient world. His name signified a cultural hero from Christendom to the Islamic world to Hindustan.
Caesar's name became a byword for Kings due to the achievements of his heir, Octavian. He certainly did not come from a humble background, being a scion of the Julii dynasty, a family with ancient lineage, with his father being a provincial governor, and his uncle a repeated Consul of Rome.
Caesar's political skills were such that he ended up being killed by those closest to him. Alexander died because he partied so damn hard.
Am I the only one surprised we haven't seen a bit of a move back towards Labour in the betting markets over the last couple of days?
Around last Wed, Con position was looking very positive - they had led in four polls in a row (albeit by only 1%).
Since then we have had two polls with a Lab lead of 3%, two with a Lab lead of 1% and three ties. So it does look as if Lab is still ahead by about 1% which is really no change compared to the last three months (except for the very brief blip up in the Lab lead just before Christmas).
Yet the betting markets have moved significantly to Con over the last three months.
Btw, are you the same TimT that owns a beautiful Alsatian (German Shepherd) dog, name of Heidi? It's very important not to mix one's Tims up around here.
I was wondering whether it was the same TimT too but surely it is TimB who has the lovely dog?
TimB owns a beautiful Alsation dog by the name of Heidi. TimT owns two beautiful German Shepherds by the names of Zopher and Aoife.
I do remember a post from the other Tim about how he couldnt understand how people might mix you up and then listing all the superficial similarities. Aoife is a beautiful name, clearly someone in the family has decent heritage
Btw, are you the same TimT that owns a beautiful Alsatian (German Shepherd) dog, name of Heidi? It's very important not to mix one's Tims up around here.
I was wondering whether it was the same TimT too but surely it is TimB who has the lovely dog?
TimB owns a beautiful Alsation dog by the name of Heidi. TimT owns two beautiful German Shepherds by the names of Zopher and Aoife.
Ah, right.
Would it be too much to ask you to add the suffix ZA to your name?
I'm a border collie man myself, as you can see from the Avatar. But I like GSs too - in fact most dogs.
People might then think that I am South African ... And if I use AZ, they'll think I'm in AZ not MD (as opposed to TimB's GA)
Off topic. I had commented previously that Hillary might not even run. It appears that others, while still thinking that to be highly unlikely, are now at least thinking about the prospect. Here is a very Clintonista take on the issue:
How likely do you think it is that Clinton won't run, and are you willing to bet on it?
I think 1-10% is probably right at the moment, and no, I don't bet, even though this is a betting site. [I bet tim once and won, but didn't bother to collect - a bet on Obama's winning margin in 2012].
Looked at the issue rationally, Clinton will run, probably essentially unopposed. I just have this nagging persistent feeling that she may not as there is simply no enthusiasm for her run, outside the true Clintonistas which is a shrinking clan - just a sense of inevitability. Furthermore, she is hardly exuding confidence and occupying the space with brio. And we know that 'inevitability' is a very fragile thing, particularly if something shiny, new and sexy unexpectedly pops up.
Am I the only one surprised we haven't seen a bit of a move back toward Labour in the betting markets over the last couple of days?
Around last Wed, Con position was looking very positive - they had led in four polls in a row (albeit by only 1%).
Since then we have had two polls with a Lab lead of 3%, two with a Lab lad of 1% and three ties. So it does look as if Lab is still ahead by about 1% which is really no change compared to the last three months (except for the very brief blip up in the Lab lead just before Christmas).
Yet the betting markets have moved significantly to Con over the last three months.
Laying Conservatives in the overall and backing them in a spread of seats seems to be the only logical game to play to my mind (Some great odds available in 2012 in particular on Con seats)
Been that way throughout the parliament, though there have been some nice ricks on the Cons in the overall available from time to time too.
Conservative majority at 4.0 was something I couldn't get my head round for ages too. The price went out when the gap closed as well - which was nice
Regarding election night, I have spreadsheets prepared showing how the results came in for every election from Oct 1974 to 2010 with all the juicy details: running totals, running percentage change, running swing, etc.
After the Sunderland seats, which are usually the earliest results to come in?
It's different each time. In 2010 these were the first 50 seats to declare:
Houghton & Sunderland South, Washington & Sunderland West Sunderland Central, Tyrone West, Antrim North Durham North, Thornbury & Yate, Belfast East, Darlington Lagan Valley, Arfon, Kingswood, Upper Bann, Easington, Broxbourne Rutherglen & Hamilton West, Torbay, Motherwell & Wishaw, Putney Down North, Ynys Môn, Sedgefield, Filton & Bradley Stoke, Vale of Clwyd Belfast West, East Kilbride, Strathaven & Lesmahagow, Fife North East Middlesbrough, Na h-Eileanan an Iar, City of Durham, Kirkcaldy & Cowdenbeath Llanelli, Durham North West, Clwyd South Battersea, Yeovil, Telford, Antrim East, Islwyn Lanark & Hamilton East, East Lothian, Rushcliffe, Christchurch The Wrekin, Clacton, Belfast South, Dundee West, Glenrothes Staffordshire Moorlands, Tooting
Am I the only one surprised we haven't seen a bit of a move back toward Labour in the betting markets over the last couple of days?
Around last Wed, Con position was looking very positive - they had led in four polls in a row (albeit by only 1%).
Since then we have had two polls with a Lab lead of 3%, two with a Lab lad of 1% and three ties. So it does look as if Lab is still ahead by about 1% which is really no change compared to the last three months (except for the very brief blip up in the Lab lead just before Christmas).
Yet the betting markets have moved significantly to Con over the last three months.
Proud I have layed Cameron as short as 1.63 and backed EICIPM at 2.5.
If i cant make a profit from that i deserve a good kicking!!
Realises what i just said and hopes N4E isnt home yet.
Am I the only one surprised we haven't seen a bit of a move back toward Labour in the betting markets over the last couple of days?
Nope.
My algorithm work has required me to spend time on 3 decades of polling data. I've discovered things I either never knew or have forgotten. Some of the stats are remarkable. I'll reveal more at the end of the week but the punters are right not to back Labour. (NB that doesn't mean I'm saying Cons will win: just Labour from here would not win based on 30 years' form.)
Regarding election night, I have spreadsheets prepared showing how the results came in for every election from Oct 1974 to 2010 with all the juicy details: running totals, running percentage change, running swing, etc.
Regarding election night, I have spreadsheets prepared showing how the results came in for every election from Oct 1974 to 2010 with all the juicy details: running totals, running percentage change, running swing, etc.
Where where? Sounds great, please share location?
& thank you!
Most of them aren't public yet. I can give you a link to the 2010 spreadsheet if you like...
Regarding election night, I have spreadsheets prepared showing how the results came in for every election from Oct 1974 to 2010 with all the juicy details: running totals, running percentage change, running swing, etc.
Where where? Sounds great, please share location?
& thank you!
Most of them aren't public yet. I can give you a link to the 2010 spreadsheet if you like...
Perhaps when you're ready with everything nearer the time? I don't want to rush or hassle you. It sounds brilliant.
Am I the only one surprised we haven't seen a bit of a move back toward Labour in the betting markets over the last couple of days?
Around last Wed, Con position was looking very positive - they had led in four polls in a row (albeit by only 1%).
Since then we have had two polls with a Lab lead of 3%, two with a Lab lad of 1% and three ties. So it does look as if Lab is still ahead by about 1% which is really no change compared to the last three months (except for the very brief blip up in the Lab lead just before Christmas).
Yet the betting markets have moved significantly to Con over the last three months.
Proud I have layed Cameron as short as 1.63 and backed EICIPM at 2.5.
If i cant make a profit from that i deserve a good kicking!!
Realises what i just said and hopes N4E isnt home yet.
LOL, I'm watching from afar!
Good luck with those bets BJO, I think it is too close to call and will follow some constituency bets instead of the outrights, good luck though.
Regarding election night, I have spreadsheets prepared showing how the results came in for every election from Oct 1974 to 2010 with all the juicy details: running totals, running percentage change, running swing, etc.
Where where? Sounds great, please share location?
& thank you!
Most of them aren't public yet. I can give you a link to the 2010 spreadsheet if you like...
Perhaps when you're ready with everything nearer the time? I don't want to rush or hassle you. It sounds brilliant.
Btw, are you the same TimT that owns a beautiful Alsatian (German Shepherd) dog, name of Heidi? It's very important not to mix one's Tims up around here.
I was wondering whether it was the same TimT too but surely it is TimB who has the lovely dog?
TimB owns a beautiful Alsation dog by the name of Heidi. TimT owns two beautiful German Shepherds by the names of Zopher and Aoife.
Ah, right.
Would it be too much to ask you to add the suffix ZA to your name?
I'm a border collie man myself, as you can see from the Avatar. But I like GSs too - in fact most dogs.
People might then think that I am South African ... And if I use AZ, they'll think I'm in AZ not MD (as opposed to TimB's GA)
How about a picture of the doggies on your Avatar then?
Btw, are you the same TimT that owns a beautiful Alsatian (German Shepherd) dog, name of Heidi? It's very important not to mix one's Tims up around here.
I was wondering whether it was the same TimT too but surely it is TimB who has the lovely dog?
TimB owns a beautiful Alsation dog by the name of Heidi. TimT owns two beautiful German Shepherds by the names of Zopher and Aoife.
Ah, right.
Would it be too much to ask you to add the suffix ZA to your name?
I'm a border collie man myself, as you can see from the Avatar. But I like GSs too - in fact most dogs.
I am in trouble with Peter from Putney for asking him about Huntingdon races yesterday.
Where were you yesterday PFP imposed a 1 pint fine on me for mixing you up!!
Lol!
One of the worst crimes you can commit around here is to mix up your PtPs with your PfPs.
I expect he will be around to collect the quid shortly.
Am I the only one surprised we haven't seen a bit of a move back toward Labour in the betting markets over the last couple of days?
Around last Wed, Con position was looking very positive - they had led in four polls in a row (albeit by only 1%).
Since then we have had two polls with a Lab lead of 3%, two with a Lab lad of 1% and three ties. So it does look as if Lab is still ahead by about 1% which is really no change compared to the last three months (except for the very brief blip up in the Lab lead just before Christmas).
Yet the betting markets have moved significantly to Con over the last three months.
Proud I have layed Cameron as short as 1.63 and backed EICIPM at 2.5.
If i cant make a profit from that i deserve a good kicking!!
Realises what i just said and hopes N4E isnt home yet.
LOL, I'm watching from afar!
Good luck with those bets BJO, I think it is too close to call and will follow some constituency bets instead of the outrights, good luck though.
Thanks only small money on at those prices for me.
On the other hand if EICIPM does not win and or Lab does not get most seats, I could be in divorce scale lossses if Mrs BJ finds out. Or as i call it no lose territory!!
Btw, are you the same TimT that owns a beautiful Alsatian (German Shepherd) dog, name of Heidi? It's very important not to mix one's Tims up around here.
I was wondering whether it was the same TimT too but surely it is TimB who has the lovely dog?
TimB owns a beautiful Alsation dog by the name of Heidi. TimT owns two beautiful German Shepherds by the names of Zopher and Aoife.
Ah, right.
Would it be too much to ask you to add the suffix ZA to your name?
I'm a border collie man myself, as you can see from the Avatar. But I like GSs too - in fact most dogs.
People might then think that I am South African ... And if I use AZ, they'll think I'm in AZ not MD (as opposed to TimB's GA)
How about a picture of the doggies on your Avatar then?
Will this do? Alas, it's hard to frame the photo to get both dogs in. Aoife with the floppy ear on the left. The big man Zopher himself on the right.
Mr. Eagles, honestly. You're just embarrassing yourself trying to claim Caesar was, on a military level, Alexander's equal.
Dyrrachium was hardly a glowing success. Caesar attacked with veterans and ended up running away from new recruits.
Dyrrhachium was a stunning success for Caesar. He was outnumbered 3 to 1, and still managed to inflict double the number of casualties on Pompey's forces than Pompey's forces inflicted on Caesar.
The Optimates were still reeling from Dyrrhachium when they were humped at Pharsalus a few weeks later.
Btw, are you the same TimT that owns a beautiful Alsatian (German Shepherd) dog, name of Heidi? It's very important not to mix one's Tims up around here.
I was wondering whether it was the same TimT too but surely it is TimB who has the lovely dog?
TimB owns a beautiful Alsation dog by the name of Heidi. TimT owns two beautiful German Shepherds by the names of Zopher and Aoife.
Ah, right.
Would it be too much to ask you to add the suffix ZA to your name?
I'm a border collie man myself, as you can see from the Avatar. But I like GSs too - in fact most dogs.
People might then think that I am South African ... And if I use AZ, they'll think I'm in AZ not MD (as opposed to TimB's GA)
How about a picture of the doggies on your Avatar then?
Will this do? Alas, it's hard to frame the photo to get both dogs in. Aoife with the floppy ear on the left. The big man Zopher himself on the right.
Or perhaps you can call us Tim One Dog and Tim Two Dog.
I have nothing at all against Liz or her politics. She seems, from what limited information is available, to be a decent sort. But all she has done is made a speech. Quite a good speech, granted. A speech that burnished her credentials as a pragmatist and centrist. But it's only a speech. She has been in parliament for five years, and spent 3 1/2 of them as an unremarkable shadow care minister, attending a barely noticeable shadow cabinet. She might in time become a fine politician, with a clear ideology, broad vision, depth of experience and the political acumen that comes from having witnessed major political events at close quarters and from having run ministries or large shadow operations. But she's not even close to that yet.
Instead, one speech and boom! Leadership contender. It is utterly mad. And it will probably hurt her in the long run, whether or not she obtains high office.
Of course, this isn't new, and it's not really about Liz at all. Cameron had the briefest of political educations before assuming the leadership, Osborne was barely in his 30s when he started shadowing Gordon Brown and before them William Hague did not have a particularly significant political hinterland. In the current Labour party Chuka Umunna and Rachel Reeves are viewed as rising stars (and in at least one case, leadership favourite), without having a single noteworthy achievement to their name.
I am not saying the job should be available only to gnarled and worldly 50-somethings, with 20 years of experience dealing with constituency issues, a glittering portfolio of parliamentary oratory, 15 years on the front bench and at least a term at one of the great ministries (or shadowing). But it would be nice if for a change a leadership candidate could emerge who is serious, credible and tested on the national (or better still, international) stage. Miliband has suffered greatly for having to learn on the job, having to define his political philosophy in real time, and having to demonstrate a breadth of political vision that in his short time at the DECC he had no time of developing. Cameron has disappointed in part because he hasn't had the departmental experience necessary to know how policy is implemented. And in the meantime capable MPs and ministers in both parties see their careers stall because the perception is if you're not on star track by the time you're 38, your career is over. Just look at the battery of Labour heavyweights who could be adding decades of ministerial experience to the Labour party now, but who at 55-60 are effectively on the scrapheap, while callow youths sneer at them dismissively.
We have to change. And we can start by viewing Liz, Chuka et al as the potential leaders of 2025, not 2015.
Am I the only one surprised we haven't seen a bit of a move back toward Labour in the betting markets over the last couple of days?
Nope.
My algorithm work has required me to spend time on 3 decades of polling data. I've discovered things I either never knew or have forgotten. Some of the stats are remarkable. I'll reveal more at the end of the week but the punters are right not to back Labour. (NB that doesn't mean I'm saying Cons will win: just Labour from here would not win based on 30 years' form.)
I thought you'd been saying for some time now that the Cons would win and with a clear lead - 8% I seem to recall.
Kipper alert! The EU backs the current Ukraine regime. Kippers hate the EU. Therefore kippers support Putin's Mafia State. Watch what goes into your tea!
Am I the only one surprised we haven't seen a bit of a move back toward Labour in the betting markets over the last couple of days?
Nope.
My algorithm work has required me to spend time on 3 decades of polling data. I've discovered things I either never knew or have forgotten. Some of the stats are remarkable. I'll reveal more at the end of the week but the punters are right not to back Labour. (NB that doesn't mean I'm saying Cons will win: just Labour from here would not win based on 30 years' form.)
I thought you'd been saying for some time now that the Cons would win and with a clear lead - 8% I seem to recall.
Ms Cyclefree
I didn't realize you had such a cruel streak, leave him alone he has been busy crunching to reveal something quite remarkable you know.
Can you imagine my shock when I clicked on those links and *didnt* find that it went to a reputable source of non-conspiracy-based news?
Look I think you need to know that 'occupycorruptdc' is the obvious place to go for the unvarnished truth. We should all be grateful for Mr K's relentless spamming of this site with his totally objective news updates. One day we will all learn to love big brother.
Kipper alert! The EU backs the current Ukraine regime. Kippers hate the EU. Therefore kippers support Putin's Mafia State. Watch what goes into your tea!
There tends to be two types of Kippers: the isolationists and the Atlanticists. The two sides take very different views over Ukraine.
The Labour Party will narrowly win more seats than the Conservatives – and the Liberal Democrats will be saved from wipe out by the first-past-the-post system, according to a new electoral forecast by Prof Paul Whiteley at the University of Essex, co-director of the British Election Study from 2001 to 2012.
Whiteley’s forecast, based on mathematical modelling, focuses on what happened to seats in previous election rather than the overall share of the vote and is based on a model developed while the British Election Study was based at Essex. This model successfully predicted the outcomes of the 2005 and 2010 general elections.
Kipper alert! The EU backs the current Ukraine regime. Kippers hate the EU. Therefore kippers support Putin's Mafia State. Watch what goes into your tea!
Farage said how much he admired Putin in the EU election debate.
Am I the only one surprised we haven't seen a bit of a move back towards Labour in the betting markets over the last couple of days?
Around last Wed, Con position was looking very positive - they had led in four polls in a row (albeit by only 1%).
Since then we have had two polls with a Lab lead of 3%, two with a Lab lead of 1% and three ties. So it does look as if Lab is still ahead by about 1% which is really no change compared to the last three months (except for the very brief blip up in the Lab lead just before Christmas).
Yet the betting markets have moved significantly to Con over the last three months.
I think Tory punters feel the market OUGHT to be moving to them, so every random twitch has them hurrying to Betfair.
Think it reflects my canvass reports that the core votes are just sitting there glaring at each other. Parties with 40% support worry about losing swing voters. At 30-35 it just doesn't happen so much.
The mighty Owls make their first deadline day signing for years some striker called Sergei Bus.
You wait for one for years and then 2 more come along within minutes ( Vermijl and Mcgugan)
See what i did there
Gets coat
BJO can you do me a favour please? I am a Chelsea fan (first game was 1963 so not exactly a glory hunter!) and I am much more interested in the kids coming through than the current band of mercenaries. Lewis Baker looks a fine prospect to me and he is at Wednesday on loan until the end of the season, can you keep me posted on his progress please.
Kipper alert! The EU backs the current Ukraine regime. Kippers hate the EU. Therefore kippers support Putin's Mafia State. Watch what goes into your tea!
Farage said how much he admired Putin in the EU election debate.
He also criticised him for locking up journalists.
Am I the only one surprised we haven't seen a bit of a move back towards Labour in the betting markets over the last couple of days?
Around last Wed, Con position was looking very positive - they had led in four polls in a row (albeit by only 1%).
Since then we have had two polls with a Lab lead of 3%, two with a Lab lead of 1% and three ties. So it does look as if Lab is still ahead by about 1% which is really no change compared to the last three months (except for the very brief blip up in the Lab lead just before Christmas).
Yet the betting markets have moved significantly to Con over the last three months.
I think Tory punters feel the market OUGHT to be moving to them, so every random twitch has them hurrying to Betfair.
The Tories are, it seems to me, confusing what they want to be true with what they think is happening. There is nothing to suggest that voters are turning back to or towards the Tories. Their leads have been tiny and have not lasted long. None of the polls show them winning an outright majority.
Whether any of this will change is another matter. I have my doubts.
Am I the only one surprised we haven't seen a bit of a move back toward Labour in the betting markets over the last couple of days?
Around last Wed, Con position was looking very positive - they had led in four polls in a row (albeit by only 1%).
Since then we have had two polls with a Lab lead of 3%, two with a Lab lad of 1% and three ties. So it does look as if Lab is still ahead by about 1% which is really no change compared to the last three months (except for the very brief blip up in the Lab lead just before Christmas).
Yet the betting markets have moved significantly to Con over the last three months.
Proud I have layed Cameron as short as 1.63 and backed EICIPM at 2.5.
If i cant make a profit from that i deserve a good kicking!!
Realises what i just said and hopes N4E isnt home yet.
LOL, I'm watching from afar!
Good luck with those bets BJO, I think it is too close to call and will follow some constituency bets instead of the outrights, good luck though.
Thanks only small money on at those prices for me.
On the other hand if EICIPM does not win and or Lab does not get most seats, I could be in divorce scale lossses if Mrs BJ finds out. Or as i call it no lose territory!!
Good luck with your constituency bets too.
"EICIPM does not win and or Lab does not get most seats" Despite Scotland creating some wrong winner scenarios, those are still reasonably related contingencies
Am I the only one surprised we haven't seen a bit of a move back toward Labour in the betting markets over the last couple of days?
Nope.
My algorithm work has required me to spend time on 3 decades of polling data. I've discovered things I either never knew or have forgotten. Some of the stats are remarkable. I'll reveal more at the end of the week but the punters are right not to back Labour. (NB that doesn't mean I'm saying Cons will win: just Labour from here would not win based on 30 years' form.)
I thought you'd been saying for some time now that the Cons would win and with a clear lead - 8% I seem to recall.
There is no precedent that's relevant to the current political situation and ALL polling data pre-GE2015 election should be discarded because, apart from ICM, polling didn't operate bearing any relationship at all to today's methodologies.
The Scottish results usually start to come in early on the night...
It is quicker to count the votes in constituencies where there are fewer registered electors and lower turnouts. What might be called 'rotten' boroughs.
The Labour Party will narrowly win more seats than the Conservatives – and the Liberal Democrats will be saved from wipe out by the first-past-the-post system, according to a new electoral forecast by Prof Paul Whiteley at the University of Essex, co-director of the British Election Study from 2001 to 2012.
Whiteley’s forecast, based on mathematical modelling, focuses on what happened to seats in previous election rather than the overall share of the vote and is based on a model developed while the British Election Study was based at Essex. This model successfully predicted the outcomes of the 2005 and 2010 general elections.
Am I the only one surprised we haven't seen a bit of a move back towards Labour in the betting markets over the last couple of days?
Around last Wed, Con position was looking very positive - they had led in four polls in a row (albeit by only 1%).
Since then we have had two polls with a Lab lead of 3%, two with a Lab lead of 1% and three ties. So it does look as if Lab is still ahead by about 1% which is really no change compared to the last three months (except for the very brief blip up in the Lab lead just before Christmas).
Yet the betting markets have moved significantly to Con over the last three months.
I think Tory punters feel the market OUGHT to be moving to them, so every random twitch has them hurrying to Betfair.
The Tories are, it seems to me, confusing what they want to be true with what they think is happening. There is nothing to suggest that voters are turning back to or towards the Tories. Their leads have been tiny and have not lasted long. None of the polls show them winning an outright majority.
Whether any of this will change is another matter. I have my doubts.
The tightening in the polls has been driven by Labour decline more than Conservative support increasing. This is now the point where Cameron needs the votes of all the people he has pissed off.
Kipper alert! The EU backs the current Ukraine regime. Kippers hate the EU. Therefore kippers support Putin's Mafia State. Watch what goes into your tea!
There tends to be two types of Kippers: the isolationists and the Atlanticists. The two sides take very different views over Ukraine.
Atlanticism is Isolationism. America is a declining world power engaged in an ever more dangerous effort to cement its hegemony whilst it still enjoys military superiority. On the other side is not just Russia, but China, India, and Latin America. On the US side is us, Canada, a growingly restive and disgruntled Western Europe (check out recent noises from Germany), and the less savoury states of the Middle East. You do the maths. We should at the very least be neutral. I can't understand how anyone who wants us to leave a toxic legal arrangement with a declining and sclerotic trading bloc and look to the wider world is incapable of putting the same thought process in place when it comes to foreign policy.
The Scottish results usually start to come in early on the night...
It is quicker to count the votes in constituencies where there are fewer registered electors and lower turnouts. What might be called 'rotten' boroughs.
Scottish seats will come in earlier because there are no local elections in Scotland this May . London seats will be much earlier than in 2010 because again there are no local elections whereas there were in 2010 .
Am I the only one surprised we haven't seen a bit of a move back toward Labour in the betting markets over the last couple of days?
Nope.
My algorithm work has required me to spend time on 3 decades of polling data. I've discovered things I either never knew or have forgotten. Some of the stats are remarkable. I'll reveal more at the end of the week but the punters are right not to back Labour. (NB that doesn't mean I'm saying Cons will win: just Labour from here would not win based on 30 years' form.)
I thought you'd been saying for some time now that the Cons would win and with a clear lead - 8% I seem to recall.
There is no precedent that's relevant to the current political situation and ALL polling data pre-GE2015 election should be discarded because, apart from ICM, polling didn't operate bearing any relationship at all to today's methodologies.
I'm sure Audreyanne will take your points on board, Mike!
I think the betting markets are anticipating a bad result for Labour in the Ashcroft Scottish polls and thus people are betting accordingly. If Lord Ashcroft shows Labour on course to lose 25+ seats in Scotland then just under Evens for Conservatives most seats could look attractive to some.
Comments
Lab still just in front with these
Ask if they want more freedom. More money. More choice. They will, even though those are associated with smaller government.
Likewise, people want more taxes paid by the wealthy for vital services, where 'the wealthy' are anyone earning more than the individual answering, and 'vital services' are whatever services the individual uses.
Sorry, meant Feb 8th
Looks like only viable alternative on those numbers is EICIPM
Their dilemma whether it's better to try to claim credit for the governments actions over the last five years or whether to distance themselves from it seems a no brainer. It's all there for them in the Scottish referendum but it must have passed them by
Is there a spread on that ?
We stab them in the front. Usually very publicly.
Is there anything that better exemplifies what is so horribly wrong with British politics, that Liz Kendall is being tipped in some quarters as a potential leadership candidate?
I have nothing at all against Liz or her politics. She seems, from what limited information is available, to be a decent sort. But all she has done is made a speech. Quite a good speech, granted. A speech that burnished her credentials as a pragmatist and centrist. But it's only a speech. She has been in parliament for five years, and spent 3 1/2 of them as an unremarkable shadow care minister, attending a barely noticeable shadow cabinet. She might in time become a fine politician, with a clear ideology, broad vision, depth of experience and the political acumen that comes from having witnessed major political events at close quarters and from having run ministries or large shadow operations. But she's not even close to that yet.
Instead, one speech and boom! Leadership contender. It is utterly mad. And it will probably hurt her in the long run, whether or not she obtains high office.
Of course, this isn't new, and it's not really about Liz at all. Cameron had the briefest of political educations before assuming the leadership, Osborne was barely in his 30s when he started shadowing Gordon Brown and before them William Hague did not have a particularly significant political hinterland. In the current Labour party Chuka Umunna and Rachel Reeves are viewed as rising stars (and in at least one case, leadership favourite), without having a single noteworthy achievement to their name.
I am not saying the job should be available only to gnarled and worldly 50-somethings, with 20 years of experience dealing with constituency issues, a glittering portfolio of parliamentary oratory, 15 years on the front bench and at least a term at one of the great ministries (or shadowing). But it would be nice if for a change a leadership candidate could emerge who is serious, credible and tested on the national (or better still, international) stage. Miliband has suffered greatly for having to learn on the job, having to define his political philosophy in real time, and having to demonstrate a breadth of political vision that in his short time at the DECC he had no time of developing. Cameron has disappointed in part because he hasn't had the departmental experience necessary to know how policy is implemented. And in the meantime capable MPs and ministers in both parties see their careers stall because the perception is if you're not on star track by the time you're 38, your career is over. Just look at the battery of Labour heavyweights who could be adding decades of ministerial experience to the Labour party now, but who at 55-60 are effectively on the scrapheap, while callow youths sneer at them dismissively.
We have to change. And we can start by viewing Liz, Chuka et al as the potential leaders of 2025, not 2015.
You seem happy about immigration for work - which is what we have here now. You are remarkably sanguine about 'temporary'. The point is that these trade agreements are not just about trade in goods they are also about movements of people - both ways of course - and after say 3 years you will either get an extension or be replaced by someone else.
I make no comment about wisdom of any of this - I just point to what is involved and what the UK, if not in the EU, would be agreeing to. All of which would be complex to agree and leave us little different.
Joining the EEA would be probably easier but not much different either. The CE mark applies to products within the European Economic Area . It also appears on many products that are produced and sold outside of the EEA
Canada - a major country on the other side of the Atlantic far removed from the EU - has a significant number of immigrants each year and a large immigrant population - on a par with Switzerland. To pretend that all will suddenly change by us leaving the EU is naive.
It currently predicts the Democrats will win Cambridge. However, that might just be Cambridge, Massachussetts.......
Youth is good. Alexander the Great, the greatest military strategist ever after Caesar, created a great empire before he was 30
"Norman Baker is very safe in Lewes"
I'm beginning to wonder whether he's the only Lib Dem MP with any nous. Though he's as mad as a hatter at least he remains identifiable as a Lib Dem
Rachel Reeves. Leadership contender? For the local Girl Guides maybe.
Caesar was a humble pleb*, Alexander was the son of a King.
Given their backgrounds Caesar's achievements were astonishing.
*Not a pleb, but very humble background compared to a King.
In December 2010, Burstow said he was "embarrassed" after being secretly taped by The Daily Telegraph saying voters should not trust David Cameron. Burstow told undercover reporters: "I don't want you to trust David Cameron... in the sense that you believe he's suddenly become a cuddly Liberal. Well, he hasn't. He's still a Conservative and he has values that I don't share."[8]
Burstow later told the BBC that he was sorry at the way his remarks had been construed and that he had "full trust" in David Cameron.[8]
Burstow was sacked as Health minister in September 2012.[7] Just hours after losing his government job, he criticised plans to cut hospital services in London. Burstow said that a plan to axe a casualty and maternity unit in south-west London put patient safety at risk and warned they were likely to lead to "more mothers giving birth in the back of their car"
That's obviously the recipe to have a fighting chance to hold your seat in a Con-LD marginal.
That's probably just a Con/Lab marginal effect - I expect it's very different in Essex.
Fisher's article is interesting, and essentially bears out my thesis that things aren't likely to change very much now. What was it that went awry in the Labour campaign in 2001, I can't remember? (We didn't lose any seats, but going by Fisher were expecting to gain.)
'Which do you lean more towards: 'goverment doing more' or 'government doing less'?'
Government doing more as long as I don't have to pay.
Try asking 'government doing more with my personal taxes increasing to pay for it'.
Labour didn't need to try so they didn't ?
Dyrrachium was hardly a glowing success. Caesar attacked with veterans and ended up running away from new recruits.
Although I am less of an expert on salads than i am on politics!
Caesar's name became a byword for Kings due to the achievements of his heir, Octavian. He certainly did not come from a humble background, being a scion of the Julii dynasty, a family with ancient lineage, with his father being a provincial governor, and his uncle a repeated Consul of Rome.
Caesar's political skills were such that he ended up being killed by those closest to him. Alexander died because he partied so damn hard.
Around last Wed, Con position was looking very positive - they had led in four polls in a row (albeit by only 1%).
Since then we have had two polls with a Lab lead of 3%, two with a Lab lead of 1% and three ties. So it does look as if Lab is still ahead by about 1% which is really no change compared to the last three months (except for the very brief blip up in the Lab lead just before Christmas).
Yet the betting markets have moved significantly to Con over the last three months.
Been that way throughout the parliament, though there have been some nice ricks on the Cons in the overall available from time to time too.
Conservative majority at 4.0 was something I couldn't get my head round for ages too. The price went out when the gap closed as well - which was nice
Houghton & Sunderland South, Washington & Sunderland West
Sunderland Central, Tyrone West, Antrim North
Durham North, Thornbury & Yate, Belfast East, Darlington
Lagan Valley, Arfon, Kingswood, Upper Bann, Easington, Broxbourne
Rutherglen & Hamilton West, Torbay, Motherwell & Wishaw, Putney
Down North, Ynys Môn, Sedgefield, Filton & Bradley Stoke, Vale of Clwyd
Belfast West, East Kilbride, Strathaven & Lesmahagow, Fife North East
Middlesbrough, Na h-Eileanan an Iar, City of Durham, Kirkcaldy & Cowdenbeath
Llanelli, Durham North West, Clwyd South
Battersea, Yeovil, Telford, Antrim East, Islwyn
Lanark & Hamilton East, East Lothian, Rushcliffe, Christchurch
The Wrekin, Clacton, Belfast South, Dundee West, Glenrothes
Staffordshire Moorlands, Tooting
If i cant make a profit from that i deserve a good kicking!!
Realises what i just said and hopes N4E isnt home yet.
My algorithm work has required me to spend time on 3 decades of polling data. I've discovered things I either never knew or have forgotten. Some of the stats are remarkable. I'll reveal more at the end of the week but the punters are right not to back Labour. (NB that doesn't mean I'm saying Cons will win: just Labour from here would not win based on 30 years' form.)
The word "broker" does not mean "overthrow".
Can you imagine my shock when I clicked on those links and *didnt* find that it went to a reputable source of non-conspiracy-based news?
& thank you!
Good luck with those bets BJO, I think it is too close to call and will follow some constituency bets instead of the outrights, good luck though.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1f6PlK5ig7p1I9aqfMzV6AMBKKX8TPvEuqoPakoX2W_M/edit#gid=0
Skegness councillor joins UKIP - Skegness Standard: http://www.skegnessstandard.co.uk/news/local/skegness-councillor-joins-ukip-1-6556372#.VM-wRtzLVE4.twitter …
So not a great matter for PB to contemplate after all.
One of the worst crimes you can commit around here is to mix up your PtPs with your PfPs.
I expect he will be around to collect the quid shortly.
On the other hand if EICIPM does not win and or Lab does not get most seats, I could be in divorce scale lossses if Mrs BJ finds out. Or as i call it no lose territory!!
Good luck with your constituency bets too.
You wait for one for years and then 2 more come along within minutes ( Vermijl and Mcgugan)
See what i did there
Gets coat
D Miliband (Leader) (49)
Harman (Deputy) (64)
Darling (Shad. chancellor) (61)
Milburn (Shad home) (57)
Alexander (Shad. foreign) (47)
Denham (Shad. education) (61)
Cooper (Shad. health) (45)
Khan (Shad. justice) (44)
Byrne (Shad. business) (44)
Balls (Shad. ch. sec. treasury) (47)
E Miliband (Shad. transport) (45)
Reeves (Shad. environment) (35)
Hutton (Shad. defence) (59)
Flint (Shad culture, media, sport) (53)
Umunna (Shad. energy) (36)
Cruddas (Shad. int. dev) (52)
J Smith (Shad. leader of the house) (52)
Murphy (Shad. Scotland) (47)
O Smith (Shad. Wales) (44)
Burnham (chief whip) (45)
Byrne (shad. cabinet office) (44)
Mandelson (shad. leader of the HoL) (ageless)
Conclusion: what a waste of experience.
Notes: NotindicatingsupportforDMilibandasleaderthinkhewouldnothavebeenuptoit;EMilibandluckytogettransportgig;Purnellvunluckytomissout;resistedthetemptationtoincldueGBrown:notcompliantwithLabourrulesonfemalerepresentationsoswapouttwoofthemenfortheeaglesisters;NickPalmerministerfortechnologyattendingcabinetbyinvitation;youshouldn'thavereadthisfarit'sonlyabitoffun
The Scottish results usually start to come in early on the night...
The Optimates were still reeling from Dyrrhachium when they were humped at Pharsalus a few weeks later.
30,000 versus 10,000.
10,000 killed. Smaller force wiped out. 10,000 of the larger side are victorious.
Anyway, I don't have time to try and educate you now, I must be off.
Kipper alert! The EU backs the current Ukraine regime. Kippers hate the EU. Therefore kippers support Putin's Mafia State. Watch what goes into your tea!
You can see as the Scottish results came in, it started to depress the overall swing to Con.
This time it will be the exact opposite, as every seat should show a substantial swing to Con...
I didn't realize you had such a cruel streak, leave him alone he has been busy crunching to reveal something quite remarkable you know.
Look I think you need to know that 'occupycorruptdc' is the obvious place to go for the unvarnished truth.
We should all be grateful for Mr K's relentless spamming of this site with his totally objective news updates.
One day we will all learn to love big brother.
There tends to be two types of Kippers: the isolationists and the Atlanticists. The two sides take very different views over Ukraine.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11384820/Get-ready-for-a-Labour-and-SNP-coalition-after-the-election-says-top-investment-bank.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11383739/Tory-treasurer-siphons-off-131K-from-Dunscar-Conservative-Club.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cmac71R5Br8&feature=share&fb_ref=share
Guardian
Patrick Wintour, political editor
Sunday 1 February 2015 20.02 GMT
The Labour Party will narrowly win more seats than the Conservatives – and the Liberal Democrats will be saved from wipe out by the first-past-the-post system, according to a new electoral forecast by Prof Paul Whiteley at the University of Essex, co-director of the British Election Study from 2001 to 2012.
Whiteley’s forecast, based on mathematical modelling, focuses on what happened to seats in previous election rather than the overall share of the vote and is based on a model developed while the British Election Study was based at Essex. This model successfully predicted the outcomes of the 2005 and 2010 general elections.
Farage said how much he admired Putin in the EU election debate.
Think it reflects my canvass reports that the core votes are just sitting there glaring at each other. Parties with 40% support worry about losing swing voters. At 30-35 it just doesn't happen so much.
He also criticised him for locking up journalists.
If SNP gained 20 from Lab then Lab would be down on 271!
Whether any of this will change is another matter. I have my doubts.
Atlanticism is Isolationism. America is a declining world power engaged in an ever more dangerous effort to cement its hegemony whilst it still enjoys military superiority. On the other side is not just Russia, but China, India, and Latin America. On the US side is us, Canada, a growingly restive and disgruntled Western Europe (check out recent noises from Germany), and the less savoury states of the Middle East. You do the maths. We should at the very least be neutral. I can't understand how anyone who wants us to leave a toxic legal arrangement with a declining and sclerotic trading bloc and look to the wider world is incapable of putting the same thought process in place when it comes to foreign policy.