Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The January PB Poll Average – closing in on a double crosso

245

Comments

  • Cheers, Mr. Flashman (deceased). I saw Hunt get slaughtered on the economy, which was entertaining, but that was all.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,630
    Sean_F said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Blue_rog said:

    O/T but potentially very scary

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11393707/Putin-could-attack-Baltic-states-warns-former-Nato-chief.html

    How about using QE to bolster National Defence forces?

    Attacking a full NATO member is probably a bit much, even for Putin. We would have to respond with force. Of course Putin - like dictators before him - might assume that we are weak and cowardly and not willing to fight. He might regard it as an efficient way of recreating the Soviet empire. But it would come at an enormous price.

    Even if the Europeans and the US decided not to fight, it would inevitably mean an end to gas imports from Russia. And for the next five years (at least) Russia has no other markets for gas. So, at a time when oil prices have halved, he would be cutting off his gas revenues. The current Russian recession (which is gathering pace) would probably turn into a full blow depression.
    If NATO didn't respond to an attack on the Baltic States, then the alliance would effectively have come to an end. The other Eastern European states would have to come to terms with Russia very rapidly.

    And, I wonder if Western Europeans would care very much.
    I think that depends on the country: Germany under Merkel would worry very much about the end of the Atlantic alliance (as would neighbour Poland). France is probably more sypmpathetic to Russia (and has always been sceptical of US influence in Europe). Smaller countries like Belgium and the Netherlands are quite pro-US/NATO, as is much of the political class in Spain and and Italy.

    All in all, with an increasingly wounded and irrational Russia, whose economy is being hammered by falling oil prices, I would have thought that the Europeans would be keener on the NATO protections than - perhaps - the Obama led White House.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Why did Tristram Hunt sneer at Nuns?

    ...cos it's no time for a novice...!

    I'll get my coat
  • Gadfly said:

    TGOHF said:

    What did Hunt actually say about nuns?

    http://order-order.com/2015/02/06/watch-tristram-hunts-question-time-nuns-slur/

    Not what he said - but the sneering tone used.

    We should perhaps also ask what qualifies Hunt to be an MP?
    Perhaps he's still a novice?
  • TGOHF said:

    I'm surprised that the PB Tories are desperate to paint a perfectly human reaction by the Shedsec to the insanity of having children brainwashed in superstition by age five as a disaster for Labour.

    Actually I lie. I'm not surprised at all. Hope all are well!

    Perhaps Labour should propose banning apartheid style Catholic schools in Scotland then ?

    Should be a real vote winner..
    Yes they should. And protestant schools too. Faith schools is a bonkers idea and someone needs to have a crack at it.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    Cheers, Mr. Flashman (deceased). I saw Hunt get slaughtered on the economy, which was entertaining, but that was all.

    It's not a big story - perhaps the only election it might influence is Ed's replacement election in the summer.
  • TGOHF said:

    What did Hunt actually say about nuns?

    http://order-order.com/2015/02/06/watch-tristram-hunts-question-time-nuns-slur/

    Not what he said - but the sneering tone used.

    Whether or not you agree with Hunt or the unhinged Odone, I suspect most people will watch that tape and think, "erm, so that's it?"
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @PickardJE: Betfair gambling exchange says odds of Labour majority have lengthened dramatically from 7:4 to 17:1 since September. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7c362376-ad48-11e4-bfcf-00144feab7de.html?siteedition=uk#axzz3QuF5OOEg
  • BenMBenM Posts: 1,795
    Missed the Tristram Hunt Nun thing on QT but reading here and on the web I can assure all the PB Tories, rightwing press and the epically clueless Paul Staines that as a parent I'm 100% with Hunt on that one.

    And I'm sure I'm in the vast vast majority there.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    TGOHF said:

    I'm surprised that the PB Tories are desperate to paint a perfectly human reaction by the Shedsec to the insanity of having children brainwashed in superstition by age five as a disaster for Labour.

    Actually I lie. I'm not surprised at all. Hope all are well!

    Perhaps Labour should propose banning apartheid style Catholic schools in Scotland then ?

    Should be a real vote winner..
    Yes they should. And protestant schools too. Faith schools is a bonkers idea and someone needs to have a crack at it.
    I totally agree - but no party has the balls to take on this segregation from a young age - not one of them especially not SLAB or the SNP.



  • TGOHF said:

    I'm surprised that the PB Tories are desperate to paint a perfectly human reaction by the Shedsec to the insanity of having children brainwashed in superstition by age five as a disaster for Labour.

    Actually I lie. I'm not surprised at all. Hope all are well!

    Perhaps Labour should propose banning apartheid style Catholic schools in Scotland then ?

    Should be a real vote winner..
    Yes they should. And protestant schools too. Faith schools is a bonkers idea and someone needs to have a crack at it.
    Pity the previous Labour government did so much to expand it......

    Of course, if the State provided a superior eduction I suspect many would fade away....until then.....
  • @ The two Peters

    As one of the very few remaining PBers who actually bets on politics, I'm keen to see the Twin Towers' projection – can you repost?

    Cheers chaps

    B.
  • TGOHF said:

    I'm surprised that the PB Tories are desperate to paint a perfectly human reaction by the Shedsec to the insanity of having children brainwashed in superstition by age five as a disaster for Labour.

    Actually I lie. I'm not surprised at all. Hope all are well!

    Perhaps Labour should propose banning apartheid style Catholic schools in Scotland then ?

    Should be a real vote winner..
    Yes they should. And protestant schools too. Faith schools is a bonkers idea and someone needs to have a crack at it.
    Pity the previous Labour government did so much to expand it......

    Of course, if the State provided a superior eduction I suspect many would fade away....until then.....
    One of Blair's worst flaws was his pandering to organised religion. If adults grow up and decide to be religious, fine, it's their choice. Don't brainwash kids from age five when their minds are like sponges and they believe what grown-ups in positions of authority tell them.
  • TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    I'm surprised that the PB Tories are desperate to paint a perfectly human reaction by the Shedsec to the insanity of having children brainwashed in superstition by age five as a disaster for Labour.

    Actually I lie. I'm not surprised at all. Hope all are well!

    Perhaps Labour should propose banning apartheid style Catholic schools in Scotland then ?

    Should be a real vote winner..
    Yes they should. And protestant schools too. Faith schools is a bonkers idea and someone needs to have a crack at it.
    I totally agree - but no party has the balls to take on this segregation from a young age - not one of them especially not SLAB or the SNP.



    Harry - hats off. Agreed.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,538

    I'm surprised that the PB Tories are desperate to paint a perfectly human reaction by the Shedsec to the insanity of having children brainwashed in superstition by age five as a disaster for Labour.

    Actually I lie. I'm not surprised at all. Hope all are well!

    TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    I'm surprised that the PB Tories are desperate to paint a perfectly human reaction by the Shedsec to the insanity of having children brainwashed in superstition by age five as a disaster for Labour.

    Actually I lie. I'm not surprised at all. Hope all are well!

    Perhaps Labour should propose banning apartheid style Catholic schools in Scotland then ?

    Should be a real vote winner..
    Yes they should. And protestant schools too. Faith schools is a bonkers idea and someone needs to have a crack at it.
    I totally agree - but no party has the balls to take on this segregation from a young age - not one of them especially not SLAB or the SNP.

    Since we live in a democracy, and denominational schools are very popular with millions of voting parents, it's not going to happen. You might just as well campaign for the abolition of private property.

  • BenMBenM Posts: 1,795
    It's official - Tories have been wholly captured by big corporate interests:

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/11306cd0-ac94-11e4-beeb-00144feab7de.html?siteedition=uk
    The number of big City backers for the Conservative party has doubled during this parliament, as leading figures from the Square Mile displace industrialists and entrepreneurs as its main financial supporters.
    Even pushing out industrialists (small biz) and entrepreneurs!

    Not a good look in this climate.
  • @ The two Peters

    As one of the very few remaining PBers who actually bets on politics, I'm keen to see the Twin Towers' projection – can you repost?

    Cheers chaps

    B.

    I just did, below - sorry about the shading ...... I messed up trying to edit the overlong trail of preceding posts.
  • TGOHF said:

    I'm surprised that the PB Tories are desperate to paint a perfectly human reaction by the Shedsec to the insanity of having children brainwashed in superstition by age five as a disaster for Labour.

    Actually I lie. I'm not surprised at all. Hope all are well!

    Perhaps Labour should propose banning apartheid style Catholic schools in Scotland then ?

    Should be a real vote winner..
    Surely the issue with religious schools is the unmentionable one? What values are they espousing? My daughters went to a Catholic convent girls school with a mix of regular teachers and nuns. Sure the place is religious - it's a convent! But I'm not and nor were alot of the parents. Nothing grim was ever forced on anyone and the religious stuff is pretty much all of the 'love thy neighbour, turn the other cheek, forgiveness, God loves you, sing a few hymns' variety. I quite liked it to be honest, even though I think religion is a waste of time. The education was top notch and the religion not merely harmless but socially beneficial (and I'm delighted to accept this as a hardcore atheist). I'd be very reluctant to ban that.

    A Madrassa ranting that infidels must be beheaded is a wholly different kettle of fish. If we're going to legislate around religious schools let us make the law about what they are promoting and who they are excluding and how mixed their student body is.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498
    edited February 2015

    TGOHF said:

    I'm surprised that the PB Tories are desperate to paint a perfectly human reaction by the Shedsec to the insanity of having children brainwashed in superstition by age five as a disaster for Labour.

    Actually I lie. I'm not surprised at all. Hope all are well!

    Perhaps Labour should propose banning apartheid style Catholic schools in Scotland then ?

    Should be a real vote winner..
    Yes they should. And protestant schools too. Faith schools is a bonkers idea and someone needs to have a crack at it.
    Bob, they do not have protestant schools. They have everyday public authority schools.

    PS: re catholic schools , whilst I don't like religion in public funded schools at all , given they tend to get good results it is unlikely they will disappear.
  • FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801
    BenM said:

    It's official - Tories have been wholly captured by big corporate interests:

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/11306cd0-ac94-11e4-beeb-00144feab7de.html?siteedition=uk

    The number of big City backers for the Conservative party has doubled during this parliament, as leading figures from the Square Mile displace industrialists and entrepreneurs as its main financial supporters.
    Even pushing out industrialists (small biz) and entrepreneurs!

    Not a good look in this climate.

    I agree, state funding for political parties should be introduced, stricter maximum donations etc. Buying influence is a cross party problem.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    Stephen Fry had a few things to say about the Catholic church. Its worth watching the whole thing
    #

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6sz8D411kE
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,046
    BenM said:

    Missed the Tristram Hunt Nun thing on QT but reading here and on the web I can assure all the PB Tories, rightwing press and the epically clueless Paul Staines that as a parent I'm 100% with Hunt on that one.

    And I'm sure I'm in the vast vast majority there.

    Have a look at it. It was pretty nasty and sneering.

    Your "Shedsec".
  • Given McBride's renaming of Tristram, should he now be referred to as Dick Hunt.

    Unfortunate ...

    Better than Mike Hunt......
    I haven't seen a reaction on here to Gorgeous George, did he not say the people I represent will deeply resent the way I have been treated here, or something along those lines. If so that is seriously threatening.
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092
    FalseFlag said:

    BenM said:

    It's official - Tories have been wholly captured by big corporate interests:

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/11306cd0-ac94-11e4-beeb-00144feab7de.html?siteedition=uk

    The number of big City backers for the Conservative party has doubled during this parliament, as leading figures from the Square Mile displace industrialists and entrepreneurs as its main financial supporters.
    Even pushing out industrialists (small biz) and entrepreneurs!

    Not a good look in this climate.
    I agree, state funding for political parties should be introduced, stricter maximum donations etc. Buying influence is a cross party problem.


    I think £0 would be a pretty good maximum donation
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,538

    TGOHF said:

    I'm surprised that the PB Tories are desperate to paint a perfectly human reaction by the Shedsec to the insanity of having children brainwashed in superstition by age five as a disaster for Labour.

    Actually I lie. I'm not surprised at all. Hope all are well!

    Perhaps Labour should propose banning apartheid style Catholic schools in Scotland then ?

    Should be a real vote winner..
    Yes they should. And protestant schools too. Faith schools is a bonkers idea and someone needs to have a crack at it.
    Pity the previous Labour government did so much to expand it......

    Of course, if the State provided a superior eduction I suspect many would fade away....until then.....
    One of Blair's worst flaws was his pandering to organised religion. If adults grow up and decide to be religious, fine, it's their choice. Don't brainwash kids from age five when their minds are like sponges and they believe what grown-ups in positions of authority tell them.
    The State does not own children. Parents should be free to bring up children according to their own values.
  • Scott_P said:

    @PickardJE: Betfair gambling exchange says odds of Labour majority have lengthened dramatically from 7:4 to 17:1 since September. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7c362376-ad48-11e4-bfcf-00144feab7de.html?siteedition=uk#axzz3QuF5OOEg

    Probably fair. Sadly, I have a bet on a Lab majority, taken a couple of years ago. Think that's gone.
  • rcs1000 said:

    Of course Putin - like dictators before him - might assume that we are weak and cowardly and not willing to fight.

    If all the NATO members had a battalion of troops deployed in one of the Baltic States it would send a clear and unmistakable signal that they were different to Ukraine. It would remove the potential for confusion.

    The Eastern European members of NATO have been asking for such an action, but it hasn't been forthcoming, as people argue about who pays for it, etc.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498
    Sean_F said:

    TGOHF said:

    I'm surprised that the PB Tories are desperate to paint a perfectly human reaction by the Shedsec to the insanity of having children brainwashed in superstition by age five as a disaster for Labour.

    Actually I lie. I'm not surprised at all. Hope all are well!

    Perhaps Labour should propose banning apartheid style Catholic schools in Scotland then ?

    Should be a real vote winner..
    Yes they should. And protestant schools too. Faith schools is a bonkers idea and someone needs to have a crack at it.
    Pity the previous Labour government did so much to expand it......

    Of course, if the State provided a superior eduction I suspect many would fade away....until then.....
    One of Blair's worst flaws was his pandering to organised religion. If adults grow up and decide to be religious, fine, it's their choice. Don't brainwash kids from age five when their minds are like sponges and they believe what grown-ups in positions of authority tell them.
    The State does not own children. Parents should be free to bring up children according to their own values.
    Absolutely correct but the state should not have to pay for it though. Must be huge waste in Scotland where you have two half empty schools side by side rather than one state school.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    @PfP and @PtP

    My apologies for confusing two Peters!

    The problem is the broad spectrum of difference, and the midpoint does come pretty close to the orthodoxy.

    It looks like no one wants Ed or Dave as PM, but no-one wants a coalition either. Surely a recipe for a second election soonish (With Liz Kendall please!)

  • Scott_P said:

    @PickardJE: Betfair gambling exchange says odds of Labour majority have lengthened dramatically from 7:4 to 17:1 since September. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7c362376-ad48-11e4-bfcf-00144feab7de.html?siteedition=uk#axzz3QuF5OOEg

    Very interesting article in FT, but I don't follow how they get "half a million" scenarios for post-election arrangements.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    edited February 2015
    Michael Heaver ‏@Michael_Heaver 5m5 minutes ago
    Rotherham Council took kids away from UKIP-supporting foster parents, but turned a blind eye to child sex abuse http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/rotherhams-doctrine-of-multiculturalism-was-fundamentally-flawed--its-time-for-interculturalism-10027850.html

    Farage speaks.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Sean_F said:

    I'm surprised that the PB Tories are desperate to paint a perfectly human reaction by the Shedsec to the insanity of having children brainwashed in superstition by age five as a disaster for Labour.

    Actually I lie. I'm not surprised at all. Hope all are well!

    TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    I'm surprised that the PB Tories are desperate to paint a perfectly human reaction by the Shedsec to the insanity of having children brainwashed in superstition by age five as a disaster for Labour.

    Actually I lie. I'm not surprised at all. Hope all are well!

    Perhaps Labour should propose banning apartheid style Catholic schools in Scotland then ?

    Should be a real vote winner..
    Yes they should. And protestant schools too. Faith schools is a bonkers idea and someone needs to have a crack at it.
    I totally agree - but no party has the balls to take on this segregation from a young age - not one of them especially not SLAB or the SNP.

    Since we live in a democracy, and denominational schools are very popular with millions of voting parents, it's not going to happen. You might just as well campaign for the abolition of private property.

    Yet football clubs are blamed for "bigotry" - they have the fans for 90 mins. Segregated schools have them for 13 years.

  • FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801
    edited February 2015
    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Blue_rog said:

    O/T but potentially very scary

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11393707/Putin-could-attack-Baltic-states-warns-former-Nato-chief.html

    How about using QE to bolster National Defence forces?

    Attacking a full NATO member is probably a bit much, even for Putin. We would have to respond with force. Of course Putin - like dictators before him - might assume that we are weak and cowardly and not willing to fight. He might regard it as an efficient way of recreating the Soviet empire. But it would come at an enormous price.

    Even if the Europeans and the US decided not to fight, it would inevitably mean an end to gas imports from Russia. And for the next five years (at least) Russia has no other markets for gas. So, at a time when oil prices have halved, he would be cutting off his gas revenues. The current Russian recession (which is gathering pace) would probably turn into a full blow depression.
    If NATO didn't respond to an attack on the Baltic States, then the alliance would effectively have come to an end. The other Eastern European states would have to come to terms with Russia very rapidly.

    And, I wonder if Western Europeans would care very much.
    I think that depends on the country: Germany under Merkel would worry very much about the end of the Atlantic alliance (as would neighbour Poland). France is probably more sypmpathetic to Russia (and has always been sceptical of US influence in Europe). Smaller countries like Belgium and the Netherlands are quite pro-US/NATO, as is much of the political class in Spain and and Italy.

    All in all, with an increasingly wounded and irrational Russia, whose economy is being hammered by falling oil prices, I would have thought that the Europeans would be keener on the NATO protections than - perhaps - the Obama led White House.
    I think the Americans have lost a great deal of credibility with their Ukrainian adventure. After Georgia I don't understand why the US did not realise the Russians would respond strongly to any further aggression. Merkel has made herself very unpopular in Germany.

    http://news.antiwar.com/2015/02/05/top-nato-general-european-dms-oppose-us-plans-to-arm-ukraine/
    http://news.antiwar.com/2015/02/05/hagel-warns-nato-faces-north-south-split/

    Laughable claims about Baltic invasions are a sign of desperation. Also ignores that we agreed to not expand NATO east if the Soviet Union voluntarily disbanded the Eastern Block, Russian concerns regarding NATO have been fully justified.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,538
    malcolmg said:

    Sean_F said:

    TGOHF said:

    I'm surprised that the PB Tories are desperate to paint a perfectly human reaction by the Shedsec to the insanity of having children brainwashed in superstition by age five as a disaster for Labour.

    Actually I lie. I'm not surprised at all. Hope all are well!

    Perhaps Labour should propose banning apartheid style Catholic schools in Scotland then ?

    Should be a real vote winner..
    Yes they should. And protestant schools too. Faith schools is a bonkers idea and someone needs to have a crack at it.
    Pity the previous Labour government did so much to expand it......

    Of course, if the State provided a superior eduction I suspect many would fade away....until then.....
    One of Blair's worst flaws was his pandering to organised religion. If adults grow up and decide to be religious, fine, it's their choice. Don't brainwash kids from age five when their minds are like sponges and they believe what grown-ups in positions of authority tell them.
    The State does not own children. Parents should be free to bring up children according to their own values.
    Absolutely correct but the state should not have to pay for it though. Must be huge waste in Scotland where you have two half empty schools side by side rather than one state school.
    I think there are two alternatives. Either the French and US system, where very large numbers of children are educated outside the State system, in faith schools, or our system, where they become part of the State system, with input from the Churches.
  • @PfP and @PtP

    My apologies for confusing two Peters!

    The problem is the broad spectrum of difference, and the midpoint does come pretty close to the orthodoxy.

    It looks like no one wants Ed or Dave as PM, but no-one wants a coalition either. Surely a recipe for a second election soonish (With Liz Kendall please!)

    I think we might have to look very seriously at the possibility that coalition/minority government is now a permanent feature of Westminster, for the forseeable future. With "minor" parties likely to make up 100+ of the 650 seats on offer, the kind of lead that either of the two "major" parties would have to achieve over the other to get an absolute majority looks like a pretty big ask. Implications for 2020 betting, anyone?
  • Scott_P said:

    @PickardJE: Betfair gambling exchange says odds of Labour majority have lengthened dramatically from 7:4 to 17:1 since September. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7c362376-ad48-11e4-bfcf-00144feab7de.html?siteedition=uk#axzz3QuF5OOEg

    Probably fair. Sadly, I have a bet on a Lab majority, taken a couple of years ago. Think that's gone.
    Fraid so, Rotten. 17/1 looks about right. The Tory equivalent is too short. Should be around 12/1 - ergo NOM remains (boringly) the value.

    I see we have had - according to the Wiki Voting Intention page - exactly 50 polls this year. The scores on the doors are - Labour 30, Ties 12, Tories 8. Biggest leads are 7 for Labour (TNS) and 6 for Tories (LA). On Betfair's Most Seats market Labour are 2.46.

    Hmmmmm.....excuse me while I go top up.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,538
    TGOHF said:

    Sean_F said:

    I'm surprised that the PB Tories are desperate to paint a perfectly human reaction by the Shedsec to the insanity of having children brainwashed in superstition by age five as a disaster for Labour.

    Actually I lie. I'm not surprised at all. Hope all are well!

    TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    I'm surprised that the PB Tories are desperate to paint a perfectly human reaction by the Shedsec to the insanity of having children brainwashed in superstition by age five as a disaster for Labour.

    Actually I lie. I'm not surprised at all. Hope all are well!

    Perhaps Labour should propose banning apartheid style Catholic schools in Scotland then ?

    Should be a real vote winner..
    Yes they should. And protestant schools too. Faith schools is a bonkers idea and someone needs to have a crack at it.
    I totally agree - but no party has the balls to take on this segregation from a young age - not one of them especially not SLAB or the SNP.

    Since we live in a democracy, and denominational schools are very popular with millions of voting parents, it's not going to happen. You might just as well campaign for the abolition of private property.

    Yet football clubs are blamed for "bigotry" - they have the fans for 90 mins. Segregated schools have them for 13 years.

    Football fans love to vent at each other. People don't sing Spurs Are on their Way to Auschwitz because of separate education.

    Sectarianism in Scotland has declined massively over the past 100 years, and is largely confined to football.

  • @PfP and @PtP

    My apologies for confusing two Peters!

    The problem is the broad spectrum of difference, and the midpoint does come pretty close to the orthodoxy.

    It looks like no one wants Ed or Dave as PM, but no-one wants a coalition either. Surely a recipe for a second election soonish (With Liz Kendall please!)

    "The problem is the broad spectrum of difference, and the midpoint does come pretty close to the orthodoxy."
    Well quite, but this is pretty inevitable when one is attempting to calculate a best and worst position and indeed in a situation where just a 1% shift in the share of the votes between the two major parties, can move the seat numbers quite considerably. I could be proved wrong of course but I'll be quite surprised if the numbers are outside these two parameters for any of the parties. If I'm right there could be some scope for betting on the seat bands.
    As ever, DYOR.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,771
    Patrick said:

    A quick question to any authors here on PB if I may (MorrisDancer, SeanT, etc?). I have written a short business book. I want to self-publish but am a complete virgin in this area. What's the best way to turn my intellectual property into money in the most hassle-free way?

    LightningSource is reasonably hassle-free in my experience.
  • @PfP and @PtP

    My apologies for confusing two Peters!

    The problem is the broad spectrum of difference, and the midpoint does come pretty close to the orthodoxy.

    It looks like no one wants Ed or Dave as PM, but no-one wants a coalition either. Surely a recipe for a second election soonish (With Liz Kendall please!)

    Agreed, Fox, especially the last para (but maybe not the LK bit.)

    PfP will be round for the quid shortly.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    edited February 2015
    FalseFlag said:

    BenM said:

    It's official - Tories have been wholly captured by big corporate interests:

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/11306cd0-ac94-11e4-beeb-00144feab7de.html?siteedition=uk

    The number of big City backers for the Conservative party has doubled during this parliament, as leading figures from the Square Mile displace industrialists and entrepreneurs as its main financial supporters.
    Even pushing out industrialists (small biz) and entrepreneurs!

    Not a good look in this climate.
    I agree, state funding for political parties should be introduced, stricter maximum donations etc. Buying influence is a cross party problem.We have state funding for political parties. Fourteen pence per vote, per year.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,128
    edited February 2015
    Are the pollsters picking up on the "grudging respect" vote for the LibDems? I only ask because in the pub last night talking to an old friend who has been solid Labour as long as I can remember I found he is now seriously considering going LibDem - out of respect for the way Nick Clegg has handled the coalition and kept the Tories under control over Europe etc. And, let it be said, a deep dislike of the ability of Ed to be PM.

    He's in a safe Labour seat and, of course, this is one lone anecdote, but it has got me thinking that maybe we do have some kind of 'shy' potential LibDem vote out there that has not made itself known to date.

    If nothing else this has provided a tiny bit of reassurance about following Mike's bet on Montgomery returning to the orange team.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    BenM said:

    Missed the Tristram Hunt Nun thing on QT but reading here and on the web I can assure all the PB Tories, rightwing press and the epically clueless Paul Staines that as a parent I'm 100% with Hunt on that one.

    And I'm sure I'm in the vast vast majority there.

    No you are not. In the area where I live all schools have Qualified Teachers, but few of them are good communicators and even fewer are excellent at their subject - so that must be why truancy officers have to be employed and the level of education is so mediocre.
  • Scott_P said:

    @PickardJE: Betfair gambling exchange says odds of Labour majority have lengthened dramatically from 7:4 to 17:1 since September. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7c362376-ad48-11e4-bfcf-00144feab7de.html?siteedition=uk#axzz3QuF5OOEg

    Probably fair. Sadly, I have a bet on a Lab majority, taken a couple of years ago. Think that's gone.
    Fraid so, Rotten. 17/1 looks about right. The Tory equivalent is too short. Should be around 12/1 - ergo NOM remains (boringly) the value.

    I see we have had - according to the Wiki Voting Intention page - exactly 50 polls this year. The scores on the doors are - Labour 30, Ties 12, Tories 8. Biggest leads are 7 for Labour (TNS) and 6 for Tories (LA). On Betfair's Most Seats market Labour are 2.46.

    Hmmmmm.....excuse me while I go top up.
    How much can I have at 12/1? Or even 11/1, to give you some margin?
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    barry ‏@lilbruv 8h8 hours ago
    @richardwaghorne @MikkiL Galloway will surrender to Islam,Thatchell will surrender to paedophilia, Cameron will surrender to the EU
  • BenMBenM Posts: 1,795
    Financier said:

    BenM said:

    Missed the Tristram Hunt Nun thing on QT but reading here and on the web I can assure all the PB Tories, rightwing press and the epically clueless Paul Staines that as a parent I'm 100% with Hunt on that one.

    And I'm sure I'm in the vast vast majority there.

    No you are not. In the area where I live all schools have Qualified Teachers, but few of them are good communicators and even fewer are excellent at their subject - so that must be why truancy officers have to be employed and the level of education is so mediocre.
    Drivel.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916

    Are the pollsters picking up on the "grudging respect" vote for the LibDems? I only ask because in the pub last night talking to an old friend who has been solid Labour as long as I can remember I found he is now seriously considering going LibDem - out of respect for the way Nick Clegg has handled the coalition and kept the Tories under control over Europe etc. And, let it be said, a deep dislike of the ability of Ed to be PM.

    He's in a safe Labour seat and, of course, this is one lone anecdote, but it has got me thinking that maybe we do have some kind of 'shy' potential LibDem vote out there that has not made itself known to date.

    If nothing else this has provided a tiny bit of reassurance about following Mike's bet on Montgomery returning to the orange team.

    Agree with your sentiment and believe that the LDs are reviving a bit, but the sitting MP for Montgomery is local and very popular and will not be unseated.
  • Financier said:

    BenM said:

    Missed the Tristram Hunt Nun thing on QT but reading here and on the web I can assure all the PB Tories, rightwing press and the epically clueless Paul Staines that as a parent I'm 100% with Hunt on that one.

    And I'm sure I'm in the vast vast majority there.

    No you are not. In the area where I live all schools have Qualified Teachers, but few of them are good communicators and even fewer are excellent at their subject - so that must be why truancy officers have to be employed and the level of education is so mediocre.
    In Ben's world view he is nearly always in the vast vast majority.
  • Scott_P said:

    @PickardJE: Betfair gambling exchange says odds of Labour majority have lengthened dramatically from 7:4 to 17:1 since September. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7c362376-ad48-11e4-bfcf-00144feab7de.html?siteedition=uk#axzz3QuF5OOEg

    Probably fair. Sadly, I have a bet on a Lab majority, taken a couple of years ago. Think that's gone.
    Fraid so, Rotten. 17/1 looks about right. The Tory equivalent is too short. Should be around 12/1 - ergo NOM remains (boringly) the value.

    I see we have had - according to the Wiki Voting Intention page - exactly 50 polls this year. The scores on the doors are - Labour 30, Ties 12, Tories 8. Biggest leads are 7 for Labour (TNS) and 6 for Tories (LA). On Betfair's Most Seats market Labour are 2.46.

    Hmmmmm.....excuse me while I go top up.
    How much can I have at 12/1? Or even 11/1, to give you some margin?
    You can go whistle!

    Much as I adore you, TP, why would I lay you 12/1 when Betfair shows fives? Off with you, naughty boy.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053

    Huge list of police no-go zones in France which are muslim controlled and under Sharia law: http://t.co/MEUzYD3fGS pic.twitter.com/Cx6M8hyibA

    — Sir John Franklin (@Snow_Mexican) January 21, 2015
  • peter_from_putneypeter_from_putney Posts: 6,956
    edited February 2015
    Scott_P said:

    @PickardJE: Betfair gambling exchange says odds of Labour majority have lengthened dramatically from 7:4 to 17:1 since September. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7c362376-ad48-11e4-bfcf-00144feab7de.html?siteedition=uk#axzz3QuF5OOEg

    This piece in the FT is paywall restricted, but the lengthening in these odds surely relates in large part to the narrowing timeframe ..... what was unlikely last September is now VERY unlikely with just three months to go.
    Incidentally, the headline to this article caught my eye:
    "Ed Miliband heads David Cameron in PM stakes"
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Well said.
    Gadfly said:

    Financier said:

    TOPPING said:

    I am no supporter of NPXMP but as usual the Daily Heil playing the man/woman , not the ball. They were the rules and if they were entitled to it, so be it. Its the rules that are wrong..

    The very crux of the expenses scandal was that MPs were following the "rules". That is why I have some sympathy for them. For the vast majority of expenses, MPs checked first and, it seems, were told all was ok.

    Didn't stop the scandal erupting, though, via the court of public opinion.
    Perhaps the elected returning MPs if they have previously received the retirement benefit, should give at least 50% of it back to HMG.
    No. There is nothing wrong with an allowance per se,the MP has been made effectively redundant..... the problem is that it is ridiculously overgenerous. Halve it at the start ,l not pay it back.
    I am not sure that 'redundant' is the right word. The MP's job still exists, but the electorate has effectively sacked the incumbent, and appointed somebody else.

    I accept that an MP's future will be affected by national circumstances, but if he or she was 'sacked' for being incompetent, then should redundancy be payable?

  • Scott_P said:

    @PickardJE: Betfair gambling exchange says odds of Labour majority have lengthened dramatically from 7:4 to 17:1 since September. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7c362376-ad48-11e4-bfcf-00144feab7de.html?siteedition=uk#axzz3QuF5OOEg

    Probably fair. Sadly, I have a bet on a Lab majority, taken a couple of years ago. Think that's gone.
    Fraid so, Rotten. 17/1 looks about right. The Tory equivalent is too short. Should be around 12/1 - ergo NOM remains (boringly) the value.

    I see we have had - according to the Wiki Voting Intention page - exactly 50 polls this year. The scores on the doors are - Labour 30, Ties 12, Tories 8. Biggest leads are 7 for Labour (TNS) and 6 for Tories (LA). On Betfair's Most Seats market Labour are 2.46.

    Hmmmmm.....excuse me while I go top up.
    How much can I have at 12/1? Or even 11/1, to give you some margin?
    You can go whistle!

    Much as I adore you, TP, why would I lay you 12/1 when Betfair shows fives? Off with you, naughty boy.
    9/1 then? I honestly think the Betfair prices are about right at present. There's too much focus on current polling on here and not enough on "fundamentals" - not to mention the fact that Labour are imho acting like a party expecting to lose.

    That doesn't mean EM can't win, of course, and he has a lower bar to reach than DC to become PM (the mismatch in that market is truly weird).
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736

    Financier said:

    BenM said:

    Missed the Tristram Hunt Nun thing on QT but reading here and on the web I can assure all the PB Tories, rightwing press and the epically clueless Paul Staines that as a parent I'm 100% with Hunt on that one.

    And I'm sure I'm in the vast vast majority there.

    No you are not. In the area where I live all schools have Qualified Teachers, but few of them are good communicators and even fewer are excellent at their subject - so that must be why truancy officers have to be employed and the level of education is so mediocre.
    In Ben's world view he is nearly always in the vast vast majority.

    ComRes opinion poll of 2,003 adults between 13 and 15 April clearly indicates that the British public values professional teaching qualifications. The Education Secretary has a massive job to do if he is to persuade the public that allowing his flagship Free Schools to employ unqualified teachers is the right move.

    An overwhelming 89% of adults surveyed would prefer their child to be taught by a university graduate who is a qualified teacher. Only 2% believe a university graduate who is not a fully qualified teacher, and a mere 1% believe a person who is not a qualified teacher should be teaching students.

    Again an overwhelming 86% believe that any school receiving public funding should only employ qualified teachers to teach pupils.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053

    Tristram Hunt under fire after 'nuns' remark on #QuestionTime http://t.co/cDLJbn6BUZ pic.twitter.com/sznhfYwE0m

    — The Telegraph (@Telegraph) February 6, 2015
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,630
    FalseFlag said:

    Laughable claims about Baltic invasions are a sign of desperation. Also ignores that we agreed to not expand NATO east if the Soviet Union voluntarily disbanded the Eastern Block, Russian concerns regarding NATO have been fully justified.

    Personally, I've never liked this "sphere of influence" thing. It basically says "small countries should bow to their bigger neighbours".

    If Ireland had wanted to join - say - the Warsaw Pact, that would be their business. Of course, we could bring diplomatic or economic pressure to bear. But ultimately, it's a sovereign nation and should be free to choose its own path.

    And if the Baltic states want to join NATO - that is their concern. They are - after all - sovereign, democratic nations.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    That'd be a terrible Scrabble hand
    TOPPING said:

    Financier said:

    TOPPING said:

    I am no supporter of NPXMP but as usual the Daily Heil playing the man/woman , not the ball. They were the rules and if they were entitled to it, so be it. Its the rules that are wrong..

    The very crux of the expenses scandal was that MPs were following the "rules". That is why I have some sympathy for them. For the vast majority of expenses, MPs checked first and, it seems, were told all was ok.

    Didn't stop the scandal erupting, though, via the court of public opinion.
    Perhaps the elected returning MPs if they have previously received the retirement benefit, should give at least 50% of it back to HMG.
    I'm actually intensely relaxed about them keeping it.

    The system is to help people with no discernible skills whatsoever* to transition into the real world. What they do and how they approach their post-parliament life is another matter. Including going back into the fray.

    *NPXMPCPPC - I appreciate you have plenty of skills...!
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916

    Financier said:

    BenM said:

    Missed the Tristram Hunt Nun thing on QT but reading here and on the web I can assure all the PB Tories, rightwing press and the epically clueless Paul Staines that as a parent I'm 100% with Hunt on that one.

    And I'm sure I'm in the vast vast majority there.

    No you are not. In the area where I live all schools have Qualified Teachers, but few of them are good communicators and even fewer are excellent at their subject - so that must be why truancy officers have to be employed and the level of education is so mediocre.
    In Ben's world view he is nearly always in the vast vast majority.

    ComRes opinion poll of 2,003 adults between 13 and 15 April clearly indicates that the British public values professional teaching qualifications. The Education Secretary has a massive job to do if he is to persuade the public that allowing his flagship Free Schools to employ unqualified teachers is the right move.

    An overwhelming 89% of adults surveyed would prefer their child to be taught by a university graduate who is a qualified teacher. Only 2% believe a university graduate who is not a fully qualified teacher, and a mere 1% believe a person who is not a qualified teacher should be teaching students.

    Again an overwhelming 86% believe that any school receiving public funding should only employ qualified teachers to teach pupils.
    But how did the poll define a "qualified teacher"? Please can you supply this information.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Puntastic ;-)
    Scott_P said:

    Why did Tristram Hunt sneer at Nuns?

    ...cos it's no time for a novice...!

    I'll get my coat

  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736

    Financier said:

    BenM said:

    Missed the Tristram Hunt Nun thing on QT but reading here and on the web I can assure all the PB Tories, rightwing press and the epically clueless Paul Staines that as a parent I'm 100% with Hunt on that one.

    And I'm sure I'm in the vast vast majority there.

    No you are not. In the area where I live all schools have Qualified Teachers, but few of them are good communicators and even fewer are excellent at their subject - so that must be why truancy officers have to be employed and the level of education is so mediocre.
    In Ben's world view he is nearly always in the vast vast majority.

    ComRes opinion poll of 2,003 adults between 13 and 15 April clearly indicates that the British public values professional teaching qualifications. The Education Secretary has a massive job to do if he is to persuade the public that allowing his flagship Free Schools to employ unqualified teachers is the right move.

    An overwhelming 89% of adults surveyed would prefer their child to be taught by a university graduate who is a qualified teacher. Only 2% believe a university graduate who is not a fully qualified teacher, and a mere 1% believe a person who is not a qualified teacher should be teaching students.

    Again an overwhelming 86% believe that any school receiving public funding should only employ qualified teachers to teach pupils.
    BenM in majority

    Tissue Price part of the 1%?
  • Financier said:

    BenM said:

    Missed the Tristram Hunt Nun thing on QT but reading here and on the web I can assure all the PB Tories, rightwing press and the epically clueless Paul Staines that as a parent I'm 100% with Hunt on that one.

    And I'm sure I'm in the vast vast majority there.

    No you are not. In the area where I live all schools have Qualified Teachers, but few of them are good communicators and even fewer are excellent at their subject - so that must be why truancy officers have to be employed and the level of education is so mediocre.
    In Ben's world view he is nearly always in the vast vast majority.

    ComRes opinion poll of 2,003 adults between 13 and 15 April clearly indicates that the British public values professional teaching qualifications. The Education Secretary has a massive job to do if he is to persuade the public that allowing his flagship Free Schools to employ unqualified teachers is the right move.

    An overwhelming 89% of adults surveyed would prefer their child to be taught by a university graduate who is a qualified teacher. Only 2% believe a university graduate who is not a fully qualified teacher, and a mere 1% believe a person who is not a qualified teacher should be teaching students.

    Again an overwhelming 86% believe that any school receiving public funding should only employ qualified teachers to teach pupils.
    The whole qualified teacher thing is a sop to the teaching unions. I'd rather trust heads to employ whosoever they think best.

    That poll was commissioned by the NUT, and the 89% figure comes from Q1 which is the laughably simplistic:

    Q.1 Please rank in order of preference who you would prefer your child to be taught by?

    Teaching assistant
    University graduate who is a fully qualified teacher
    University graduate who is not a qualified teacher
    Other person who is not a qualified teacher
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,975
    edited February 2015
    DavidL

    In answer to your question 'why are people saying they'll vote for such a crap Labour Party.........'

    It's pretty obvious that 65% of the country come Hell or high water will never vote Tory. I'm one of them. It's partly historic it's partly a view that being 'Tory' equals a meanness of spirit that none of us wants to admit to (And one that's evident even on this thread in the 'Nick Palmer posts'.)

    This Labour Party with their current leadership are as bad as anything I can remember which can normally be answered by voting Lib Dem. After some baffling decisions by Clegg and Alexander they are now de facto Tories so that s no longer an option.

    Greenz Meanz a wasted walk to the polling station and anyway they shouldn't be encouraged.....

    Which means with a very heavy heart it'll HAVE to be Labour
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    BenM said:

    Financier said:

    BenM said:

    Missed the Tristram Hunt Nun thing on QT but reading here and on the web I can assure all the PB Tories, rightwing press and the epically clueless Paul Staines that as a parent I'm 100% with Hunt on that one.

    And I'm sure I'm in the vast vast majority there.

    No you are not. In the area where I live all schools have Qualified Teachers, but few of them are good communicators and even fewer are excellent at their subject - so that must be why truancy officers have to be employed and the level of education is so mediocre.
    Drivel.
    Please provide facts to prove your comment
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    @TimT does a great funny explanation of confusing himself with @TimB

    @PfP and @PtP

    My apologies for confusing two Peters!

    The problem is the broad spectrum of difference, and the midpoint does come pretty close to the orthodoxy.

    It looks like no one wants Ed or Dave as PM, but no-one wants a coalition either. Surely a recipe for a second election soonish (With Liz Kendall please!)

  • Financier said:

    BenM said:

    Missed the Tristram Hunt Nun thing on QT but reading here and on the web I can assure all the PB Tories, rightwing press and the epically clueless Paul Staines that as a parent I'm 100% with Hunt on that one.

    And I'm sure I'm in the vast vast majority there.

    No you are not. In the area where I live all schools have Qualified Teachers, but few of them are good communicators and even fewer are excellent at their subject - so that must be why truancy officers have to be employed and the level of education is so mediocre.
    In Ben's world view he is nearly always in the vast vast majority.

    ComRes opinion poll of 2,003 adults between 13 and 15 April clearly indicates that the British public values professional teaching qualifications. The Education Secretary has a massive job to do if he is to persuade the public that allowing his flagship Free Schools to employ unqualified teachers is the right move.

    An overwhelming 89% of adults surveyed would prefer their child to be taught by a university graduate who is a qualified teacher. Only 2% believe a university graduate who is not a fully qualified teacher, and a mere 1% believe a person who is not a qualified teacher should be teaching students.

    Again an overwhelming 86% believe that any school receiving public funding should only employ qualified teachers to teach pupils.
    BenM in majority

    Tissue Price part of the 1%?
    You've misrepresented the findings of the poll, which was ranking in order of preference, not a Yes/No to each question. And and no point did the NUT offer any question along the lines of "whoever the head thinks best". Can't imagine why.
  • TGOHF said:

    Sean_F said:

    I'm surprised that the PB Tories are desperate to paint a perfectly human reaction by the Shedsec to the insanity of having children brainwashed in superstition by age five as a disaster for Labour.

    Actually I lie. I'm not surprised at all. Hope all are well!

    TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    I'm surprised that the PB Tories are desperate to paint a perfectly human reaction by the Shedsec to the insanity of having children brainwashed in superstition by age five as a disaster for Labour.

    Actually I lie. I'm not surprised at all. Hope all are well!

    Perhaps Labour should propose banning apartheid style Catholic schools in Scotland then ?

    Should be a real vote winner..
    Yes they should. And protestant schools too. Faith schools is a bonkers idea and someone needs to have a crack at it.
    I totally agree - but no party has the balls to take on this segregation from a young age - not one of them especially not SLAB or the SNP.

    Since we live in a democracy, and denominational schools are very popular with millions of voting parents, it's not going to happen. You might just as well campaign for the abolition of private property.

    Yet football clubs are blamed for "bigotry" - they have the fans for 90 mins. Segregated schools have them for 13 years.

    Since I assume (dangerous, I know) you'd accept there's bigotry on both sides, who or what do you thinks is to blame for the side of the bigotry divide that doesn't go to segregated schools?

  • Scott_P said:

    @PickardJE: Betfair gambling exchange says odds of Labour majority have lengthened dramatically from 7:4 to 17:1 since September. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7c362376-ad48-11e4-bfcf-00144feab7de.html?siteedition=uk#axzz3QuF5OOEg

    Probably fair. Sadly, I have a bet on a Lab majority, taken a couple of years ago. Think that's gone.
    Fraid so, Rotten. 17/1 looks about right. The Tory equivalent is too short. Should be around 12/1 - ergo NOM remains (boringly) the value.

    I see we have had - according to the Wiki Voting Intention page - exactly 50 polls this year. The scores on the doors are - Labour 30, Ties 12, Tories 8. Biggest leads are 7 for Labour (TNS) and 6 for Tories (LA). On Betfair's Most Seats market Labour are 2.46.

    Hmmmmm.....excuse me while I go top up.
    How much can I have at 12/1? Or even 11/1, to give you some margin?
    You can go whistle!

    Much as I adore you, TP, why would I lay you 12/1 when Betfair shows fives? Off with you, naughty boy.
    9/1 then? I honestly think the Betfair prices are about right at present. There's too much focus on current polling on here and not enough on "fundamentals" - not to mention the fact that Labour are imho acting like a party expecting to lose.

    That doesn't mean EM can't win, of course, and he has a lower bar to reach than DC to become PM (the mismatch in that market is truly weird).
    NO!! Now stop pestering me. It's bad enough having to beat off the attentions of JackW without you too.

    {Seriously, why would anybody lay at 9s when 5s is readily available?}
  • Roger said:

    DavidL

    In answer to your question 'why are people saying they'll vote for such a crap Labour Party.........'

    It's pretty obvious that 65% of the country come Hell or high water will never vote Tory. I'm one of them. It's partly historic it's partly a view that being 'Tory' equals a meanness of spirit (One that's evident even on this thread in the 'Nick Palmer posts'.)

    This Labour Party with their current leadership are as bad as anything I can remember which can normally be answered by voting Lib Dem. But that's now no longer an option. After some baffling decisions by Clegg and Alexander they are now de facto Tories.

    Greenz Meanz a wasted walk to the polling station and anyway they shouldn't be encouraged.....

    Which means with a very heavy heart it'll HAVE to be Labour

    ~40% of the English voted Conservative at the last election, that's with all the strategic ineptitude of the Conservative campaign. I grant you it is different in Scotland and Wales.

    There is a strong market for centre-right politics, particularly in England where it should be able to routinely capture 45% of the vote. Like in other English-speaking countries.

    However, the Conservative Party is a broken brand. Modernisers think that's down to policy and visual diversity. I think it's down to its political culture: the sheer arrogance and condescending nature of the party itself, which gives every impression it has a sense of self-entitlement to the votes of the electorate, and is born to rule.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    edited February 2015

    Financier said:

    BenM said:

    Missed the Tristram Hunt Nun thing on QT but reading here and on the web I can assure all the PB Tories, rightwing press and the epically clueless Paul Staines that as a parent I'm 100% with Hunt on that one.

    And I'm sure I'm in the vast vast majority there.

    No you are not. In the area where I live all schools have Qualified Teachers, but few of them are good communicators and even fewer are excellent at their subject - so that must be why truancy officers have to be employed and the level of education is so mediocre.
    In Ben's world view he is nearly always in the vast vast majority.

    ComRes opinion poll of 2,003 adults between 13 and 15 April clearly indicates that the British public values professional teaching qualifications. The Education Secretary has a massive job to do if he is to persuade the public that allowing his flagship Free Schools to employ unqualified teachers is the right move.

    An overwhelming 89% of adults surveyed would prefer their child to be taught by a university graduate who is a qualified teacher. Only 2% believe a university graduate who is not a fully qualified teacher, and a mere 1% believe a person who is not a qualified teacher should be teaching students.

    Again an overwhelming 86% believe that any school receiving public funding should only employ qualified teachers to teach pupils.
    BenM in majority

    Tissue Price part of the 1%?
    You've misrepresented the findings of the poll, which was ranking in order of preference, not a Yes/No to each question. And and no point did the NUT offer any question along the lines of "whoever the head thinks best". Can't imagine why.
    So 89% in order of preference prefer University graduate who is a fully qualified teacher like BenM and 2% would prefer in order of preference a University graduate who is not a fully qualified teacher 1% would prefer in order of preference Other person who is not a qualified teacher.

    You are wrong that BenMs view is the majority admit it
  • So Roger you're basically saying you are a purely tribal voter and policies or performance are of no interest and you vote to send a message. See this:

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/02/whats-more-important-to-voters-coherent-policy-or-the-chance-to-send-a-message/

    You are the archetypical lefty identity politics bien pensant Islington armchair warrior. I think we knew that already.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,538
    O/T but I see the Belfast Telegraph had a poll, putting the DUP 6% ahead of Alliance in East Belfast, for the general election.
  • MyBurningEarsMyBurningEars Posts: 3,651
    edited February 2015

    The whole qualified teacher thing is a sop to the teaching unions. I'd rather trust heads to employ whosoever they think best.

    That poll was commissioned by the NUT, and the 89% figure comes from Q1 which is the laughably simplistic:

    Q.1 Please rank in order of preference who you would prefer your child to be taught by?

    Teaching assistant
    University graduate who is a fully qualified teacher
    University graduate who is not a qualified teacher
    Other person who is not a qualified teacher

    That's obviously a voodoo poll, but I fail to understand why the (Goveist streak in the) current government has been so vocally in favour of allowing "unqualified teachers", when at the same time they (a) sought to make Qualified Teacher Status harder to acquire by making the QTS numeracy and literacy tests more stringent and raising the minimum degree grade for entry; (b) encouraged school-based training providers; (c) have talked up the idea of making teaching a higher status profession. Perhaps they just enjoy ticking off The Blob.

    The obvious solution is simply to allow unqualified teachers to teach, but make it compulsory for them to qualify while they work. Note that "unqualified" does not mean "untrained" - they still do initial and then regular ongoing training as a part of their employment. What's not happening is for them to validate that training into a formal "qualified" status. This would mostly be an exercise in paperwork.

    For comparison, it's quite common in Further Education for graduates to start work without any prior teacher-training but their job offer is subject to them having to complete a teaching qualification within a certain timescale, and the training for that is usually provided in-house by the FE college. Since school clusters are also often training providers, I'm not sure why a similar system couldn't be extended to the school system. The whole row seems very unnecessary.
  • Stephen Fisher reports today that it's been Labour 33%, Tories 32% for the last FIVE successive weeks.
    The small changes in his GE2015 seats projction (compared with last week) are:

    Con ....... 282 (unchanged)
    Lab ....... 279 (-1 seat)
    LibDem ... 23 (-1seat)
    Others .... 66 (+2 seats)

    Total ..... 650
  • To get to an overall majority from their current position, Labour need to claw back the roughly 25 seat losses that they're staring at in Scotland (being charitable) AND improve their current position in England & Wales against the Tories by roughly 25 seats. Or improve their current position in England & Wales against the Tories by roughly 50 seats. The second looks more plausible than the first, because it only involves outperformance on one variable rather than two. But neither look at all likely.

    Putting the two together, I'd make that about a 10/1 shot.

    For the Conservatives to get an overall majority from their current position, they need not to lose any seats to Labour AND win a further 10 seats from the Lib Dems than they currently look likely to do. Or also win 10 seats from Labour. Neither of these look particularly likely and again, putting the two together, I'd make that about a 10/1 shot.

    As things stand right now, Labour are closer to the prize, but the Conservatives have more plausible routes to victory down their longer path. But both look fairly remote prospects to me.
  • FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801
    BenM said:

    Why can't the Tories break through in the polls?

    The problems of the execrable Tony Abbott down under provide part of the answer.

    Rightwing governments aren't at all popular. That's why I don't expect a swingback here.

    The Aussie economy is in big trouble, hence so are the ruling party and Abbott. Changing leaders won't help.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,538

    Roger said:

    DavidL

    In answer to your question 'why are people saying they'll vote for such a crap Labour Party.........'

    It's pretty obvious that 65% of the country come Hell or high water will never vote Tory. I'm one of them. It's partly historic it's partly a view that being 'Tory' equals a meanness of spirit (One that's evident even on this thread in the 'Nick Palmer posts'.)

    This Labour Party with their current leadership are as bad as anything I can remember which can normally be answered by voting Lib Dem. But that's now no longer an option. After some baffling decisions by Clegg and Alexander they are now de facto Tories.

    Greenz Meanz a wasted walk to the polling station and anyway they shouldn't be encouraged.....

    Which means with a very heavy heart it'll HAVE to be Labour

    ~40% of the English voted Conservative at the last election, that's with all the strategic ineptitude of the Conservative campaign. I grant you it is different in Scotland and Wales.

    There is a strong market for centre-right politics, particularly in England where it should be able to routinely capture 45% of the vote. Like in other English-speaking countries.

    However, the Conservative Party is a broken brand. Modernisers think that's down to policy and visual diversity. I think it's down to its political culture: the sheer arrogance and condescending nature of the party itself, which gives every impression it has a sense of self-entitlement to the votes of the electorate, and is born to rule.
    Between them, Conservatives and UKIP routinely poll 50% in England. That's potentially a big centre right constituency.
  • hucks67hucks67 Posts: 758
    Mike, does like to throw occasional crumbs of comfort to PBTories, just to keep them happy. In reality, Labour have not moved much and the Tories have bounced back a bit from a rough patch.

    This is not very good for the Tories given the attacks by media and others on Miliband/Labour. There has been no real effect on Labours polling and people are not looking at the Tories to deliver a fair deal in the next 5 years. I think most people know that tax rises and spending cuts will happen, whoever wins the election. The difference is that the Tories will increase VAT which will affect everyone and they will apply spending cuts which mostly affect people of working age. As for Labour, the problem with them, is that they have no clear message, as to what their position is on many issues. If Miliband is responsible for heading up Labours election strategy, he is failing.

    Will the Lib Dems bounce back, as Nick Clegg and colleagues start to pretend that they are now liberals again, after being held hostage in Downing Street ? I am not sure polling reflects their true voting levels, particularly where they are in competition for winning/holding a seat. But it is going to be difficult for Clegg to convince people that he is happy to go into coalition with both Labour and Tories.

    And what about UKIP ? They seem to have gone quiet recently. Perhaps this is so they are not asked questions until they have their policies in place.
  • Financier said:

    BenM said:

    Missed the Tristram Hunt Nun thing on QT but reading here and on the web I can assure all the PB Tories, rightwing press and the epically clueless Paul Staines that as a parent I'm 100% with Hunt on that one.

    And I'm sure I'm in the vast vast majority there.

    No you are not. In the area where I live all schools have Qualified Teachers, but few of them are good communicators and even fewer are excellent at their subject - so that must be why truancy officers have to be employed and the level of education is so mediocre.
    In Ben's world view he is nearly always in the vast vast majority.

    ComRes opinion poll of 2,003 adults between 13 and 15 April clearly indicates that the British public values professional teaching qualifications. The Education Secretary has a massive job to do if he is to persuade the public that allowing his flagship Free Schools to employ unqualified teachers is the right move.

    An overwhelming 89% of adults surveyed would prefer their child to be taught by a university graduate who is a qualified teacher. Only 2% believe a university graduate who is not a fully qualified teacher, and a mere 1% believe a person who is not a qualified teacher should be teaching students.

    Again an overwhelming 86% believe that any school receiving public funding should only employ qualified teachers to teach pupils.
    BenM in majority

    Tissue Price part of the 1%?
    You've misrepresented the findings of the poll, which was ranking in order of preference, not a Yes/No to each question. And and no point did the NUT offer any question along the lines of "whoever the head thinks best". Can't imagine why.
    So 89% in order of preference prefer University graduate who is a fully qualified teacher like BenM and 2% would prefer in order of preference a University graduate who is not a fully qualified teacher 1% would prefer in order of preference Other person who is not a qualified teacher.

    You are wrong that BenMs view is the majority admit it
    This is a chimera. The NUT is trying to position the question as one of whether you want competent or incompetent people becoming teachers, to which there is only one answer.

    However, we are all taught very important skills and lessons in life by very competent and inspirational people who do not have a PGCE certificate that they attended a one-year university course. They still make exceptional and excellent teachers. A head can judge that.

    This is quite clearly producer capture by the NUT, which is trying to defend its influence and dominance over the profession.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,630
    Sean_F said:

    Roger said:

    DavidL

    In answer to your question 'why are people saying they'll vote for such a crap Labour Party.........'

    It's pretty obvious that 65% of the country come Hell or high water will never vote Tory. I'm one of them. It's partly historic it's partly a view that being 'Tory' equals a meanness of spirit (One that's evident even on this thread in the 'Nick Palmer posts'.)

    This Labour Party with their current leadership are as bad as anything I can remember which can normally be answered by voting Lib Dem. But that's now no longer an option. After some baffling decisions by Clegg and Alexander they are now de facto Tories.

    Greenz Meanz a wasted walk to the polling station and anyway they shouldn't be encouraged.....

    Which means with a very heavy heart it'll HAVE to be Labour

    ~40% of the English voted Conservative at the last election, that's with all the strategic ineptitude of the Conservative campaign. I grant you it is different in Scotland and Wales.

    There is a strong market for centre-right politics, particularly in England where it should be able to routinely capture 45% of the vote. Like in other English-speaking countries.

    However, the Conservative Party is a broken brand. Modernisers think that's down to policy and visual diversity. I think it's down to its political culture: the sheer arrogance and condescending nature of the party itself, which gives every impression it has a sense of self-entitlement to the votes of the electorate, and is born to rule.
    Between them, Conservatives and UKIP routinely poll 50% in England. That's potentially a big centre right constituency.
    The issue remains that the right used to be a single constituency. It's not any more.

    It splits between social conservatives (Paul_Mid_Beds, Ninoiz, for example) and social libertarians (Richard_Tyndall, for example).

    It splits between internationalists and nationalists.

    Really, it has become split between town and country. Town - and in particular London - is increasingly socially libertarian and internationalist.

    And I don't think that is a rift that is easily healed.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,326
    TOPPING said:

    I am no supporter of NPXMP but as usual the Daily Heil playing the man/woman , not the ball. They were the rules and if they were entitled to it, so be it. Its the rules that are wrong..

    The very crux of the expenses scandal was that MPs were following the "rules". That is why I have some sympathy for them. For the vast majority of expenses, MPs checked first and, it seems, were told all was ok.

    Didn't stop the scandal erupting, though, via the court of public opinion.
    Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. MPs failed to apply any judgment to their use of public i.e. our money. They deserved all the criticism they got.

    TGOHF said:

    I'm surprised that the PB Tories are desperate to paint a perfectly human reaction by the Shedsec to the insanity of having children brainwashed in superstition by age five as a disaster for Labour.

    Actually I lie. I'm not surprised at all. Hope all are well!

    Perhaps Labour should propose banning apartheid style Catholic schools in Scotland then ?

    Should be a real vote winner..
    Yes they should. And protestant schools too. Faith schools is a bonkers idea and someone needs to have a crack at it.
    Try getting that past the ECHR. The Catholic schools I and my siblings were educated in had ca. 50% non-Catholics in them. Far from being segregated I learnt far more about Judaism and Protestantism and Sikhism than I could ever have imagined. And when I went to senior - a non-denominational school - I was a year ahead, so good was the education. The faith schools we need to worry about are the Islamic schools where distinctly un-Western values are being taught and there is real and damaging segregation, as the Trojan Horse affair has shown us.


  • Scott_P said:

    @PickardJE: Betfair gambling exchange says odds of Labour majority have lengthened dramatically from 7:4 to 17:1 since September. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7c362376-ad48-11e4-bfcf-00144feab7de.html?siteedition=uk#axzz3QuF5OOEg

    Probably fair. Sadly, I have a bet on a Lab majority, taken a couple of years ago. Think that's gone.
    Fraid so, Rotten. 17/1 looks about right. The Tory equivalent is too short. Should be around 12/1 - ergo NOM remains (boringly) the value.

    I see we have had - according to the Wiki Voting Intention page - exactly 50 polls this year. The scores on the doors are - Labour 30, Ties 12, Tories 8. Biggest leads are 7 for Labour (TNS) and 6 for Tories (LA). On Betfair's Most Seats market Labour are 2.46.

    Hmmmmm.....excuse me while I go top up.
    How much can I have at 12/1? Or even 11/1, to give you some margin?
    You can go whistle!

    Much as I adore you, TP, why would I lay you 12/1 when Betfair shows fives? Off with you, naughty boy.
    9/1 then? I honestly think the Betfair prices are about right at present. There's too much focus on current polling on here and not enough on "fundamentals" - not to mention the fact that Labour are imho acting like a party expecting to lose.

    That doesn't mean EM can't win, of course, and he has a lower bar to reach than DC to become PM (the mismatch in that market is truly weird).
    NO!! Now stop pestering me. It's bad enough having to beat off the attentions of JackW without you too.

    {Seriously, why would anybody lay at 9s when 5s is readily available?}
    You never know, Peter, some folks get a sense of bravado on an internet forum. But I understand that you have other outlets for flamboyant gestures.

    Most seriously, stop backing Lab Most Seats and start backing Ed instead. A safer bet at a bigger price; go figure.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,348

    malcolmg said:

    Sean_F said:

    TGOHF said:

    I'm surprised that the PB Tories are desperate to paint a perfectly human reaction by the Shedsec to the insanity of having children brainwashed in superstition by age five as a disaster for Labour.

    Actually I lie. I'm not surprised at all. Hope all are well!

    Perhaps Labour should propose banning apartheid style Catholic schools in Scotland then ?

    Should be a real vote winner..
    Yes they should. And protestant schools too. Faith schools is a bonkers idea and someone needs to have a crack at it.
    Pity the previous Labour government did so much to expand it......

    Of course, if the State provided a superior eduction I suspect many would fade away....until then.....
    One of Blair's worst flaws was his pandering to organised religion. If adults grow up and decide to be religious, fine, it's their choice. Don't brainwash kids from age five when their minds are like sponges and they believe what grown-ups in positions of authority tell them.
    The State does not own children. Parents should be free to bring up children according to their own values.
    Absolutely correct but the state should not have to pay for it though. Must be huge waste in Scotland where you have two half empty schools side by side rather than one state school.
    One solution has been to design the new schools side by side almost as one, so they could very easilu be integrated fully. Some people were not happy to put it mildly.

  • hucks67hucks67 Posts: 758

    Stephen Fisher reports today that it's been Labour 33%, Tories 32% for the last FIVE successive weeks.
    The small changes in his GE2015 seats projction (compared with last week) are:

    Con ....... 282 (unchanged)
    Lab ....... 279 (-1 seat)
    LibDem ... 23 (-1seat)
    Others .... 66 (+2 seats)

    Total ..... 650

    Given what the margins will be in some seats, these guessed results are pretty meaningless.

    It really depends in who is motivated enough on the day to vote. 92 days to go to the election and a budget.
  • Scott_P said:

    @PickardJE: Betfair gambling exchange says odds of Labour majority have lengthened dramatically from 7:4 to 17:1 since September. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7c362376-ad48-11e4-bfcf-00144feab7de.html?siteedition=uk#axzz3QuF5OOEg

    Probably fair. Sadly, I have a bet on a Lab majority, taken a couple of years ago. Think that's gone.
    Fraid so, Rotten. 17/1 looks about right. The Tory equivalent is too short. Should be around 12/1 - ergo NOM remains (boringly) the value.

    I see we have had - according to the Wiki Voting Intention page - exactly 50 polls this year. The scores on the doors are - Labour 30, Ties 12, Tories 8. Biggest leads are 7 for Labour (TNS) and 6 for Tories (LA). On Betfair's Most Seats market Labour are 2.46.

    Hmmmmm.....excuse me while I go top up.
    How much can I have at 12/1? Or even 11/1, to give you some margin?
    You can go whistle!

    Much as I adore you, TP, why would I lay you 12/1 when Betfair shows fives? Off with you, naughty boy.
    9/1 then? I honestly think the Betfair prices are about right at present. There's too much focus on current polling on here and not enough on "fundamentals" - not to mention the fact that Labour are imho acting like a party expecting to lose.

    That doesn't mean EM can't win, of course, and he has a lower bar to reach than DC to become PM (the mismatch in that market is truly weird).
    NO!! Now stop pestering me. It's bad enough having to beat off the attentions of JackW without you too.

    {Seriously, why would anybody lay at 9s when 5s is readily available?}
    You never know, Peter, some folks get a sense of bravado on an internet forum. But I understand that you have other outlets for flamboyant gestures.

    Most seriously, stop backing Lab Most Seats and start backing Ed instead. A safer bet at a bigger price; go figure.
    Why do you think it is safer?
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    edited February 2015
    Carnyx said:




    malcolmg said:

    Sean_F said:

    TGOHF said:

    I'm surprised that the PB Tories are desperate to paint a perfectly human reaction by the Shedsec to the insanity of having children brainwashed in superstition by age five as a disaster for Labour.

    Actually I lie. I'm not surprised at all. Hope all are well!

    Perhaps Labour should propose banning apartheid style Catholic schools in Scotland then ?

    Should be a real vote winner..
    Yes they should. And protestant schools too. Faith schools is a bonkers idea and someone needs to have a crack at it.
    Pity the previous Labour government did so much to expand it......

    Of course, if the State provided a superior eduction I suspect many would fade away....until then.....
    One of Blair's worst flaws was his pandering to organised religion. If adults grow up and decide to be religious, fine, it's their choice. Don't brainwash kids from age five when their minds are like sponges and they believe what grown-ups in positions of authority tell them.
    The State does not own children. Parents should be free to bring up children according to their own values.
    Absolutely correct but the state should not have to pay for it though. Must be huge waste in Scotland where you have two half empty schools side by side rather than one state school.
    One solution has been to design the new schools side by side almost as one, so they could very easilu be integrated fully. Some people were not happy to put it mildly.

    Yes bigots weren't happy - and we have seen what indulging them has achieved elsewhere this week.

    Why are there no faith Universities ? I'm sure teenagers would queue up to pay £9k a year to study say the history of evolution under Romanist thinking - you would have a degree in 7 days...
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    Bangs head and smiles at TP inability to admit he is wrong

    So 89% preferring a University graduate who is a fully qualified teacher is not a majority.

    Are some Tory PBers expecting to get paid out on a Tory majority if they only get 1% compared to Lab 89%.

    Thought not lol
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    MODERATORS

    May I suggest the comment by @MikeK @ 9:55am be deleted lest OGH faces topping up Peter Tatchell's pension fund.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,928
    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    Roger said:

    DavidL

    In answer to your question 'why are people saying they'll vote for such a crap Labour Party.........'

    It's pretty obvious that 65% of the country come Hell or high water will never vote Tory. I'm one of them. It's partly historic it's partly a view that being 'Tory' equals a meanness of spirit (One that's evident even on this thread in the 'Nick Palmer posts'.)

    This Labour Party with their current leadership are as bad as anything I can remember which can normally be answered by voting Lib Dem. But that's now no longer an option. After some baffling decisions by Clegg and Alexander they are now de facto Tories.

    Greenz Meanz a wasted walk to the polling station and anyway they shouldn't be encouraged.....

    Which means with a very heavy heart it'll HAVE to be Labour

    ~40% of the English voted Conservative at the last election, that's with all the strategic ineptitude of the Conservative campaign. I grant you it is different in Scotland and Wales.

    There is a strong market for centre-right politics, particularly in England where it should be able to routinely capture 45% of the vote. Like in other English-speaking countries.

    However, the Conservative Party is a broken brand. Modernisers think that's down to policy and visual diversity. I think it's down to its political culture: the sheer arrogance and condescending nature of the party itself, which gives every impression it has a sense of self-entitlement to the votes of the electorate, and is born to rule.
    Between them, Conservatives and UKIP routinely poll 50% in England. That's potentially a big centre right constituency.
    The issue remains that the right used to be a single constituency. It's not any more.

    It splits between social conservatives (Paul_Mid_Beds, Ninoiz, for example) and social libertarians (Richard_Tyndall, for example).

    It splits between internationalists and nationalists.

    Really, it has become split between town and country. Town - and in particular London - is increasingly socially libertarian and internationalist.

    And I don't think that is a rift that is easily healed.
    It all comes back to what exactly do we mean by right and left? A Yougov poll recently had the public saying by 61/38 that they'd like more government rather than less. Doesn't prove very much by itself but I think those who believe that what people really want is another Thatcher, backed up by the usual tone of the national press, are deluded. Ed Miliband is constantly accused of following a core vote strategy. Personally I think he's trying, perhaps not too successfully, to appeal to Green, SNP and even some Ukip voters.
  • Bangs head and smiles at TP inability to admit he is wrong

    So 89% preferring a University graduate who is a fully qualified teacher is not a majority.

    Are some Tory PBers expecting to get paid out on a Tory majority if they only get 1% compared to Lab 89%.

    Thought not lol

    Keep banging that head. The poll is leading and thus misleading. I would accept that the unions have done a good job on the public though; clearly the government are wary of taking them on head-first.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,706
    edited February 2015
    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    Roger said:

    DavidL

    In answer to your question 'why are people saying they'll vote for such a crap Labour Party.........'

    It's pretty obvious that 65% of the country come Hell or high water will never vote Tory. I'm one of them. It's partly historic it's partly a view that being 'Tory' equals a meanness of spirit (One that's evident even on this thread in the 'Nick Palmer posts'.)

    This Labour Party with their current leadership are as bad as anything I can remember which can normally be answered by voting Lib Dem.

    Greenz Meanz a wasted walk to the polling station and anyway they shouldn't be encouraged.....

    Which means with a very heavy heart it'll HAVE to be Labour

    ~40% of the English voted Conservative at the last election, that's with all the strategic ineptitude of the Conservative campaign. I grant you it is different in Scotland and Wales.

    There is a strong market for centre-right politics, particularly in England where it should be able to routinely capture 45% of the vote. Like in other English-speaking countries.

    However, the Conservative Party is a broken brand. Modernisers think that's down to policy and visual diversity. I think it's down to its political culture: the sheer arrogance and condescending nature of the party itself, which gives every impression it has a sense of self-entitlement to the votes of the electorate, and is born to rule.
    Between them, Conservatives and UKIP routinely poll 50% in England. That's potentially a big centre right constituency.
    The issue remains that the right used to be a single constituency. It's not any more.

    It splits between social conservatives (Paul_Mid_Beds, Ninoiz, for example) and social libertarians (Richard_Tyndall, for example).

    It splits between internationalists and nationalists.

    Really, it has become split between town and country. Town - and in particular London - is increasingly socially libertarian and internationalist.

    And I don't think that is a rift that is easily healed.
    But it's become split because people are unconvinced by the Conservatives.

    Honestly, this split is no more complex than in Canada, the U.S., Australia and New Zealand. There the mainstream centre-right party manages to keep most of its natural supporters on board.

    The issue is that London dominates all our politics, despite being only 12-14% of our population. In a way that Sydney/Camberra/Melbourne, Toronto/Ottawa/Vancouver, Auckland/Wellington and LA/New York/Washington do not, which amplifies the detachment.

    Second, as members of the EU, we are not a fully independent country and can not control all sorts of policy, from agriculture to fisheries to local taxation to immigration to market regulation to basic rights in the justice system.
  • antifrank said:

    Scott_P said:

    @PickardJE: Betfair gambling exchange says odds of Labour majority have lengthened dramatically from 7:4 to 17:1 since September. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7c362376-ad48-11e4-bfcf-00144feab7de.html?siteedition=uk#axzz3QuF5OOEg

    Probably fair. Sadly, I have a bet on a Lab majority, taken a couple of years ago. Think that's gone.
    Fraid so, Rotten. 17/1 looks about right. The Tory equivalent is too short. Should be around 12/1 - ergo NOM remains (boringly) the value.

    I see we have had - according to the Wiki Voting Intention page - exactly 50 polls this year. The scores on the doors are - Labour 30, Ties 12, Tories 8. Biggest leads are 7 for Labour (TNS) and 6 for Tories (LA). On Betfair's Most Seats market Labour are 2.46.

    Hmmmmm.....excuse me while I go top up.
    How much can I have at 12/1? Or even 11/1, to give you some margin?
    You can go whistle!

    Much as I adore you, TP, why would I lay you 12/1 when Betfair shows fives? Off with you, naughty boy.
    9/1 then? I honestly think the Betfair prices are about right at present. There's too much focus on current polling on here and not enough on "fundamentals" - not to mention the fact that Labour are imho acting like a party expecting to lose.

    That doesn't mean EM can't win, of course, and he has a lower bar to reach than DC to become PM (the mismatch in that market is truly weird).
    NO!! Now stop pestering me. It's bad enough having to beat off the attentions of JackW without you too.

    {Seriously, why would anybody lay at 9s when 5s is readily available?}
    You never know, Peter, some folks get a sense of bravado on an internet forum. But I understand that you have other outlets for flamboyant gestures.

    Most seriously, stop backing Lab Most Seats and start backing Ed instead. A safer bet at a bigger price; go figure.
    Why do you think it is safer?
    Because I think Ed probably becomes PM if he gets within about 10-15 seats of the Tories. Obviously there are interesting defenestration scenarios to consider but I think the GBP will be expecting one of DC/EM to become Prime Minister and other politicians will be wary of being too creative.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,348
    edited February 2015
    malcolmg said:

    TGOHF said:

    I'm surprised that the PB Tories are desperate to paint a perfectly human reaction by the Shedsec to the insanity of having children brainwashed in superstition by age five as a disaster for Labour.

    Actually I lie. I'm not surprised at all. Hope all are well!

    Perhaps Labour should propose banning apartheid style Catholic schools in Scotland then ?

    Should be a real vote winner..
    Yes they should. And protestant schools too. Faith schools is a bonkers idea and someone needs to have a crack at it.
    Bob, they do not have protestant schools. They have everyday public authority schools.

    PS: re catholic schools , whilst I don't like religion in public funded schools at all , given they tend to get good results it is unlikely they will disappear.
    Malky, 99% right [edit] on not having protestant schools - but on a point of PB detail, to the 366 RC schools it seems one has to add one Jewish school and 3 Episcopalian [i.e. Anglican church when it's disestablished, as it is in Scotland]. [Edit: And to be fair, I am not sure if protestant is technically applicable to the Anglican Church.]

    http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Education/Schools/FAQs

    It reduces but hardly eliminates the potential argument that if RCs get their sectarian education funded by the state, why not, say, Jedi Knights or Wiccans? It would make more sense to have none at all (with an exception for Anglicans in England - they are after all the operators of that particular theocracy).
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736

    Scott_P said:

    @PickardJE: Betfair gambling exchange says odds of Labour majority have lengthened dramatically from 7:4 to 17:1 since September. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7c362376-ad48-11e4-bfcf-00144feab7de.html?siteedition=uk#axzz3QuF5OOEg

    Probably fair. Sadly, I have a bet on a Lab majority, taken a couple of years ago. Think that's gone.
    Fraid so, Rotten. 17/1 looks about right. The Tory equivalent is too short. Should be around 12/1 - ergo NOM remains (boringly) the value.

    I see we have had - according to the Wiki Voting Intention page - exactly 50 polls this year. The scores on the doors are - Labour 30, Ties 12, Tories 8. Biggest leads are 7 for Labour (TNS) and 6 for Tories (LA). On Betfair's Most Seats market Labour are 2.46.

    Hmmmmm.....excuse me while I go top up.
    How much can I have at 12/1? Or even 11/1, to give you some margin?
    You can go whistle!

    Much as I adore you, TP, why would I lay you 12/1 when Betfair shows fives? Off with you, naughty boy.
    9/1 then? I honestly think the Betfair prices are about right at present. There's too much focus on current polling on here and not enough on "fundamentals" - not to mention the fact that Labour are imho acting like a party expecting to lose.

    That doesn't mean EM can't win, of course, and he has a lower bar to reach than DC to become PM (the mismatch in that market is truly weird).
    NO!! Now stop pestering me. It's bad enough having to beat off the attentions of JackW without you too.

    {Seriously, why would anybody lay at 9s when 5s is readily available?}
    You never know, Peter, some folks get a sense of bravado on an internet forum. But I understand that you have other outlets for flamboyant gestures.

    Most seriously, stop backing Lab Most Seats and start backing Ed instead. A safer bet at a bigger price; go figure.
    LAB most seats 2.44
    Ed PM 2.3

    Bigger as in 89% not a maj way!!!
  • antifrank said:

    Scott_P said:

    @PickardJE: Betfair gambling exchange says odds of Labour majority have lengthened dramatically from 7:4 to 17:1 since September. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7c362376-ad48-11e4-bfcf-00144feab7de.html?siteedition=uk#axzz3QuF5OOEg

    Probably fair. Sadly, I have a bet on a Lab majority, taken a couple of years ago. Think that's gone.
    Fraid so, Rotten. 17/1 looks about right. The Tory equivalent is too short. Should be around 12/1 - ergo NOM remains (boringly) the value.

    I see we have had - according to the Wiki Voting Intention page - exactly 50 polls this year. The scores on the doors are - Labour 30, Ties 12, Tories 8. Biggest leads are 7 for Labour (TNS) and 6 for Tories (LA). On Betfair's Most Seats market Labour are 2.46.

    Hmmmmm.....excuse me while I go top up.
    How much can I have at 12/1? Or even 11/1, to give you some margin?
    You can go whistle!

    Much as I adore you, TP, why would I lay you 12/1 when Betfair shows fives? Off with you, naughty boy.
    9/1 then? I honestly think the Betfair prices are about right at present. There's too much focus on current polling on here and not enough on "fundamentals" - not to mention the fact that Labour are imho acting like a party expecting to lose.

    That doesn't mean EM can't win, of course, and he has a lower bar to reach than DC to become PM (the mismatch in that market is truly weird).
    NO!! Now stop pestering me. It's bad enough having to beat off the attentions of JackW without you too.

    {Seriously, why would anybody lay at 9s when 5s is readily available?}
    You never know, Peter, some folks get a sense of bravado on an internet forum. But I understand that you have other outlets for flamboyant gestures.

    Most seriously, stop backing Lab Most Seats and start backing Ed instead. A safer bet at a bigger price; go figure.
    Why do you think it is safer?
    Because I think Ed probably becomes PM if he gets within about 10-15 seats of the Tories. Obviously there are interesting defenestration scenarios to consider but I think the GBP will be expecting one of DC/EM to become Prime Minister and other politicians will be wary of being too creative.
    Where I do agree with you is that the Conservatives most seats and David Cameron Prime Minister after the election should not both be 1.7. Clearly the former is more likely than the latter.
  • peter_from_putneypeter_from_putney Posts: 6,956
    edited February 2015
    Interestingly, although Prof Fisher makes the Tories very narrow favourites to win the most seats, he is very much more bullish about Rd Miliband's chances of becoming PM which he calculates as being 56% (or odds on), compared with David Cameron's 19% chance, equivalent to being just over a 4/1 shot.
    Please don't knock me over in the rush to take PP's 11/8 (2.375 decimal) against Ed (maximum stake £22), which equates to a Betfair price of 2.45 before their 5% commission (currently they go 2.30).
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Carnyx said:

    malcolmg said:

    TGOHF said:

    I'm surprised that the PB Tories are desperate to paint a perfectly human reaction by the Shedsec to the insanity of having children brainwashed in superstition by age five as a disaster for Labour.

    Actually I lie. I'm not surprised at all. Hope all are well!

    Perhaps Labour should propose banning apartheid style Catholic schools in Scotland then ?

    Should be a real vote winner..
    Yes they should. And protestant schools too. Faith schools is a bonkers idea and someone needs to have a crack at it.
    Bob, they do not have protestant schools. They have everyday public authority schools.

    PS: re catholic schools , whilst I don't like religion in public funded schools at all , given they tend to get good results it is unlikely they will disappear.
    Malky, 99% right - but on a point of PB detail, to the 366 RC schools it seems one has to add one Jewish school and 3 Episcopalian [i.e. Anglican church when it's disestablished, as it is in Scotland].

    http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Education/Schools/FAQs

    It reduces but hardly eliminates the potential argument that if RCs get their sectarian education funded by the state, why not, say, Jedi Knights or Wiccans? It would make more sense to have none at all (with an exception for Anglicans in England - they are after all the operators of that particular theocracy).
    indeed - the RC church is hardly short of cash. Cut off the taxpayer funding and see if they survive.

    I seem to remember a voucher system was proposed by somebody - but howled down..
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    Interestingly, although Prof Fisher makes the Tories very narrow favourites to win the most seats, he is very much more bullish about Rd Miliband's chances of becoming PM which he calculates as being 56% (or odds on), compared with David Cameron's 19% chance, equivalent to being just over a 4/1 shot.
    Please don't knock me over in the rush to take PP's 11/8 (2.375 decimal) against Ed (maximum stake £22), which equates to a Betfair price of 2.45 before their 5% commission (currently they go 2.30).

    I'm happy to lay 3/1 it will be someone else as next PM off those numbers
This discussion has been closed.