UKIP need to somehow get back on the news agenda, been all about Ed bashing the rich recently.
I read (Spectator I think) that UKIP were letting the two major parties rip into each other and deliberately taking a back seat for a while.. maybe they thought the squabbling over miniscule differences would play badly w the public.. doesn't seem to be a successful strategy so far, but a long way to go
UKIP poll numbers increased during election season in May 2013, and May 2014. Why should 2015 be different?
Because this election matters.
The fact that the Euros don't matter proves that Ukip are right to want to leave the EU.
Mr. Pulpstar, that *may* have the same impact, especially if Miliband is reliant on the SNP for English [and Welsh] legislation, or if he ignores English devolution, or, worse, ****s it up with party political gerrymandering so England is carved into shitty little fiefdoms.
Mr. Dave, heard of Vikings, but never watched it. Only seen a tiny bit of Sharpe, though I've read many of the books.
Game of Thrones, as you say, looks rather good.
Anglo-Saxon/Viking battles were on a far smaller scale than the Napoleonic era, though, and the cost of CGI comes down continually, so it could be done well.
Any prospect of a labour-snp coalition during the heat of the campaign in April will cause chaos in England with a sharp move to back the conservatives to prevent a constitutional crisis. I understand some English labour MPs are threatening to sit on the opposition benches if Ed Miliband goes anywhere near this proposition realising the anger that could befall them from their constituants
It won't be a coalition, I heard this on "Any Questions", it'll be a bill by bill arrangement.
Any prospect of the snp voting on English matters will be toxic
The polls do seem to be getting a bit worse for UKIP.. but the strange thing is the constituency betting has become more favourable, with Rochester and Castle Point going odds on since Wednesday.. I think that's six seats that UKIP are odds on in now (Thurrock, Clacton, Castle Point, Rochester, Boston and Thanet South, although you can still get 11/10 Rochester, and no one has UKIP favs there)
Shadsy also has over 5.5 seats favourite now.. I think 17/10 over 6.5 looks a value bet.. but it is with Unibet I think so maybe difficult to get on
We know that the ComRes changed their methodology regarding the weighting for UKIP before their last poll, so we can expect some point loss from tis company.
From this weekend, I expect that UKIP share will now start a gradual rise.
Wrong, it was opinium not ComRes
Yes I realise that and I was wrong and apologise. However, from ComRes's own data UKIP fell only one point, not two, from their last poll, back in January.
Trident: One good thing that could come out of SNP holding the balance of power will be to put into touch for another 5 years any decision on Trident. After all, that is what the Lib Dems did in 2010.
The SNP position is on Trident, not nuclear weapons ! Britain is still adequately protected by nuclear weapons, if we need them at all.
Oops, I forgot we are a world power with 6 aircrafts bombing the hell out of IS in Iraq ! And, 2 aircraft carriers with aircrafts on them. The Harriers having been sold for scrap metal.
The plural of aircraft is aircraft
Absolutely correct, you sad Tory ! In fact, I meant to say, "2 aircraft carriers with NO aircraft on them."
Thanks for pointing it out, Gunslinger !
"2 aircraft with No aircraft on them". Thanks to Gordon Brown for letting contracts to build stuff whereby it is cheaper to build them than to cancel them. It's called "pork barrel" for the constituents.
That, and a gaggle of Admirals, who thought as they signed the order, that they could plead for escort ships later, and it would be agreed to without question. Dimwits. Brown ran rings round them.
Your point and that Perdex is perfectly valid. The timetabling of orders for carriers and aircraft is all down to Brown and Labour; and Brown and Labour sold the Sea Harriers in 2006 I think. Labour are also entirely responsible for ordering 66,000 tonne carriers which cannot fly conventional planes. The carriers were delayed and became more expensive because the defence budget was in a total and typical Labour mess.
As far as ISIS is concerned we are more than adequately fulfilling our international treaty obligations and supporting our ally and are preventing genocide. A10 Warthogs BTW - relatively old technology - seem to be doing most damage by the USA.
What about the Harriers this government scrapped ?
They were ground attack planes GR7's and not Sea Harriers (ie 'fighters', area defence) which Labour scrapped in 2006. Sadly since Labour cocked up the defence budget and also left the RAF with the commitment to Iraq and Afghanistan the choice was with the better ground attack planes which were Tornadoes.
UKIP need to somehow get back on the news agenda, been all about Ed bashing the rich recently.
I read (Spectator I think) that UKIP were letting the two major parties rip into each other and deliberately taking a back seat for a while.. maybe they thought the squabbling over miniscule differences would play badly w the public.. doesn't seem to be a successful strategy so far, but a long way to go
UKIP poll numbers increased during election season in May 2013, and May 2014. Why should 2015 be different?
Because this election matters.
The fact that the Euros don't matter proves that Ukip are right to want to leave the EU.
Across the EU voter turnout for the EU elections has been on the decline for many years now.
The polls do seem to be getting a bit worse for UKIP.. but the strange thing is the constituency betting has become more favourable, with Rochester and Castle Point going odds on since Wednesday.. I think that's six seats that UKIP are odds on in now (Thurrock, Clacton, Castle Point, Rochester, Boston and Thanet South, although you can still get 11/10 Rochester, and no one has UKIP favs there)
Shadsy also has over 5.5 seats favourite now.. I think 17/10 over 6.5 looks a value bet.. but it is with Unibet I think so maybe difficult to get on
We know that the ComRes changed their methodology regarding the weighting for UKIP before their last poll, so we can expect some point loss from tis company.
From this weekend, I expect that UKIP share will now start a gradual rise.
Wrong, it was opinium not ComRes
Yes I realise that and I was wrong and apologise. However, from ComRes's own data UKIP fell only one point, not two, from their last poll, back in January.
Wrong again. You're comparing the January phone poll with the February online poll.
Mr Manson says Stefano Pessina is close to the Conservative Party. Can he justify this claim?
Henry also says that Ed is becoming "like tennis player Lleyton Hewitt at his prime" - but I doubt that he can justify his claim that Ed is delaying a much-needed a hip operation.
Mr. Dave, and Mr. K, you might be interested to know that the BBC has commissioned a series based on Bernard Cornwell's series about Anglo-Saxon England and the Vikings. If they have the attention to detail shown in Wolf Hall, it could be rather good. If they make it like Atlantis, it'll be atrocious.
The TV adaptions of Sharpe and Hornblower didn't really work very well. I think it's difficult to adapt these things on a budget. They call for an army of extras.
That said, Vikings works well. And the battle scenes in Game of Thrones I think use computers to generate a convincing army.
I do wish the media would show some sensitivity....they are interviewing a women who was in the meeting when the gun man attacked and had to hide in a store cupboard with armed guards....so what do they do, replay audio of the attack to her before asking for her comment on how she felt.
Mr Manson says Stefano Pessina is close to the Conservative Party. Can he justify this claim?
Henry also says that Ed is becoming "like tennis player Lleyton Hewitt at his prime" - but I doubt that he can justify his claim that Ed is delaying a much-needed a hip operation.
I'm probably PB's biggest fan of Ken Clarke, but he's wrong on this. Hell no to state funding of political parties
Ken Clarke says Tory party must shun wealthy donors to avoid scandal. ‘Put on tin hat and move to state funds,’ PM told as ex-chancellor raises pressure in wake of HSBC row
Hmm I sincerely hope none of the major bookies goes bust between now and May, totting up the amount I have in arbitrage....
Naughty boy!!
Whats so naughty about that ?
Some of it's not completly risk free, the Conservatives winning Rother Valley, Dunbartonshire East or UKIP getting the most seats/votes could screw up my betting
I'm probably PB's biggest fan of Ken Clarke, but he's wrong on this. Hell no to state funding of political parties
Ken Clarke says Tory party must shun wealthy donors to avoid scandal. ‘Put on tin hat and move to state funds,’ PM told as ex-chancellor raises pressure in wake of HSBC row
Trident: One good thing that could come out of SNP holding the balance of power will be to put into touch for another 5 years any decision on Trident. After all, that is what the Lib Dems did in 2010.
The SNP position is on Trident, not nuclear weapons ! Britain is still adequately protected by nuclear weapons, if we need them at all.
Oops, I forgot we are a world power with 6 aircrafts bombing the hell out of IS in Iraq ! And, 2 aircraft carriers with aircrafts on them. The Harriers having been sold for scrap metal.
The plural of aircraft is aircraft
Absolutely correct, you sad Tory ! In fact, I meant to say, "2 aircraft carriers with NO aircraft on them."
Thanks for pointing it out, Gunslinger !
"2 aircraft with No aircraft on them". Thanks to Gordon Brown for letting contracts to build stuff whereby it is cheaper to build them than to cancel them. It's called "pork barrel" for the constituents.
That, and a gaggle of Admirals, who thought as they signed the order, that they could plead for escort ships later, and it would be agreed to without question. Dimwits. Brown ran rings round them.
Your point and that Perdex is perfectly valid. The timetabling of orders for carriers and aircraft is all down to Brown and Labour; and Brown and Labour sold the Sea Harriers in 2006 I think. Labour are also entirely responsible for ordering 66,000 tonne carriers which cannot fly conventional planes. The carriers were delayed and became more expensive because the defence budget was in a total and typical Labour mess.
As far as ISIS is concerned we are more than adequately fulfilling our international treaty obligations and supporting our ally and are preventing genocide. A10 Warthogs BTW - relatively old technology - seem to be doing most damage by the USA.
What about the Harriers this government scrapped ?
They were ground attack planes GR7's and not Sea Harriers (ie 'fighters', area defence) which Labour scrapped in 2006. Sadly since Labour cocked up the defence budget and also left the RAF with the commitment to Iraq and Afghanistan the choice was with the better ground attack planes which were Tornadoes.
Sea Harriers still in service with the Indian Navy for at least a few years.
I'm probably PB's biggest fan of Ken Clarke, but he's wrong on this. Hell no to state funding of political parties
Ken Clarke says Tory party must shun wealthy donors to avoid scandal. ‘Put on tin hat and move to state funds,’ PM told as ex-chancellor raises pressure in wake of HSBC row
Is it 13/8 Great Grimsby? Rotherham 11/4, Rother Valley 6s Telford 8s?
The 11/8 UKIP to win a seat off labour w Lads is a great bet IMO
Thanks chaps!
I was asking with an eye on that 11/8 that Shadsy's got up..
It seems wrong off his own prices to me at first glance
I not a bettor, but I'm interested in the arithmetic here. Ignoring any overround, the implied probs of the 4 seats are 8/21, 4/15, 2/9 and 1/7. So the probs of UKIP not winning them are: 13/21, 11/15, 7/9 and 6/7. Multiplying these together gives the probability of UKIP not getting any of them = 286/945. Hence the prob that UKIP gets at least one of them is 659/945 =~ 0.7. On this reckoning, for consistency the odds should be 3:7. Tell if there's something wrong in my thinking.
Mr. Dave, and Mr. K, you might be interested to know that the BBC has commissioned a series based on Bernard Cornwell's series about Anglo-Saxon England and the Vikings. If they have the attention to detail shown in Wolf Hall, it could be rather good. If they make it like Atlantis, it'll be atrocious.
The TV adaptions of Sharpe and Hornblower didn't really work very well. I think it's difficult to adapt these things on a budget. They call for an army of extras.
That said, Vikings works well. And the battle scenes in Game of Thrones I think use computers to generate a convincing army.
What an extraordinary point of view. Hornblower and Sharpe (especially) are classic telly. Game of Thrones is pulp TV - lots of softcore porn and 'shocking' violence that I doubt will stand up half so well.
I'm probably PB's biggest fan of Ken Clarke, but he's wrong on this. Hell no to state funding of political parties
Ken Clarke says Tory party must shun wealthy donors to avoid scandal. ‘Put on tin hat and move to state funds,’ PM told as ex-chancellor raises pressure in wake of HSBC row
There is a box on the US 1040 personal income tax return form, asking if you would like to donate $2 to the presidential election fund. I did my taxes friday and did not check the box.
Any prospect of a labour-snp coalition during the heat of the campaign in April will cause chaos in England with a sharp move to back the conservatives to prevent a constitutional crisis. I understand some English labour MPs are threatening to sit on the opposition benches if Ed Miliband goes anywhere near this proposition realising the anger that could befall them from their constituants
This straw grasping is based on a complete misconception.
While there might be 50% animosity to SNP support of Labour, it's not 50% of Labour supporters. Or even many. The people who even consider this as an electoral issue are not going to be voting Labour under any circumstances.
I'm probably PB's biggest fan of Ken Clarke, but he's wrong on this. Hell no to state funding of political parties
Ken Clarke says Tory party must shun wealthy donors to avoid scandal. ‘Put on tin hat and move to state funds,’ PM told as ex-chancellor raises pressure in wake of HSBC row
There is a box on the US 1040 personal income tax return form, asking if you would like to donate $2 to the presidential election fund. I did my taxes friday and did not check the box.
Can non citizens do that? I wondered what would happen if I checked the box.
Hmm I sincerely hope none of the major bookies goes bust between now and May, totting up the amount I have in arbitrage....
Naughty boy!!
Whats so naughty about that ?
Some of it's not completly risk free, the Conservatives winning Rother Valley, Dunbartonshire East or UKIP getting the most seats/votes could screw up my betting
I'm probably PB's biggest fan of Ken Clarke, but he's wrong on this. Hell no to state funding of political parties
Ken Clarke says Tory party must shun wealthy donors to avoid scandal. ‘Put on tin hat and move to state funds,’ PM told as ex-chancellor raises pressure in wake of HSBC row
Miliband and tax on the BBC site: A mix of comments that are highest rated, far from a massive support for him. Blair's money and Ed's IHT come up of course.
The highest rated... "It's simple, close the loopholes and stop bitching about those who take advantage of them - they're not doing anything illegal, as the law currently stands. There is no moral high-ground here, either it's illegal or it isn't."
Is it 13/8 Great Grimsby? Rotherham 11/4, Rother Valley 6s Telford 8s?
The 11/8 UKIP to win a seat off labour w Lads is a great bet IMO
Thanks chaps!
I was asking with an eye on that 11/8 that Shadsy's got up..
It seems wrong off his own prices to me at first glance
I not a bettor, but I'm interested in the arithmetic here. Ignoring any overround, the implied probs of the 4 seats are 8/21, 4/15, 2/9 and 1/7. So the probs of UKIP not winning them are: 13/21, 11/15, 7/9 and 6/7. Multiplying these together gives the probability of UKIP not getting any of them = 286/945. Hence the prob that UKIP gets at least one of them is 659/945 =~ 0.7. On this reckoning, for consistency the odds should be 3:7. Tell if there's something wrong in my thinking.
Sorry , I am a bit lost, does 3:7 mean a 42% chance or a 70% chance?
I think the thinking is that if UKIP don't win Great Grimsby, then they should be bigger than 11/4 to win Rotherham, bigger than 7/2 to win Dudley North and so on as they are sort of related contingencies, although not entirely related as in a football bet "Ideye to score first WBA to win 4-0"
I'm probably PB's biggest fan of Ken Clarke, but he's wrong on this. Hell no to state funding of political parties
Ken Clarke says Tory party must shun wealthy donors to avoid scandal. ‘Put on tin hat and move to state funds,’ PM told as ex-chancellor raises pressure in wake of HSBC row
There is a box on the US 1040 personal income tax return form, asking if you would like to donate $2 to the presidential election fund. I did my taxes friday and did not check the box.
Can non citizens do that? I wondered what would happen if I checked the box.
Good question - I don't see why not, as you are a US tax payer, but I don't have any deep knowledge on the subject.
Is it 13/8 Great Grimsby? Rotherham 11/4, Rother Valley 6s Telford 8s?
The 11/8 UKIP to win a seat off labour w Lads is a great bet IMO
Thanks chaps!
I was asking with an eye on that 11/8 that Shadsy's got up..
It seems wrong off his own prices to me at first glance
I not a bettor, but I'm interested in the arithmetic here. Ignoring any overround, the implied probs of the 4 seats are 8/21, 4/15, 2/9 and 1/7. So the probs of UKIP not winning them are: 13/21, 11/15, 7/9 and 6/7. Multiplying these together gives the probability of UKIP not getting any of them = 286/945. Hence the prob that UKIP gets at least one of them is 659/945 =~ 0.7. On this reckoning, for consistency the odds should be 3:7. Tell if there's something wrong in my thinking.
Sorry , I am a bit lost, does 3:7 mean a 42% chance or a 70% chance?
The implied probability is 0.7 (70% chance), so the corresponding odds are 3:7.
Hmm I sincerely hope none of the major bookies goes bust between now and May, totting up the amount I have in arbitrage....
Naughty boy!!
Whats so naughty about that ?
Some of it's not completly risk free, the Conservatives winning Rother Valley, Dunbartonshire East or UKIP getting the most seats/votes could screw up my betting
Plus some bookies have closed your accounts?
I really like betfair its all about the Arb
The only Bookie I can get on for unrestricted stakes is Ladbrokes, they also tend to have the profitable side of any arbs.
The Comres Scottish cross break is an all time record 59% SNP , 13% LAB, 11% TORY, 6% GREEN and 5% UKIP AND LIBS. In other words the SNP wins the lot, all 59 seats.
Of course it should be read with 5 or so others to be at all meaningfull ,although it was sampled the same days that the YouGov sub sample was showing the SNP at 51%.
I think , however, that we can conclude that the SNP ain't going backwards!
Finally I didn't raise the issue of Salmond's favourable reception in London on Any Questions. It just seems interesting that he got the best reaction from a London audience. Perhaps there were lots of ex pat Scots, perhaps it was a left leaning audience. Who knows. But I remember a Question Time from Liverpool which was also very supportive from his point of view.
It might just be , of course, that he carries a fair bit of respect compared to most politicians.
Any prospect of a labour-snp coalition during the heat of the campaign in April will cause chaos in England with a sharp move to back the conservatives to prevent a constitutional crisis. I understand some English labour MPs are threatening to sit on the opposition benches if Ed Miliband goes anywhere near this proposition realising the anger that could befall them from their constituants
This straw grasping is based on a complete misconception.
While there might be 50% animosity to SNP support of Labour, it's not 50% of Labour supporters. Or even many. The people who even consider this as an electoral issue are not going to be voting Labour under any circumstances.
IIRC the polling shows that while Con etc are strongly opposed to a Labour -SNP deal, Labour voters are pretty evenly split (around 40 either way) with as many against as in favour. While we don't have a geographical breakdown, we might infer English Labour voters are more anti- than Scottish, which would leave English Labour voters net anti an SNP deal...
There's no interpretation of the data that isn't "divisive".
Is it 13/8 Great Grimsby? Rotherham 11/4, Rother Valley 6s Telford 8s?
The 11/8 UKIP to win a seat off labour w Lads is a great bet IMO
Thanks chaps!
I was asking with an eye on that 11/8 that Shadsy's got up..
It seems wrong off his own prices to me at first glance
I not a bettor, but I'm interested in the arithmetic here. Ignoring any overround, the implied probs of the 4 seats are 8/21, 4/15, 2/9 and 1/7. So the probs of UKIP not winning them are: 13/21, 11/15, 7/9 and 6/7. Multiplying these together gives the probability of UKIP not getting any of them = 286/945. Hence the prob that UKIP gets at least one of them is 659/945 =~ 0.7. On this reckoning, for consistency the odds should be 3:7. Tell if there's something wrong in my thinking.
Sorry , I am a bit lost, does 3:7 mean a 42% chance or a 70% chance?
The implied probability is 0.7 (70% chance), so the corresponding odds are 3:7.
Ok, Sorry I edited the last post to add
"I think the thinking is that if UKIP don't win Great Grimsby, then they should be bigger than 11/4 to win Rotherham, bigger than 7/2 to win Dudley North and so on as they are sort of related contingencies, although not entirely related as in a football bet "Ideye to score first WBA to win 4-0" "
I hadn't worked it out mathematically, but just seemed wrong from experience of betting I guess
Hmm I sincerely hope none of the major bookies goes bust between now and May, totting up the amount I have in arbitrage....
Naughty boy!!
Whats so naughty about that ?
Some of it's not completly risk free, the Conservatives winning Rother Valley, Dunbartonshire East or UKIP getting the most seats/votes could screw up my betting
Plus some bookies have closed your accounts?
I really like betfair its all about the Arb
Arbing Betfair Sportsbook against it's own exchange can be amusing.
I'd expect John Woodcock to vote against an SNP-Labour deal, given his constituency's connections to Trident.
Who else might throw the toys out the pram and join UKIP etc
Danczuk, Balls perhaps ?
I think/hope Simon Danczuk will defect after the GE. He has been flirting with UKIP for some time now and Karen Danczuk has been targetted by them as well. His constituency office and all of his campaign literature has no mention of Labour on it.
@isam I think the thinking is that if UKIP don't win Great Grimsby, then they should be bigger than 11/4 to win Rotherham, bigger than 7/2 to win Dudley North and so on as they are sort of related contingencies, although not entirely related as in a football bet "Ideye to score first WBA to win 4-0"
I assume that the given odds are correct at this point in time.
Mr. Pulpstar, I wonder if the Sportsbook will have some extra F1 markets, as Ladbrokes often has the more unusual/interesting ones (top scoring team can be quite a nice one).
Miliband and tax on the BBC site: A mix of comments that are highest rated, far from a massive support for him. Blair's money and Ed's IHT come up of course.
The highest rated... "It's simple, close the loopholes and stop bitching about those who take advantage of them - they're not doing anything illegal, as the law currently stands. There is no moral high-ground here, either it's illegal or it isn't."
@TheWatcher Referring to his father is not an answer certainly, but Dave surely had an interest in how his father became so successful? On the other hand, perhaps he had no interest in where the money came from, and the arrangements of the will? After all, the will would have been scrutinized by one of the leading exponents of tax avoidance schemes? Let's talk about Ed shall we?
Ed got terribly upset when the affairs of a dead father were discussed. Why not follow his shining example?
Why not instead talk about his mother? She's alive and Ed has already fingered her as the family tax avoider.
She arranged the DoV within two years of Gordon describing them as abused loopholes to avoid IHT
PB tories now attacking an 80 year old woman . There is no depths to the gutter they will sink to in the pursuit of partisan advantage .
mhhh Mark you are so blind to your own party and Labour's actions.
The Comres Scottish cross break is an all time record 59% SNP , 13% LAB, 11% TORY, 6% GREEN and 5% UKIP AND LIBS. In other words the SNP wins the lot, all 59 seats.
Of course it should be read with 5 or so others to be at all meaningfull ,although it was sampled the same days that the YouGov sub sample was showing the SNP at 51%.
I think , however, that we can conclude that the SNP ain't going backwards!
Finally I didn't raise the issue of Salmond's favourable reception in London on Any Questions. It just seems interesting that he got the best reaction from a London audience. Perhaps there were lots of ex pat Scots, perhaps it was a left leaning audience. Who knows. But I remember a Question Time from Liverpool which was also very supportive from his point of view.
It might just be , of course, that he carries a fair bit of respect compared to most politicians.
Other explanations are available, of course. It's not just Scots and lefties that that are keen on Scottish independence.
@TheWatcher Referring to his father is not an answer certainly, but Dave surely had an interest in how his father became so successful? On the other hand, perhaps he had no interest in where the money came from, and the arrangements of the will? After all, the will would have been scrutinized by one of the leading exponents of tax avoidance schemes? Let's talk about Ed shall we?
Ed got terribly upset when the affairs of a dead father were discussed. Why not follow his shining example?
Why not instead talk about his mother? She's alive and Ed has already fingered her as the family tax avoider.
She arranged the DoV within two years of Gordon describing them as abused loopholes to avoid IHT
PB tories now attacking an 80 year old woman . There is no depths to the gutter they will sink to in the pursuit of partisan advantage .
mhhh Mark you are so blind to your own party and Labour's actions.
Its almost if blind hatred guides your posts.
Entertainingly he called me a "dickhead" the other night. Lovely man.
Mr. Dave, and Mr. K, you might be interested to know that the BBC has commissioned a series based on Bernard Cornwell's series about Anglo-Saxon England and the Vikings. If they have the attention to detail shown in Wolf Hall, it could be rather good. If they make it like Atlantis, it'll be atrocious.
The TV adaptions of Sharpe and Hornblower didn't really work very well. I think it's difficult to adapt these things on a budget. They call for an army of extras.
That said, Vikings works well. And the battle scenes in Game of Thrones I think use computers to generate a convincing army.
Sharpe worked because it was before Return of the King.
RotK really created a watermark for staging battles. The Charge of the Rohan was 6000 horse, once you see what 6000 horse looks like thanks to Massive then you have problems believing things like the Braveheart scense of about 100 horse pretending to be circa 4000.
I'm not suggesting Sharpe battle scenes were without problems but compared to what you consider acceptable now, it worked.
GoT doesn't show large battle scenes. They didn't even pretend to in Season One where it was "build up" then cut to "walking amongst the dead". Where it does, it tends to be quite limited, the Battle of Blackwater Bay lent itself to cheap CGI for the fleet and a very limited pitched battle on the beach. The first time a major battle was actually shown on screen was Neil Marshall's phenomenal Battle of Castle Black in Season Four. (All the stuff in Esteros is pretty much static ranks of Denerys army and not large scale battles).
Comments
It made me laugh -
Guido Fawkes ✔ @GuidoFawkes
Happy Valentine's. Here's something to get you in the mood from http://youtu.be/_qpB7JEsk8o "
Mr. Dave, heard of Vikings, but never watched it. Only seen a tiny bit of Sharpe, though I've read many of the books.
Game of Thrones, as you say, looks rather good.
Anglo-Saxon/Viking battles were on a far smaller scale than the Napoleonic era, though, and the cost of CGI comes down continually, so it could be done well.
http://atlantamovietours.com/
Ken Clarke says Tory party must shun wealthy donors to avoid scandal. ‘Put on tin hat and move to state funds,’ PM told as ex-chancellor raises pressure in wake of HSBC row
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/feb/14/ken-clarke-tory-party-shun-wealthy-donors
Some of it's not completly risk free, the Conservatives winning Rother Valley, Dunbartonshire East or UKIP getting the most seats/votes could screw up my betting
Ignoring any overround, the implied probs of the 4 seats are 8/21, 4/15, 2/9 and 1/7.
So the probs of UKIP not winning them are: 13/21, 11/15, 7/9 and 6/7.
Multiplying these together gives the probability of UKIP not getting any of them = 286/945. Hence the prob that UKIP gets at least one of them is 659/945 =~ 0.7.
On this reckoning, for consistency the odds should be 3:7.
Tell if there's something wrong in my thinking.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Eagles, I must agree. entirely state-funded political parties would be a very bad development.
@JeremyBrowneMP: Oh, Nick is a bit wet, but..... oh, it's so lovely. #TakeMeOut
While there might be 50% animosity to SNP support of Labour, it's not 50% of Labour supporters. Or even many. The people who even consider this as an electoral issue are not going to be voting Labour under any circumstances.
"David Cameron looks like a high-class hooker" me in @spectator on the Tories partiality for the plutocracy http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/02/david-camerons-one-law-for-the-rich-shows-he-doesnt-understand-the-british/ …
....and a law I'd never heard of, though perhaps I should of:
The great historian of the Soviet Union Robert Conquest’s Third Law of Politics reads:
‘The simplest way to explain the behaviour of any bureaucratic organization is to assume that it is controlled by a cabal of its enemies.’
I really like betfair its all about the Arb
The highest rated...
"It's simple, close the loopholes and stop bitching about those who take advantage of them - they're not doing anything illegal, as the law currently stands.
There is no moral high-ground here, either it's illegal or it isn't."
Seems fair enough.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31468781
I think the thinking is that if UKIP don't win Great Grimsby, then they should be bigger than 11/4 to win Rotherham, bigger than 7/2 to win Dudley North and so on as they are sort of related contingencies, although not entirely related as in a football bet "Ideye to score first WBA to win 4-0"
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B9qTd_-IAAAp6da.jpg
Who else might throw the toys out the pram and join UKIP etc
Danczuk, Balls perhaps ?
The Comres Scottish cross break is an all time record 59% SNP , 13% LAB, 11% TORY, 6% GREEN and 5% UKIP AND LIBS. In other words the SNP wins the lot, all 59 seats.
Of course it should be read with 5 or so others to be at all meaningfull ,although it was sampled the same days that the YouGov sub sample was showing the SNP at 51%.
I think , however, that we can conclude that the SNP ain't going backwards!
Finally I didn't raise the issue of Salmond's favourable reception in London on Any Questions. It just seems interesting that he got the best reaction from a London audience. Perhaps there were lots of ex pat Scots, perhaps it was a left leaning audience. Who knows. But I remember a Question Time from Liverpool which was also very supportive from his point of view.
It might just be , of course, that he carries a fair bit of respect compared to most politicians.
There's no interpretation of the data that isn't "divisive".
"I think the thinking is that if UKIP don't win Great Grimsby, then they should be bigger than 11/4 to win Rotherham, bigger than 7/2 to win Dudley North and so on as they are sort of related contingencies, although not entirely related as in a football bet "Ideye to score first WBA to win 4-0" "
I hadn't worked it out mathematically, but just seemed wrong from experience of betting I guess
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B91e__fIcAAuhP1.jpg
I assume that the given odds are correct at this point in time.
A useful life-lesson is never address a Valentine's card to "Wife #1".
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/hsbc-leaks-since-when-do-banks-know-what-their-clients-get-up-to-10042828.html
Its almost if blind hatred guides your posts.
It's not just Scots and lefties that that are keen on Scottish independence.
Lovely man.
RotK really created a watermark for staging battles. The Charge of the Rohan was 6000 horse, once you see what 6000 horse looks like thanks to Massive then you have problems believing things like the Braveheart scense of about 100 horse pretending to be circa 4000.
I'm not suggesting Sharpe battle scenes were without problems but compared to what you consider acceptable now, it worked.
GoT doesn't show large battle scenes. They didn't even pretend to in Season One where it was "build up" then cut to "walking amongst the dead". Where it does, it tends to be quite limited, the Battle of Blackwater Bay lent itself to cheap CGI for the fleet and a very limited pitched battle on the beach. The first time a major battle was actually shown on screen was Neil Marshall's phenomenal Battle of Castle Black in Season Four. (All the stuff in Esteros is pretty much static ranks of Denerys army and not large scale battles).