Peter Kellner's piece from the Sunday Times is now on the YouGov website
As things stand, Cameron could be the first Tory leader for more than half a century to have good reason to say on election night: “Thank you, Scotland”.
I see that Ed was at JLR, talking about how amazing they are, a model for the country, and in the say breath still banging the tax avoidance / tax evasion drum. I hope he checked that the Tata group has clean hands when it comes to their tax affairs....
"The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) on Friday pulled up the income tax department (ITD) for allowing irregular tax exemption to two Tata Group trusts, involving tax implication of a little over Rs 1,000 crore."
***** Betting Post ***** On the basis of this ICM poll and signs of UKIP's diminishing support elsewhere, my early bet of the week is to back the Purple Party to win FEWER than 6 GE seats at odds of 1.89 (1.85 net of commission) with Betfair. When I looked just now there was approx £50 available at this price. As ever, DYOR.
All the pollsters are in flux, and the ICM poll is definitely and outlier or perhaps a spoof as the ICM bosses fear of UKIP is now showing up in the polls as well as in words.
In July 2014 ICM also had UKIP on 9% with a fall of 7 points. They are pathetic.
Do you actually think ICM is persecuting UKIP? Are you on drugs?
It must be an outlier because it doesn't agree with MikeK. The election will probably be an outlier too.
No, no, it's not an outlier. It's part of an EU funded conspiracy to to do UKIP down...
The same as tonights 'UKIP: The first 100 days' .
Gentlemen's outfitters are doing a roaring trade in tinfoil lined tweed caps and Faraday cage corduroy jackets this week.
The Tories are between 34-36 with ICM, Ipsos and Ashcroft - phone polls.
I mentioned the return of the shy tories this morning. Easier to be shy by phone. Last time we saw them was last time they were in govt and lots of the same reasons are back.
Forget the ICM poll, PJ and Duncan. I think Ant was PJ and Dec was Duncan. PJ went blind in a paint balling incident on Byker Grove. My era of children's television!
If this poll was the result then I would lose quite a lot of money!
Then again, if 99% of the polls this year were right I would win quite a lot...
Were you not anticipating the polls moving?
They move every day don't they?
Right, but in a specific direction. Most models expected swingback and most commentators anticipated UKIP getting squeezed. Not saying that either or both will happen, but there's no sense in just betting on the polls as they are today.
If this poll was the result then I would lose quite a lot of money!
Then again, if 99% of the polls this year were right I would win quite a lot...
Were you not anticipating the polls moving?
They move every day don't they?
Right, but in a specific direction. Most models expected swingback and most commentators anticipated UKIP getting squeezed. Not saying that either or both will happen, but there's no sense in just betting on the polls as they are today.
I dont really know what you are on about if I am honest
All my bets have moved my way since I put them on, so I am not that frantic over this poll
Ah, Miliband's face has been splashed all over the media.
No wonder Labour are desperate to keep photos of Ed's nowhere near their campaign literature.
Lucy Powell's strategy of more Ed, more of the time seems to be working as intended.
The Tories' characterisation of Labour's leader has always been 100% accurate. As a party, they are exceptionally shrewd judges of political character. .
Could be some truth in that. They're better at ditching no hopers. If Miliband had led the tories he'd prbly have been dumped by now.
If this poll was the result then I would lose quite a lot of money!
Then again, if 99% of the polls this year were right I would win quite a lot...
Were you not anticipating the polls moving?
They move every day don't they?
Right, but in a specific direction. Most models expected swingback and most commentators anticipated UKIP getting squeezed. Not saying that either or both will happen, but there's no sense in just betting on the polls as they are today.
I dont really know what you are on about if I am honest
All my bets have moved my way since I put them on, so I am not that frantic over this poll
once the campaign propre starts UKIP will be getting major media exposure (as a major party- that's still true isn't it?)
If this poll was the result then I would lose quite a lot of money!
Then again, if 99% of the polls this year were right I would win quite a lot...
Were you not anticipating the polls moving?
They move every day don't they?
Right, but in a specific direction. Most models expected swingback and most commentators anticipated UKIP getting squeezed. Not saying that either or both will happen, but there's no sense in just betting on the polls as they are today.
I dont really know what you are on about if I am honest
All my bets have moved my way since I put them on, so I am not that frantic over this poll
once the campaign propre starts UKIP will be getting major media exposure (as a major party- that's still true isn't it?)
I'd guess their trend is still upward.
Unclear how much UKIP would benefit from that, but it's clear what the (other) major parties have done in previous elections with their broadcasts, billboards, etc.
He's should have Baxtered the numbers by now. Always does when other polls are published.
He's updating his CV. May have to go back to work to fund his political betting losses...
Surely he doesn't need to update his CV ..... he simply signs on again for more money. IIRC he's previously told us that this option with the NHS is open to him.
If this poll was the result then I would lose quite a lot of money!
Then again, if 99% of the polls this year were right I would win quite a lot...
Were you not anticipating the polls moving?
They move every day don't they?
Right, but in a specific direction. Most models expected swingback and most commentators anticipated UKIP getting squeezed. Not saying that either or both will happen, but there's no sense in just betting on the polls as they are today.
Most 'models' didn't anticipate UKIP being in this position at this point in the first place!
All the pollsters are in flux, and the ICM poll is definitely and outlier or perhaps a spoof as the ICM bosses fear of UKIP is now showing up in the polls as well as in words. In July 2014 ICM also had UKIP on 9% with a fall of 7 points. They are pathetic. Mind you the C4 attack on UKIP tonight - which is sponsored by the EU - may see that channel in trouble.
It would be good for C4 if they did get into trouble over it. The pre-broadcast leaks are worrying for folk who believe in equal treatment of parties. Your stuff on ICM lets you down.
It would seem that Miliband is doing a better job of frightening anti Labour voters into the Tories arms than attracting new supporters into the Labour fold.
He's should have Baxtered the numbers by now. Always does when other polls are published.
He's updating his CV. May have to go back to work to fund his political betting losses...
Surely he doesn't need to update his CV ..... he simply signs on again for more money. IIRC he's previously told us that this option with the NHS is open to him.
I go away for a couple of hours and miss all the excitement.
Whether either the Conservatives being ahead of Labour or the Lib Dems being ahead of UKIP is actually correct is open to doubt. Though this is not a good poll for the Lib Dems at all. 10% is a really low rating for them with ICM.
Ah, Miliband's face has been splashed all over the media.
No wonder Labour are desperate to keep photos of Ed's nowhere near their campaign literature.
Lucy Powell's strategy of more Ed, more of the time seems to be working as intended.
The Tories' characterisation of Labour's leader has always been 100% accurate. As a party, they are exceptionally shrewd judges of political character. .
Could be some truth in that. They're better at ditching no hopers. If Miliband had led the tories he'd prbly have been dumped by now.
Perhaps it's time to start seeking out the best betting value in those 40th - 60th "most vulnerable" seats, which perhaps the Tories aren't about to lose after all. Where's antifrank when you need him?
I go away for a couple of hours and miss all the excitement.
Whether either the Conservatives being ahead of Labour or the Lib Dems being ahead of UKIP is actually correct is open to doubt. Though this is not a good poll for the Lib Dems at all. 10% is a really low rating for them with ICM.
All the pollsters are in flux, and the ICM poll is definitely and outlier or perhaps a spoof as the ICM bosses fear of UKIP is now showing up in the polls as well as in words. In July 2014 ICM also had UKIP on 9% with a fall of 7 points. They are pathetic. Mind you the C4 attack on UKIP tonight - which is sponsored by the EU - may see that channel in trouble.
It would be good for C4 if they did get into trouble over it. The pre-broadcast leaks are worrying for folk who believe in equal treatment of parties. Your stuff on ICM lets you down.
Don't other parties get unfriendly fictional treatment. 'The Thick of It', 'A very British Coup', 'The Deal', 'The Alan Clark Diaries'. I'm sure there are more. or even non-fiction like 'Yesterday's Men'
Perhaps it's time to start seeking out the best betting value in those 40th - 60th "most vulnerable" seats, which perhaps the Tories aren't about to lose after all. Where's antifrank when you need him?
By price, you're looking at seats like:
Croydon Central Ipswich Chester, City of Castle Point Pudsey Rochester and Strood Dudley South Kingswood Wirral West Blackpool North and Cleveleys Gloucester Loughborough Worcester
You should chuck those grapes, they seem to be a bit sour.
But there does seem to be something of a pattern, Anorak, whereby Labour register a string of small leads which are interrupted occasionally by a thumping great Tory lead.
It's usually Lord Ashcroft, but this time ICM. Not sure what to make of it.
You're right of course, but I reserve the right to gloat on the most flimsy and specious of grounds. 'Tis practically mandatory behaviour from all sides on PB, after all - although you usually remain above the fray, cashing in...
I wonder how many on here really care who wins the next election (gamblers excluded)? Probably more Tories than Labourites but apart from a few zealots like Nabavi and Flightpath I think the rest of us realize it won't make a scrap of difference to anything or anyone.
I go away for a couple of hours and miss all the excitement.
Whether either the Conservatives being ahead of Labour or the Lib Dems being ahead of UKIP is actually correct is open to doubt. Though this is not a good poll for the Lib Dems at all. 10% is a really low rating for them with ICM.
10% for the LDs with ICM is very bad. Joint lowest they have been for many years. Also since ICMs system bumps up LDs rating due to the much higher vote it got in 2010, a 10% with ICM is equivalent to a 7% or less with others.
After my success tipping Ireland, NZ v Scotland is a different matter. Almost impossible to see Scotland winning. 1/50 is not worth it for NZ but 1/5 for more sixes (described as "most sixes") than Scotland might just be worth it.
Can anyone explain the "match handicap" option on bet365 (probably others, but since I'm not actually betting no point me spending time) - Scotland +8.5 wickets / +100.5 runs and NZ the opposite?
After my success tipping Ireland, NZ v Scotland is a different matter. Almost impossible to see Scotland winning. 1/50 is not worth it for NZ but 1/5 for more sixes (described as "most sixes") than Scotland might just be worth it.
Can anyone explain the "match handicap" option on bet365 (probably others, but since I'm not actually betting no point me spending time) - Scotland +8.5 wickets / +100.5 runs and NZ the opposite?
Which handicap applies depends on who bats first. So if NZ bat first, Scotland would have to get within 100 to win the hcap, and if Scotland bat first then they'd need to take 2 wickets to win the hcap.
I wonder how many on here really care who wins the next election (gamblers excluded)? Probably more Tories than Labourites but apart from a few zealots like Nabavi and Flightpath I think the rest of us realize it won't make a scrap of difference to anything or anyone.
I'm not a regular poster and being an OAP not a keen gambler either... but I have lived through the Wilson/Callaghan era as an adult so I can confidently say a Labour Government would be rather like Ed's leadership - a shambles.
Mr. Roger, I care. Whilst not enamoured with Cameron, Miliband could be a disaster in an impressive number of ways. 1) Trident surrendering to the SNP 2) Constitutional crisis 3) Shafting the English by either having no devolution or, worse, carving the country up into shitty party political fiefdoms 4) Economic woe 5) Being even worse than the Coalition on regulating the press when we need stronger freedom of speech/the press than ever
And, on a less serious but indefensible and repugnant nevertheless: 6) Having a candidate for mayor (Sadiq Khan) who wants anti-white quotas
Mr. Roger, I care. Whilst not enamoured with Cameron, Miliband could be a disaster in an impressive number of ways. 1) Trident surrendering to the SNP 2) Constitutional crisis 3) Shafting the English by either having no devolution or, worse, carving the country up into shitty party political fiefdoms 4) Economic woe 5) Being even worse than the Coalition on regulating the press when we need stronger freedom of speech/the press than ever
And, on a less serious but indefensible and repugnant nevertheless: 6) Having a candidate for mayor (Sadiq Khan) who wants anti-white quotas
I wonder how many on here really care who wins the next election (gamblers excluded)? Probably more Tories than Labourites but apart from a few zealots like Nabavi and Flightpath I think the rest of us realize it won't make a scrap of difference to anything or anyone.
Labour will destroy a lot of value. That is a shame for those who are less well-placed to withstand it.
Mr. Roger, I care. Whilst not enamoured with Cameron, Miliband could be a disaster in an impressive number of ways. 1) Trident surrendering to the SNP 2) Constitutional crisis 3) Shafting the English by either having no devolution or, worse, carving the country up into shitty party political fiefdoms 4) Economic woe 5) Being even worse than the Coalition on regulating the press when we need stronger freedom of speech/the press than ever
And, on a less serious but indefensible and repugnant nevertheless: 6) Having a candidate for mayor (Sadiq Khan) who wants anti-white quotas
Miliband kicks kittens too.
No, that was Ed's Dad, the man who hated Britain, etc
After my success tipping Ireland, NZ v Scotland is a different matter. Almost impossible to see Scotland winning. 1/50 is not worth it for NZ but 1/5 for more sixes (described as "most sixes") than Scotland might just be worth it.
Can anyone explain the "match handicap" option on bet365 (probably others, but since I'm not actually betting no point me spending time) - Scotland +8.5 wickets / +100.5 runs and NZ the opposite?
Which handicap applies depends on who bats first. So if NZ bat first, Scotland would have to get within 100 to win the hcap, and if Scotland bat first then they'd need to take 2 wickets to win the hcap.
OK, thanks.
Seems a bit uneven to me. If Scotland bat first (conditions being equal, I don't know) then they ought to post at least 150, probably ~200. That would be a challenge for NZ to reach without losing two wickets, I mean, that's at least 25 overs of cricket. But if NZ are in first, they've got to be targetting 300+ and that means a good Scotland score.
I must admit I do not know the form book on Scotland as well as I did Ireland.
After my success tipping Ireland, NZ v Scotland is a different matter. Almost impossible to see Scotland winning. 1/50 is not worth it for NZ but 1/5 for more sixes (described as "most sixes") than Scotland might just be worth it.
Can anyone explain the "match handicap" option on bet365 (probably others, but since I'm not actually betting no point me spending time) - Scotland +8.5 wickets / +100.5 runs and NZ the opposite?
Which handicap applies depends on who bats first. So if NZ bat first, Scotland would have to get within 100 to win the hcap, and if Scotland bat first then they'd need to take 2 wickets to win the hcap.
I really hope Scotland don't bat first, I bought Kane Williamson series runs at 374, I could close out now at 376 but definitely not going to!
I wonder how many on here really care who wins the next election (gamblers excluded)? Probably more Tories than Labourites but apart from a few zealots like Nabavi and Flightpath I think the rest of us realize it won't make a scrap of difference to anything or anyone.
It won't, except in the negative. I wouldn't expect a renewed Cameron government to change anything at all. All their political capital will be spent on making further spending cuts and trying to cobble together some sort of very basic package on the EU renegotiation they can spin as a success.
I would expect an Ed Miliband led government to take decisions that, in aggregate, sum up to damage the country's economy, and act against Britain's interests in matters of foreign affairs and defence to an even greater extent than the Conservatives.
They would also probably do a 'go-slow' on any further roll-out of free schools, but will lack the money to do anything substantive - other than cosmetic change - about welfare and health reforms.
Both governments will be identical on socio-cultural issues, values issues and immigration.
After my success tipping Ireland, NZ v Scotland is a different matter. Almost impossible to see Scotland winning. 1/50 is not worth it for NZ but 1/5 for more sixes (described as "most sixes") than Scotland might just be worth it.
Can anyone explain the "match handicap" option on bet365 (probably others, but since I'm not actually betting no point me spending time) - Scotland +8.5 wickets / +100.5 runs and NZ the opposite?
Which handicap applies depends on who bats first. So if NZ bat first, Scotland would have to get within 100 to win the hcap, and if Scotland bat first then they'd need to take 2 wickets to win the hcap.
I really hope Scotland don't bat first, I bought Kane Williamson series runs at 374, I could close out now at 376 but definitely not going to!
You can bet on the toss!
Amazing.
Only use would be as some sort of hedge, but I've never mastered that sort of arbitrage that others here do so well.
I wonder how many on here really care who wins the next election (gamblers excluded)? Probably more Tories than Labourites but apart from a few zealots like Nabavi and Flightpath I think the rest of us realize it won't make a scrap of difference to anything or anyone.
I think the similarities between the Conservative and Labour front-benches, socially and attitudinally, are far greater than the differences.
I wonder how many on here really care who wins the next election (gamblers excluded)? Probably more Tories than Labourites but apart from a few zealots like Nabavi and Flightpath I think the rest of us realize it won't make a scrap of difference to anything or anyone.
After my success tipping Ireland, NZ v Scotland is a different matter. Almost impossible to see Scotland winning. 1/50 is not worth it for NZ but 1/5 for more sixes (described as "most sixes") than Scotland might just be worth it.
Can anyone explain the "match handicap" option on bet365 (probably others, but since I'm not actually betting no point me spending time) - Scotland +8.5 wickets / +100.5 runs and NZ the opposite?
Which handicap applies depends on who bats first. So if NZ bat first, Scotland would have to get within 100 to win the hcap, and if Scotland bat first then they'd need to take 2 wickets to win the hcap.
I really hope Scotland don't bat first, I bought Kane Williamson series runs at 374, I could close out now at 376 but definitely not going to!
After my success tipping Ireland, NZ v Scotland is a different matter. Almost impossible to see Scotland winning. 1/50 is not worth it for NZ but 1/5 for more sixes (described as "most sixes") than Scotland might just be worth it.
Can anyone explain the "match handicap" option on bet365 (probably others, but since I'm not actually betting no point me spending time) - Scotland +8.5 wickets / +100.5 runs and NZ the opposite?
Which handicap applies depends on who bats first. So if NZ bat first, Scotland would have to get within 100 to win the hcap, and if Scotland bat first then they'd need to take 2 wickets to win the hcap.
OK, thanks.
Seems a bit uneven to me. If Scotland bat first (conditions being equal, I don't know) then they ought to post at least 150, probably ~200. That would be a challenge for NZ to reach without losing two wickets, I mean, that's at least 25 overs of cricket. But if NZ are in first, they've got to be targetting 300+ and that means a good Scotland score.
I must admit I do not know the form book on Scotland as well as I did Ireland.
It is probably a bit uneven, so part of the bet does relate to a favourable toss! The difference between 7.5 & 8.5 is very significant in these games - faced with an easy chase 1 or 2 wickets down is normal.
I wouldn't be so sure about Scotland getting 200 against the NZ attack in NZ conditions, though.
After my success tipping Ireland, NZ v Scotland is a different matter. Almost impossible to see Scotland winning. 1/50 is not worth it for NZ but 1/5 for more sixes (described as "most sixes") than Scotland might just be worth it.
Can anyone explain the "match handicap" option on bet365 (probably others, but since I'm not actually betting no point me spending time) - Scotland +8.5 wickets / +100.5 runs and NZ the opposite?
Which handicap applies depends on who bats first. So if NZ bat first, Scotland would have to get within 100 to win the hcap, and if Scotland bat first then they'd need to take 2 wickets to win the hcap.
I really hope Scotland don't bat first, I bought Kane Williamson series runs at 374, I could close out now at 376 but definitely not going to!
You can bet on the toss!
Amazing.
I've always found betting on the first ball great
Bookies are presumably sitting on all the data required for the spot betting options. Does Brendan McCullum hit more sixes on ball 1 or ball 5? Etc. etc.
After my success tipping Ireland, NZ v Scotland is a different matter. Almost impossible to see Scotland winning. 1/50 is not worth it for NZ but 1/5 for more sixes (described as "most sixes") than Scotland might just be worth it.
Can anyone explain the "match handicap" option on bet365 (probably others, but since I'm not actually betting no point me spending time) - Scotland +8.5 wickets / +100.5 runs and NZ the opposite?
Which handicap applies depends on who bats first. So if NZ bat first, Scotland would have to get within 100 to win the hcap, and if Scotland bat first then they'd need to take 2 wickets to win the hcap.
I really hope Scotland don't bat first, I bought Kane Williamson series runs at 374, I could close out now at 376 but definitely not going to!
You can bet on the toss!
Amazing.
I've always found betting on the first ball great
The usual ploy if the minnows bat first and start to collapse is to try to get on the opposition openers for top bat! Most bookies are wise to it, though, so don't take any old price...
Both governments will be identical on socio-cultural issues, values issues and immigration.
They wouldn't be identical, that's just plain silly. It's true however that they wouldn't be enormously far apart in those sorts of values issues, for the very good reasons that either the vast bulk of the population wouldn't vote for them if they were (socio-cultural issues), or because it isn't actually feasible to change course a lot (immigration).
After my success tipping Ireland, NZ v Scotland is a different matter. Almost impossible to see Scotland winning. 1/50 is not worth it for NZ but 1/5 for more sixes (described as "most sixes") than Scotland might just be worth it.
Can anyone explain the "match handicap" option on bet365 (probably others, but since I'm not actually betting no point me spending time) - Scotland +8.5 wickets / +100.5 runs and NZ the opposite?
Which handicap applies depends on who bats first. So if NZ bat first, Scotland would have to get within 100 to win the hcap, and if Scotland bat first then they'd need to take 2 wickets to win the hcap.
I really hope Scotland don't bat first, I bought Kane Williamson series runs at 374, I could close out now at 376 but definitely not going to!
You can bet on the toss!
Amazing.
I've always found betting on the first ball great
The usual ploy if the minnows bat first and start to collapse is to try to get on the opposition openers for top bat! Most bookies are wise to it, though, so don't take any old price...
One of the reasons I'm not betting that much on the matches in this world cup is because of the time differences.
Past experience has seen me fall asleep around 2am and I fail to trade out.
After my success tipping Ireland, NZ v Scotland is a different matter. Almost impossible to see Scotland winning. 1/50 is not worth it for NZ but 1/5 for more sixes (described as "most sixes") than Scotland might just be worth it.
Can anyone explain the "match handicap" option on bet365 (probably others, but since I'm not actually betting no point me spending time) - Scotland +8.5 wickets / +100.5 runs and NZ the opposite?
Which handicap applies depends on who bats first. So if NZ bat first, Scotland would have to get within 100 to win the hcap, and if Scotland bat first then they'd need to take 2 wickets to win the hcap.
I really hope Scotland don't bat first, I bought Kane Williamson series runs at 374, I could close out now at 376 but definitely not going to!
You can bet on the toss!
Amazing.
I've always found betting on the first ball great
Bookies are presumably sitting on all the data required for the spot betting options. Does Brendan McCullum hit more sixes on ball 1 or ball 5? Etc. etc.
Sky Sports once did a half an hour documentary on that, it was astonishing that
1) How much info the bookies had on that sort of thing 2) How closely/live time info legit bookies shared with each other, to help spot anything dodgy 3) How this was all fed to the Anti-Corruption Unit at the ICC
Both governments will be identical on socio-cultural issues, values issues and immigration.
They wouldn't be identical, that's just plain silly. It's true however that they wouldn't be enormously far apart in those sorts of values issues, for the very good reasons that either the vast bulk of the population wouldn't vote for them if they were (socio-cultural issues), or because it isn't actually feasible to change course a lot (immigration).
The only reason to vote Conservative then, would be because they'll be a bit more sensible on the economy than Labour are.
Just for a bit of fun, tried calculating ELBOW for last week's YouGov polls only and non-YouGov polls only.
The official ELBOW gives Lab a 1.5% lead over the Tories, gives a UKIP score of 14.2%, and gives LDs a 1.3% lead over the Greens
YouGov-only also gives a Lab lead of 1.5%, a UKIP score of 14.3%, but a Green lead of 0.3% over the LDs Non-YouGov-only also gives a Lab lead 1.5%, and UKIP a score of 14.2%, but a LD lead of 2.9% over the Greens
Not sure about that. It's effectively a bet that, from here, only once or twice in a century could you expect Labour to make up enough ground to get a majority. It's a bit bold to lay that, IMO - who knows what unknown unknowns might hit in the next couple of months?
Both governments will be identical on socio-cultural issues, values issues and immigration.
They wouldn't be identical, that's just plain silly. It's true however that they wouldn't be enormously far apart in those sorts of values issues, for the very good reasons that either the vast bulk of the population wouldn't vote for them if they were (socio-cultural issues), or because it isn't actually feasible to change course a lot (immigration).
The only reason to vote Conservative then, would be because they'll be a bit more sensible on the economy than Labour are.
We're in an odd period of politics. One consequence of Labour and the Conservatives both having relatively low vote shares is that both are fishing in separate pools, but messages from each party aimed at their own target pool may have the consequence of persuading voters in the other party's target pool to return to the mothership. So apparently strong attacks risk being counterproductive.
The economically bone-dry kippers become markedly more sympathetic to the Conservative party when Labour launch attacks based on leftwing economics, even when the Conservatives seem to be struggling to respond. We have fewer leftwing posters on pb, but I expect that Conservative austerity-based attacks have a similar effect on those flirting with the Greens.
I wonder how many on here really care who wins the next election (gamblers excluded)? Probably more Tories than Labourites but apart from a few zealots like Nabavi and Flightpath I think the rest of us realize it won't make a scrap of difference to anything or anyone.
On a personal level it will make very little difference to me, though I guess I'll do slightly better financially under the Tories as I'll pay less tax. However, I managed to get to where I am because from birth there was a state that ensured I got opportunities that my grandparents and all those who went before them could not have dreamed of. I don't think the Tories are intrinsically wicked, I just think that when it comes down to fundamentals they are wrong, and that over the longer term the kind of society they seem to want - low tax, less state support, fewer employment rights etc - is going to lead to more inequality, less cohesion, more social breakdown and fewer opportunities for most people.
After my success tipping Ireland, NZ v Scotland is a different matter. Almost impossible to see Scotland winning. 1/50 is not worth it for NZ but 1/5 for more sixes (described as "most sixes") than Scotland might just be worth it.
Can anyone explain the "match handicap" option on bet365 (probably others, but since I'm not actually betting no point me spending time) - Scotland +8.5 wickets / +100.5 runs and NZ the opposite?
Which handicap applies depends on who bats first. So if NZ bat first, Scotland would have to get within 100 to win the hcap, and if Scotland bat first then they'd need to take 2 wickets to win the hcap.
I really hope Scotland don't bat first, I bought Kane Williamson series runs at 374, I could close out now at 376 but definitely not going to!
Good tip on Ireland last night. Thanks.
Even though i only put a tenner on every little helps
All the pollsters are in flux, and the ICM poll is definitely and outlier or perhaps a spoof as the ICM bosses fear of UKIP is now showing up in the polls as well as in words. In July 2014 ICM also had UKIP on 9% with a fall of 7 points. They are pathetic. Mind you the C4 attack on UKIP tonight - which is sponsored by the EU - may see that channel in trouble.
It would be good for C4 if they did get into trouble over it. The pre-broadcast leaks are worrying for folk who believe in equal treatment of parties. Your stuff on ICM lets you down.
Don't other parties get unfriendly fictional treatment. 'The Thick of It', 'A very British Coup', 'The Deal', 'The Alan Clark Diaries'. I'm sure there are more. or even non-fiction like 'Yesterday's Men'
And how many of those had their first showing three months before an election and predicted race riots if a specific party became the government?
Now that we have fixed term elections the rules applying to pre election coverage should apply for the whole of the six months prior to the election to the extent that no such pieces of clearly prejudiced output as this should be allowed although clearly Parliamentary business has to be broadcast as normal.
Of course it could well rebound on them because it could well remind people of the risks of allowing uncontrolled immigration and with whats been going on in Paris and Copenhagen the idea of such rioting is probably not necessarily the dog whistle it was originally intended to be.
I wonder how many on here really care who wins the next election (gamblers excluded)? Probably more Tories than Labourites but apart from a few zealots like Nabavi and Flightpath I think the rest of us realize it won't make a scrap of difference to anything or anyone.
I'm not a regular poster and being an OAP not a keen gambler either... but I have lived through the Wilson/Callaghan era as an adult so I can confidently say a Labour Government would be rather like Ed's leadership - a shambles.
Welcome back mad ....... iirc you were once an ever-present on PB.com.
NB when the politicians stop talking about immigration and Europe, the public decide that immigration and Europe are less vital subjects of debate. There's a lesson there.
Both governments will be identical on socio-cultural issues, values issues and immigration.
They wouldn't be identical, that's just plain silly. It's true however that they wouldn't be enormously far apart in those sorts of values issues, for the very good reasons that either the vast bulk of the population wouldn't vote for them if they were (socio-cultural issues), or because it isn't actually feasible to change course a lot (immigration).
The only reason to vote Conservative then, would be because they'll be a bit more sensible on the economy than Labour are.
A hell of a lot more sensible on the economy, which will make a huge difference to most people's lives, a lot more sensible on education, a lot more sensible on welfare, a lot more sensible on government procurement and a lot better at generally running things.
What more do you want? You can either continue with things getting better, or go back into reverse, probably quite a sharp reverse given Labour's current state.
Perhaps it's time to start seeking out the best betting value in those 40th - 60th "most vulnerable" seats, which perhaps the Tories aren't about to lose after all. Where's antifrank when you need him?
By price, you're looking at seats like:
Croydon Central Ipswich Chester, City of Castle Point Pudsey Rochester and Strood Dudley South Kingswood Wirral West Blackpool North and Cleveleys Gloucester Loughborough Worcester
NB when the politicians stop talking about immigration and Europe, the public decide that immigration and Europe are less vital subjects of debate. There's a lesson there.
A very old one. When the death penalty was in the news day in and day out in the 1950's the number of murders fell to its lowest rate of the 20th Century.
If somethings in the news it attracts attention and people respond accordingly. When it isn't they forget about it. Go figure
The thing is net immigration and EU integration are not going to go away anytime soon so however much politicians try and sweep it under the carpet it will always come back to bite them. Unless of course you are suggesting that politicians should wilfully and systematically deceive the public about such issues?
Isn't that how we got to this juncture in the first place?
NB when the politicians stop talking about immigration and Europe, the public decide that immigration and Europe are less vital subjects of debate. There's a lesson there.
You're sooo wrong, as even a cursory look at any comment thread on the Daily Telegraph would tell you.
Why just the other day there were more comments on immigration, Europe and (for some reason) the untrustworthiness of Cameron than anything else - and that was an article about pancake day! Get with the zeitgeist!!
NB when the politicians stop talking about immigration and Europe, the public decide that immigration and Europe are less vital subjects of debate. There's a lesson there.
A very old one. When the death penalty was in the news day in and day out in the 1950's the number of murders fell to its lowest rate of the 20th Century.
If somethings in the news it attracts attention and people respond accordingly. When it isn't they forget about it. Go figure
The thing is net immigration and EU integration are not going to go away anytime soon so however much politicians try and sweep it under the carpet it will always come back to bite them. Unless of course you are suggesting that politicians should wilfully and systematically deceive the public about such issues?
Isn't that how we got to this juncture in the first place?
They may not be going away, but they may not be particularly important either. They seem to be becoming less important to the public:
Comments
Peter Kellner's piece from the Sunday Times is now on the YouGov website
As things stand, Cameron could be the first Tory leader for more than half a century to have good reason to say on election night: “Thank you, Scotland”.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/02/16/scottish-voters-dent-milibands-hopes/
On the basis of this ICM poll and signs of UKIP's diminishing support elsewhere, my early bet of the week is to back the Purple Party to win FEWER than 6 GE seats at odds of 1.89 (1.85 net of commission) with Betfair. When I looked just now there was approx £50 available at this price.
As ever, DYOR.
Gentlemen's outfitters are doing a roaring trade in tinfoil lined tweed caps and Faraday cage corduroy jackets this week.
Forget the ICM poll, PJ and Duncan. I think Ant was PJ and Dec was Duncan. PJ went blind in a paint balling incident on Byker Grove. My era of children's television!
He's gone to A&E in shock - we won't see him till after May 10th - you know how bad the waiting times are under the baby -eaters.
I hope stories like that will one day help bring peace to the Middle East.
If enough people can go from fear to praise like that, maybe the hatred can end.
I'm on all week:)
All my bets have moved my way since I put them on, so I am not that frantic over this poll
I'd guess their trend is still upward.
Whilst amusing, this does look like a rogue, a rapscallion, a scallywag of the first water of a poll.
Mr. Urquhart, Harman's a clown.
I'll get me coat.
Whether either the Conservatives being ahead of Labour or the Lib Dems being ahead of UKIP is actually correct is open to doubt. Though this is not a good poll for the Lib Dems at all. 10% is a really low rating for them with ICM.
Where's antifrank when you need him?
LDs rejoice - 5 more years ...
@MSmithsonPB: This seems designed to secure for Nick Clegg Tory tactical voters in Sheffield Hallam http://t.co/AbKNbEx95H
Last 6 LD ICMs: 12, 10, 11, 11, 14, 11.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-2/icm
Con 311
Lab 294
Lib 17
Oth 19
EICINPM
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/douglas-murray/2015/02/how-many-more-terror-attacks-until-we-have-a-serious-discussion-about-offending-religions/
or even non-fiction like 'Yesterday's Men'
Croydon Central
Ipswich
Chester, City of
Castle Point
Pudsey
Rochester and Strood
Dudley South
Kingswood
Wirral West
Blackpool North and Cleveleys
Gloucester
Loughborough
Worcester
Can anyone explain the "match handicap" option on bet365 (probably others, but since I'm not actually betting no point me spending time) - Scotland +8.5 wickets / +100.5 runs and NZ the opposite?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2955530/Staunchly-Labour-TV-stars-Ant-Dec-say-Ed-Miliband-not-Prime-Minister.html
Ed not up to the task.
Is JackW Ant or Dec - I think we should be told :-)
1) Trident surrendering to the SNP
2) Constitutional crisis
3) Shafting the English by either having no devolution or, worse, carving the country up into shitty party political fiefdoms
4) Economic woe
5) Being even worse than the Coalition on regulating the press when we need stronger freedom of speech/the press than ever
And, on a less serious but indefensible and repugnant nevertheless:
6) Having a candidate for mayor (Sadiq Khan) who wants anti-white quotas
Call it compassionate Conservativism.
http://www.anorak.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/ed-miliband.jpg
Seems a bit uneven to me. If Scotland bat first (conditions being equal, I don't know) then they ought to post at least 150, probably ~200. That would be a challenge for NZ to reach without losing two wickets, I mean, that's at least 25 overs of cricket. But if NZ are in first, they've got to be targetting 300+ and that means a good Scotland score.
I must admit I do not know the form book on Scotland as well as I did Ireland.
I would expect an Ed Miliband led government to take decisions that, in aggregate, sum up to damage the country's economy, and act against Britain's interests in matters of foreign affairs and defence to an even greater extent than the Conservatives.
They would also probably do a 'go-slow' on any further roll-out of free schools, but will lack the money to do anything substantive - other than cosmetic change - about welfare and health reforms.
Both governments will be identical on socio-cultural issues, values issues and immigration.
Amazing.
Only use would be as some sort of hedge, but I've never mastered that sort of arbitrage that others here do so well.
I wouldn't be so sure about Scotland getting 200 against the NZ attack in NZ conditions, though.
Past experience has seen me fall asleep around 2am and I fail to trade out.
1) How much info the bookies had on that sort of thing
2) How closely/live time info legit bookies shared with each other, to help spot anything dodgy
3) How this was all fed to the Anti-Corruption Unit at the ICC
LabMaj is probably a lay @ 18/1
The official ELBOW gives Lab a 1.5% lead over the Tories, gives a UKIP score of 14.2%, and gives LDs a 1.3% lead over the Greens
YouGov-only also gives a Lab lead of 1.5%, a UKIP score of 14.3%, but a Green lead of 0.3% over the LDs
Non-YouGov-only also gives a Lab lead 1.5%, and UKIP a score of 14.2%, but a LD lead of 2.9% over the Greens
The economically bone-dry kippers become markedly more sympathetic to the Conservative party when Labour launch attacks based on leftwing economics, even when the Conservatives seem to be struggling to respond. We have fewer leftwing posters on pb, but I expect that Conservative austerity-based attacks have a similar effect on those flirting with the Greens.
I'll happily bet against that "proven" theory...
Anyone offer me evens that the tories won't get 48%?
Even though i only put a tenner on every little helps
Now that we have fixed term elections the rules applying to pre election coverage should apply for the whole of the six months prior to the election to the extent that no such pieces of clearly prejudiced output as this should be allowed although clearly Parliamentary business has to be broadcast as normal.
Of course it could well rebound on them because it could well remind people of the risks of allowing uncontrolled immigration and with whats been going on in Paris and Copenhagen the idea of such rioting is probably not necessarily the dog whistle it was originally intended to be.
What more do you want? You can either continue with things getting better, or go back into reverse, probably quite a sharp reverse given Labour's current state.
Lord Ashcroft @LordAshcroft · 37s38 seconds ago
Guardian/ICM poll CON 36% LAB 32% UKIP 9% LDEM 10% GRNS 7% appears to be an outlier.
If somethings in the news it attracts attention and people respond accordingly. When it isn't they forget about it. Go figure
The thing is net immigration and EU integration are not going to go away anytime soon so however much politicians try and sweep it under the carpet it will always come back to bite them. Unless of course you are suggesting that politicians should wilfully and systematically deceive the public about such issues?
Isn't that how we got to this juncture in the first place?
Why just the other day there were more comments on immigration, Europe and (for some reason) the untrustworthiness of Cameron than anything else - and that was an article about pancake day! Get with the zeitgeist!!
If its not an outlier then you are correct Lay at 18/1
http://static.guim.co.uk/ni/1424093007494/ICM_single_issue_poll_16Feb.svg