Ed is PM by my reckoning if we end up with that ICM in May.
Almost certainly not. If the Tories have a 4% national UK lead they will be well ahead on seats, and close to 300 of them.
How? Even if they lose half their Scottish seats the Tories would be hard pressed to top 300 on seats. Remember they are going to struggle to have net gains of more than 10 off the LDs and they are more vulnerable to UKIP than. LAB
Peter Kellner explains exactly how such a result could occur on a 4% Tory lead here:
You assume that voting patterns and densities will be the same as last time - they won't be. The Conservatives can afford to lose up to 20 seats to Labour - Peter Kellner predicts 19 losses. I think they'll make 12 gains from the Lib Dems. So I expect 295-296 seats, at present.
David Butler, Peter Kellner, Vernon Bogdanor, Ed Fieldhouse, Rod Crosby and Jack W all agree on a seat score near 300 on vote share figures very similar to this. I believe Sean Fear isn't miles off this either.
Even if you don't rate my analysis, which I'm backing with cash, that should count for something.
Peter Oborne quits Telegraph and launches devastating critique of way the paper is run. Looks like more HSBC issues.
Or have we done this one and I missed it earlier?
Is Oborne complaining that the Telegraph is not criticising Cameron and the tory party enough? He will have a tough time trying to make that stick. The Telegraph is indeed rubbish as are the Barclay Bros, but so is Oborne and the never ending set of chips on his shoulder. Not least Israel.
He's right about sub-editors though.
Well you could knock me over with a feather I'm so surprised at that. Newspapers employ people who are thick! Who'd a thunk it. Journalists? I think we can count the good ones on the fingers of one hand. Buit we do not get 'journalists' any more do we? We get 'commentators'.
It's not about being thick or otherwise, It's about a separate pair of trained eyes who correct things. Journos have all sorts of other skills.
I must say I liked the claim from the Times no less which said 'men should not be at the birth' - based on a study that did not involve pregnant women. Rather ''the pain felt by 39 women given 'pinprick' laser pulses on their fingers was not reduced by the presence of their partner.''
You may love journalists indeed you may think them the cleverest people you know. Me? Nah.
Richard Rogers @oowmygawd 22m22 minutes ago At the end of 2014, bookies odds on UKIP gaining 100 seats or more were 100/1, last month down to 25/1,now 18/1, by May it will be evens.
So despite the very different headline numbers, the England subdata is not too bad for Labour. And its a statistically significant subset.
I can see the Conservatives polling 37-38% in England. I would be astonished if Labour improved a full 6% on their election result in England from GE2010, yet alone 9%.
It doesn't compute, Ed Miliband and his Labour Party are just not that popular.
At the risk of drinking heavily from the sub-sample cup, this is also worth noting - Ed may not be piling on the votes where he most needs them. They could be just in metropolitan cities:
"In the English battleground seats, however – defined as those which the Tories won by up to 15 points last time, plus those where Labour clung on by no more than 10 points – the Conservatives are unchanged on 38%, while Labour is actually down three on 33%. That amounts to a positive swing to the Conservatives of around 1.5%. Some caution is needed because the sub-samples involved are relatively small, but not so tiny as to allow Labour to sustain hopes of an atypically strong movement towards Miliband in middle England."
So despite the very different headline numbers, the England subdata is not too bad for Labour. And its a statistically significant subset.
I can see the Conservatives polling 37-38% in England. I would be astonished if Labour improved a full 6% on their election result in England from GE2010, yet alone 9%.
It doesn't compute, Ed Miliband and his Labour Party are just not that popular.
At the risk of drinking heavily from the sub-sample cup, this is also worth noting - Ed may not be piling on the votes where he most needs them. They could be just in metropolitan cities:
"In the English battleground seats, however – defined as those which the Tories won by up to 15 points last time, plus those where Labour clung on by no more than 10 points – the Conservatives are unchanged on 38%, while Labour is actually down three on 33%. That amounts to a positive swing to the Conservatives of around 1.5%. Some caution is needed because the sub-samples involved are relatively small, but not so tiny as to allow Labour to sustain hopes of an atypically strong movement towards Miliband in middle England."
I've had some small punts on "deep" Labour gains... Enfield Southgate/Ilford North seem plausible enough.
Greece. This does not bode well for a deal: "Greece's government has called for a vote to scrap its austerity programme on Friday, the same day that the eurozone has declared a deadline for it to seek an extension to its bailout." (from the Beeb)
How did Greece get into the eurozone in the first place? It's been a basket case for years. Was it a case of ignore the truth, think pure thoughts and onward to ever closer union?
O/T - as an aside, some of the (most heavily liked) posts on CommentisFree on the ICM poll are pure gold:
"Depressing news. Are people so blind to how friggin evil this party is? Damn."
"Sometimes I truly despair of humanity."
"What do these lying, thieving, cheating bastards actually have to do to convince people what they truly are, and stand for?"
"So which Swiss bank account holder conducted this poll? Sounds like rubbish to me - I know of hardly anyone that admits to being a tory voter without looking at their shoes and apologising first..."
So despite the very different headline numbers, the England subdata is not too bad for Labour. And its a statistically significant subset.
Ah yes, OGH's oft, some might say tediously repeated 11.4% statistic.
The above stats are last GE Conservative 39.6%, Labour 28.1%
Last ICM has 38 vs 34, a 3.75% swing to Labour
The tories have gone from 39.6 to 38. Clearly this is down but by 1.6%, but is it +3.75% from Conservatives to Labour? I simply ask. Our Good Host also regularly points out that the GE is in fact 650 (649) separate elections.
O/T - as an aside, some of the (most heavily liked) posts on CommentisFree on the ICM poll are pure gold:
"Depressing news. Are people so blind to how friggin evil this party is? Damn."
"Sometimes I truly despair of humanity."
"What do these lying, thieving, cheating bastards actually have to do to convince people what they truly are, and stand for?"
"So which Swiss bank account holder conducted this poll? Sounds like rubbish to me - I know of hardly anyone that admits to being a tory voter without looking at their shoes and apologising first..."
"I don't want to live in this country any more."
"Welcome to Hell."
My favourite bit of the ICM is Labour on 11%, spiral of silenced up to 21% in Scotland. But it's just 1 poll
Re Oborne's quitting the telegraph, he refers to a story I mentioned that HSBC were closing Muslim accounts for spurious reasons because they were outside their risk appetite.
Charles, CycleFree and Robert assured it was because it was because the potential regulatory fines is why HSBC did it. I said it seemed odd, as other banks were quite happy to provide banking to similar people.
Peter Oborne's missive confirms to me that something very odd is going on at HSBC.
(PS this isn't a dig at Charles, CycleFree and Robert, it is more, I got involved it, and I know something odd is going on)
So despite the very different headline numbers, the England subdata is not too bad for Labour. And its a statistically significant subset.
I can see the Conservatives polling 37-38% in England. I would be astonished if Labour improved a full 6% on their election result in England from GE2010, yet alone 9%.
It doesn't compute, Ed Miliband and his Labour Party are just not that popular.
At the risk of drinking heavily from the sub-sample cup, this is also worth noting - Ed may not be piling on the votes where he most needs them. They could be just in metropolitan cities:
"In the English battleground seats, however – defined as those which the Tories won by up to 15 points last time, plus those where Labour clung on by no more than 10 points – the Conservatives are unchanged on 38%, while Labour is actually down three on 33%. That amounts to a positive swing to the Conservatives of around 1.5%. Some caution is needed because the sub-samples involved are relatively small, but not so tiny as to allow Labour to sustain hopes of an atypically strong movement towards Miliband in middle England."
I've had some small punts on "deep" Labour gains... Enfield Southgate/Ilford North seem plausible enough.
O/T - as an aside, some of the (most heavily liked) posts on CommentisFree on the ICM poll are pure gold:
"Depressing news. Are people so blind to how friggin evil this party is? Damn."
"Sometimes I truly despair of humanity."
"What do these lying, thieving, cheating bastards actually have to do to convince people what they truly are, and stand for?"
"So which Swiss bank account holder conducted this poll? Sounds like rubbish to me - I know of hardly anyone that admits to being a tory voter without looking at their shoes and apologising first..."
"I don't want to live in this country any more."
"Welcome to Hell."
Ah, I so love the confused and angry whining of intense partisans, of whatever flavour. Always a good time to be had. Yet another reason to enjoy significant shifts in even a single poll.
So despite the very different headline numbers, the England subdata is not too bad for Labour. And its a statistically significant subset.
I can see the Conservatives polling 37-38% in England. I would be astonished if Labour improved a full 6% on their election result in England from GE2010, yet alone 9%.
It doesn't compute, Ed Miliband and his Labour Party are just not that popular.
At the risk of drinking heavily from the sub-sample cup, this is also worth noting - Ed may not be piling on the votes where he most needs them. They could be just in metropolitan cities:
"In the English battleground seats, however – defined as those which the Tories won by up to 15 points last time, plus those where Labour clung on by no more than 10 points – the Conservatives are unchanged on 38%, while Labour is actually down three on 33%. That amounts to a positive swing to the Conservatives of around 1.5%. Some caution is needed because the sub-samples involved are relatively small, but not so tiny as to allow Labour to sustain hopes of an atypically strong movement towards Miliband in middle England."
I've had some small punts on "deep" Labour gains... Enfield Southgate/Ilford North seem plausible enough.
At the same time I've got CON backed in Sherwood.
I think there'll be a few, at the same time as Labour miss out on some of their easiest targets.
I like Crewe & Nantwich (#87), Portsmouth North (#114) and Calder Valley (#91)
Before the HSBC revelations were published – by the Guardian and a range of other outlets including the BBC – and while discussions were continuing over the material, the bank put its advertising with the Guardian’s parent company, Guardian News & Media, “on pause”.
Know I am late to this, but the last thread was remarkable for the views of swing voters on the parties. And swing voters are the ones that matter. Seemed like strong move to Labour plus some hope for the Lib Dems of avoiding complete catastrophe, plus huge hostility to UKIP. Anyone who is betting on UKIP getting more than 10 seats must have money to throw away
So despite the very different headline numbers, the England subdata is not too bad for Labour. And its a statistically significant subset.
I can see the Conservatives polling 37-38% in England. I would be astonished if Labour improved a full 6% on their election result in England from GE2010, yet alone 9%.
It doesn't compute, Ed Miliband and his Labour Party are just not that popular.
At the risk of drinking heavily from the sub-sample cup, this is also worth noting - Ed may not be piling on the votes where he most needs them. They could be just in metropolitan cities:
"In the English battleground seats, however – defined as those which the Tories won by up to 15 points last time, plus those where Labour clung on by no more than 10 points – the Conservatives are unchanged on 38%, while Labour is actually down three on 33%. That amounts to a positive swing to the Conservatives of around 1.5%. Some caution is needed because the sub-samples involved are relatively small, but not so tiny as to allow Labour to sustain hopes of an atypically strong movement towards Miliband in middle England."
I believe that is what is happening. The metropolitan areas all seem to be aligning for Ed/Labour, but middle England seems deeply unimpressed, look at the massive lead that the Cons have in the Midlands and SE excluding London. In London I think Labour could do very well and lock the Cons and Lib Dems out of quite a few boroughs.
O/T - as an aside, some of the (most heavily liked) posts on CommentisFree on the ICM poll are pure gold:
"Depressing news. Are people so blind to how friggin evil this party is? Damn."
"Sometimes I truly despair of humanity."
"What do these lying, thieving, cheating bastards actually have to do to convince people what they truly are, and stand for?"
"So which Swiss bank account holder conducted this poll? Sounds like rubbish to me - I know of hardly anyone that admits to being a tory voter without looking at their shoes and apologising first..."
"I don't want to live in this country any more."
"Welcome to Hell."
Ah, I so love the confused and angry whining of intense partisans, of whatever flavour. Always a good time to be had. Yet another reason to enjoy significant shifts in even a single poll.
Part of me thinks that if the Conservative government are annoying the Guardianistas so much, they must be doing something right.
It makes me want to pull the dusty blue rosette out of my man drawer and wear it with pride.
(But then I remember how Cameron and his team has let us down, and has a take-it-or-leave-it attitude to traditional Conservatives)
The Church of England House of Bishops has issued a letter to congregations about the general election.
They praise William Beveridge and the Atlee government but point out that Beveridge's requirement for voluntary work as well as state intervention got forgotten.
They praise Thatcher's vision and push for individual enterprise but claim this resulted in people becoming more separate from each other.
They praise the Big Society, they praise 0.7% going on overseas aid.
They want Trident to be reviewed (=stopped).
Getting so involved in politics they may find their donations reduce.
So despite the very different headline numbers, the England subdata is not too bad for Labour. And its a statistically significant subset.
I can see the Conservatives polling 37-38% in England. I would be astonished if Labour improved a full 6% on their election result in England from GE2010, yet alone 9%.
It doesn't compute, Ed Miliband and his Labour Party are just not that popular.
At the risk of drinking heavily from the sub-sample cup, this is also worth noting - Ed may not be piling on the votes where he most needs them. They could be just in metropolitan cities:
"In the English battleground seats, however – defined as those which the Tories won by up to 15 points last time, plus those where Labour clung on by no more than 10 points – the Conservatives are unchanged on 38%, while Labour is actually down three on 33%. That amounts to a positive swing to the Conservatives of around 1.5%. Some caution is needed because the sub-samples involved are relatively small, but not so tiny as to allow Labour to sustain hopes of an atypically strong movement towards Miliband in middle England."
I've had some small punts on "deep" Labour gains... Enfield Southgate/Ilford North seem plausible enough.
At the same time I've got CON backed in Sherwood.
I think there'll be a few, at the same time as Labour miss out on some of their easiest targets.
I like Crewe & Nantwich (#87), Portsmouth North (#114) and Calder Valley (#91)
Interesting Egypt bombed IS in Libya. Putin recently visited, clearly the Egyptian re-alignment with the Iranian-Russian axis and away from the US-Israeli-Saudi axis of evil is already bearing fruit.
You think Iran and Russia are "good guys" - well, it's a view... a stupid one but a view.
@David_Evershed so the House of Bishops are all Lib Dems then? Seems like they are advocating Lib Dem policies - e.g Michael Moore's bill trying to enshrine 0.7% permanently; review of Trident; balance between state and individual. Stronger economy and fairer society?
@David_Evershed so the House of Bishops are all Lib Dems then? Seems like they are advocating Lib Dem policies - e.g Michael Moore's bill trying to enshrine 0.7% permanently; review of Trident; balance between state and individual. Stronger economy and fairer society?
A lot of people don't seem a million miles away from LD policies, but apparently would never dream of voting for them.
The Church of England House of Bishops has issued a letter to congregations about the general election.
They praise William Beveridge and the Atlee government but point out that Beveridge's requirement for voluntary work as well as state intervention got forgotten.
They praise Thatcher's vision and push for individual enterprise but claim this resulted in people becoming more separate from each other.
They praise the Big Society, they praise 0.7% going on overseas aid.
They want Trident to be reviewed (=stopped).
Getting so involved in politics they may find their donations reduce.
Just like the churchgoers,the church of England doesn't stand for nothing nowadays,it's dying on it's ar$e.
Interesting Egypt bombed IS in Libya. Putin recently visited, clearly the Egyptian re-alignment with the Iranian-Russian axis and away from the US-Israeli-Saudi axis of evil is already bearing fruit.
You think Iran and Russia are "good guys" - well, it's a view... a stupid one but a view.
FalseFlag performs a valuable service in telling pbc-ers who didnt have time to watch it what RT is telling people to think today.
@David_Evershed so the House of Bishops are all Lib Dems then? Seems like they are advocating Lib Dem policies - e.g Michael Moore's bill trying to enshrine 0.7% permanently; review of Trident; balance between state and individual. Stronger economy and fairer society?
I had this dream the other day, can you tell me how plausible you think this is
Say in 2010, Dave had managed to get a small majority.
Given Ed's poor ratings, do you think right now, the Lib Dems, led by Nick Clegg, might have been leading in the polls now, and had been for quite some time?
Before the HSBC revelations were published – by the Guardian and a range of other outlets including the BBC – and while discussions were continuing over the material, the bank put its advertising with the Guardian’s parent company, Guardian News & Media, “on pause”.
Interesting Egypt bombed IS in Libya. Putin recently visited, clearly the Egyptian re-alignment with the Iranian-Russian axis and away from the US-Israeli-Saudi axis of evil is already bearing fruit.
You think Iran and Russia are "good guys" - well, it's a view... a stupid one but a view.
FalseFlag performs a valuable service in telling pbc-ers who didnt have time to watch it what RT is telling people to think today.
It's welcome to get an alternate view of course. I never really understand why problems with one side must equal that the other is, seemingly, to be given a pass for everything though, but better to see a view however fleetingly than not at all I guess.
@David_Evershed so the House of Bishops are all Lib Dems then? Seems like they are advocating Lib Dem policies - e.g Michael Moore's bill trying to enshrine 0.7% permanently; review of Trident; balance between state and individual. Stronger economy and fairer society?
I had this dream the other day, can you tell me how plausible you think this is
Say in 2010, Dave had managed to get a small majority.
Given Ed's poor ratings, do you think right now, the Lib Dems, led by Nick Clegg, might have been leading in the polls now, and had been for quite some time?
Truro and Falmouth would be very short odds indeed for a Lib Dem gain
@David_Evershed so the House of Bishops are all Lib Dems then? Seems like they are advocating Lib Dem policies - e.g Michael Moore's bill trying to enshrine 0.7% permanently; review of Trident; balance between state and individual. Stronger economy and fairer society?
A lot of people don't seem a million miles away from LD policies, but apparently would never dream of voting for them.
@David_Evershed so the House of Bishops are all Lib Dems then? Seems like they are advocating Lib Dem policies - e.g Michael Moore's bill trying to enshrine 0.7% permanently; review of Trident; balance between state and individual. Stronger economy and fairer society?
I had this dream the other day, can you tell me how plausible you think this is
Say in 2010, Dave had managed to get a small majority.
Given Ed's poor ratings, do you think right now, the Lib Dems, led by Nick Clegg, might have been leading in the polls now, and had been for quite some time?
Truro and Falmouth would be very short odds indeed for a Lib Dem gain
We could have been in the situation with Con and Lab in third and fourth place in the polls.
Interesting Egypt bombed IS in Libya. Putin recently visited, clearly the Egyptian re-alignment with the Iranian-Russian axis and away from the US-Israeli-Saudi axis of evil is already bearing fruit.
The jets which did the bombing were F16's. The USA is about to supply Apache helicopters. None of this equipment looks after itself. Last July the US released £338m in military aid to Egypt Egypt is also buying 24 French Rafale jets. Meantime - and despite the furore at the time - the Indian govt 'decision' to buy the Rafale is on the verge of collapse, over cost. India already has 200 Sukhoi Su-30s and builds its own since 2000. It might well just carry on building a few more.
So despite the very different headline numbers, the England subdata is not too bad for Labour. And its a statistically significant subset.
Ah yes, OGH's oft, some might say tediously repeated 11.4% statistic. We won't argue about the 0.1% rounding difference.
Still confident of the CON seats sub 284.5 bet at 10-11 ?
Yes I am - the way I see things is as follows: The Tories won 306 seats in 2010. Assuming they win 10 seats from the LibDems and lose 6 to UKIP/SNP/PC, this would leave them with 310 seats before taking account of losses to Labour. To achieve a total of 284 seats or fewer, resulting in my winning this bet, would therefore require Labour to win 25 or fewer seats from the Tories, i.e. 310 - 285. On anything close to current polling trends, even including ICM's latest findings, they are set to do a great deal better than that. Accordingly odds of almost evens (actually 10/11) amount to what we in the betting game refer to as a steal ..... but DYOR!
Know I am late to this, but the last thread was remarkable for the views of swing voters on the parties. And swing voters are the ones that matter. Seemed like strong move to Labour plus some hope for the Lib Dems of avoiding complete catastrophe, plus huge hostility to UKIP. Anyone who is betting on UKIP getting more than 10 seats must have money to throw away
The hostility to UKIP is not relevant. The positive votes are the ones that determine UKIP's tally.
"How positive or negative you feel about each of the following, using a scale from -100 (very negative) to +100 (very positive), where zero means neither positive nor negative ... -The UK Independence Party (UKIP)"
@David_Evershed so the House of Bishops are all Lib Dems then? Seems like they are advocating Lib Dem policies - e.g Michael Moore's bill trying to enshrine 0.7% permanently; review of Trident; balance between state and individual. Stronger economy and fairer society?
I had this dream the other day, can you tell me how plausible you think this is
Say in 2010, Dave had managed to get a small majority.
Given Ed's poor ratings, do you think right now, the Lib Dems, led by Nick Clegg, might have been leading in the polls now, and had been for quite some time?
To give Conservatives a working majority, the Lib Dems would probably have lost a few per cent and 15-20 seats from 2005, instead of losing 6 seats in our time line. (Think of all those 2010 LD marginals.) Whatever about the Lib Dems in that scenario, Clegg wouldn't be enjoying the benefits. And without a strong LD performance, Labour wouldn't have felt the need to pick Ed M to win them back.
So despite the very different headline numbers, the England subdata is not too bad for Labour. And its a statistically significant subset.
Ah yes, OGH's oft, some might say tediously repeated 11.4% statistic. We won't argue about the 0.1% rounding difference.
Still confident of the CON seats sub 284.5 bet at 10-11 ?
Yes I am - the way I see things is as follows: The Tories won 306 seats in 2010. Assuming they win 10 seats from the LibDems and lose 6 to UKIP/SNP/PC, this would leave them with 310 seats before taking account of losses to Labour. To achieve a total of 284 seats or fewer, resulting in my winning this bet, would therefore require Labour to win 25 or fewer seats from the Tories, i.e. 310 - 285. On anything close to current polling trends, even including ICM's latest findings, they are set to do a great deal better than that. Accordingly odds of almost evens (actually 10/11) amount to what we in the betting game refer to as a steal ..... but DYOR!
Only way this bet wins is if UKIP take 10+ seats from the Tories, Labour will not take 25 seats from the Tories.
another Dave UKIP needs more votes than it got last time to get anywhere. The anti-UKIP feeling from swing voters (and from the general population too) means that there is a very large chunk of votes they cannot possibly get, which makes life more difficult. Also need to factor in that UNS doesn't exist. UKIP could come close to winning in lots of places without winning very many at all
another Dave UKIP needs more votes than it got last time to get anywhere. The anti-UKIP feeling from swing voters (and from the general population too) means that there is a very large chunk of votes they cannot possibly get, which makes life more difficult. Also need to factor in that UNS doesn't exist. UKIP could come close to winning in lots of places without winning very many at all
Voting UKIP in places like Castle Point is the only sensible option if you don't want another Conservative Gov't.
@David_Evershed so the House of Bishops are all Lib Dems then? Seems like they are advocating Lib Dem policies - e.g Michael Moore's bill trying to enshrine 0.7% permanently; review of Trident; balance between state and individual. Stronger economy and fairer society?
I had this dream the other day, can you tell me how plausible you think this is
Say in 2010, Dave had managed to get a small majority.
Given Ed's poor ratings, do you think right now, the Lib Dems, led by Nick Clegg, might have been leading in the polls now, and had been for quite some time?
So despite the very different headline numbers, the England subdata is not too bad for Labour. And its a statistically significant subset.
Ah yes, OGH's oft, some might say tediously repeated 11.4% statistic. We won't argue about the 0.1% rounding difference.
Still confident of the CON seats sub 284.5 bet at 10-11 ?
Yes I am - the way I see things is as follows: The Tories won 306 seats in 2010. Assuming they win 10 seats from the LibDems and lose 6 to UKIP/SNP/PC, this would leave them with 310 seats before taking account of losses to Labour. To achieve a total of 284 seats or fewer, resulting in my winning this bet, would therefore require Labour to win 25 or fewer seats from the Tories, i.e. 310 - 285. On anything close to current polling trends, even including ICM's latest findings, they are set to do a great deal better than that. Accordingly odds of almost evens (actually 10/11) amount to what we in the betting game refer to as a steal ..... but DYOR!
Only way this bet wins is if UKIP take 10+ seats from the Tories, Labour will not take 25 seats from the Tories.
Agreed LAB will not take 25 seats from the Tories. Based on what we know at the moment it could be substantially higher.
another Dave UKIP needs more votes than it got last time to get anywhere. The anti-UKIP feeling from swing voters (and from the general population too) means that there is a very large chunk of votes they cannot possibly get, which makes life more difficult. Also need to factor in that UNS doesn't exist. UKIP could come close to winning in lots of places without winning very many at all
It could go well, it could go not so well.
Using local election results as a guide, Slugger O'Toole came up with UKIP 38 seats.
So despite the very different headline numbers, the England subdata is not too bad for Labour. And its a statistically significant subset.
Ah yes, OGH's oft, some might say tediously repeated 11.4% statistic. We won't argue about the 0.1% rounding difference.
Still confident of the CON seats sub 284.5 bet at 10-11 ?
Yes I am - the way I see things is as follows: The Tories won 306 seats in 2010. Assuming they win 10 seats from the LibDems and lose 6 to UKIP/SNP/PC, this would leave them with 310 seats before taking account of losses to Labour. To achieve a total of 284 seats or fewer, resulting in my winning this bet, would therefore require Labour to win 25 or fewer seats from the Tories, i.e. 310 - 285. On anything close to current polling trends, even including ICM's latest findings, they are set to do a great deal better than that. Accordingly odds of almost evens (actually 10/11) amount to what we in the betting game refer to as a steal ..... but DYOR!
I have DMOR and conclude that current polling trends are a good deal more favourable to the Tories than you'd think, and they will not lose more than 20 seats to the muppet that is currently leader of the Labour party.
FYI, I start with 304 seats (discounting Clacton and Corby) knock off 19 seats for Labour (aka Peter Kellner style), 2 for UKIP (Boston, and Thanet South) and add 12 for the Lib Dems, and Southampton Itchen to get to my 296 seats for the Tories.
So despite the very different headline numbers, the England subdata is not too bad for Labour. And its a statistically significant subset.
Ah yes, OGH's oft, some might say tediously repeated 11.4% statistic. We won't argue about the 0.1% rounding difference.
Still confident of the CON seats sub 284.5 bet at 10-11 ?
Yes I am - the way I see things is as follows: The Tories won 306 seats in 2010. Assuming they win 10 seats from the LibDems and lose 6 to UKIP/SNP/PC, this would leave them with 310 seats before taking account of losses to Labour. To achieve a total of 284 seats or fewer, resulting in my winning this bet, would therefore require Labour to win 25 or fewer seats from the Tories, i.e. 310 - 285. On anything close to current polling trends, even including ICM's latest findings, they are set to do a great deal better than that. Accordingly odds of almost evens (actually 10/11) amount to what we in the betting game refer to as a steal ..... but DYOR!
Only way this bet wins is if UKIP take 10+ seats from the Tories, Labour will not take 25 seats from the Tories.
Fancy an evens money bet on that Nigel? I say Labour wins 26 seats or more (net) from the Tories You say Labour wins 24 seats or fewer (net) from the Tories. Numbers exclude the Speaker's seat (Buckingham) Bet void if Labour wins exactly 25 seats (net) from the Tories. Loser pays Winner £20 by electronic bank transfer within 7 days of General Election date, ie. by 14 May 2015. What say you? I'll take the same bet from another established punter on PB.com for the same amount on the same terms.
Before the HSBC revelations were published – by the Guardian and a range of other outlets including the BBC – and while discussions were continuing over the material, the bank put its advertising with the Guardian’s parent company, Guardian News & Media, “on pause”.
No sensible business is going to advertise in a publication that is criticising it, and overt or covert pressure always exists to behave a certain way if you are reliant on the income from a certain group.
Political parties funded by hedge funds or trade unions, or broadcasters reliant on advertisers or political parties that support licence fees, are all subject to the same pressures and judgements.
The deeper issue is that the media is more dependent on advertisers than it was previously when print buyers funded it.
So despite the very different headline numbers, the England subdata is not too bad for Labour. And its a statistically significant subset.
Ah yes, OGH's oft, some might say tediously repeated 11.4% statistic. We won't argue about the 0.1% rounding difference.
Still confident of the CON seats sub 284.5 bet at 10-11 ?
Yes I am - the way I see things is as follows: The Tories won 306 seats in 2010. Assuming they win 10 seats from the LibDems and lose 6 to UKIP/SNP/PC, this would leave them with 310 seats before taking account of losses to Labour. To achieve a total of 284 seats or fewer, resulting in my winning this bet, would therefore require Labour to win 25 or fewer seats from the Tories, i.e. 310 - 285. On anything close to current polling trends, even including ICM's latest findings, they are set to do a great deal better than that. Accordingly odds of almost evens (actually 10/11) amount to what we in the betting game refer to as a steal ..... but DYOR!
Only way this bet wins is if UKIP take 10+ seats from the Tories, Labour will not take 25 seats from the Tories.
Fancy an evens money bet on that Nigel? I say Labour wins 26 seats or more (net) from the Tories You say Labour wins 24 seats or fewer (net) from the Tories. Numbers exclude the Speaker's seat (Buckingham) Bet void if Labour wins exactly 25 seats (net) from the Tories. Loser pays Winner £20 by electronic bank transfer within 7 days of General Election date, ie. by 14 May 2015. What say you? I'll take the same bet from another established punter on PB.com for the same amount on the same terms.
Silly bet, Peter. I don't want to take your money but, if you insist, I will.
Before the HSBC revelations were published – by the Guardian and a range of other outlets including the BBC – and while discussions were continuing over the material, the bank put its advertising with the Guardian’s parent company, Guardian News & Media, “on pause”.
No sensible business is going to advertise in a publication that is criticising it, and overt or covert pressure always exists to behave a certain way if you are reliant on the income from a certain group.
Political parties funded by hedge funds or trade unions, or broadcasters reliant on advertisers or political parties that support licence fees, are all subject to the same pressures and judgements.
The deeper issue is that the media is more dependent on advertisers than it was previously when print buyers funded it.
A few years ago, I was sent a press release from a client, it had limited circulation. It was lauding that company's achievements.
I was surprised next day to read, pretty much, word for word, that press release appearing as an article in a national newspaper.
So despite the very different headline numbers, the England subdata is not too bad for Labour. And its a statistically significant subset.
Ah yes, OGH's oft, some might say tediously repeated 11.4% statistic. We won't argue about the 0.1% rounding difference.
Still confident of the CON seats sub 284.5 bet at 10-11 ?
Yes I am - the way I see things is as follows: The Tories won 306 seats in 2010. Assuming they win 10 seats from the LibDems and lose 6 to UKIP/SNP/PC, this would leave them with 310 seats before taking account of losses to Labour. To achieve a total of 284 seats or fewer, resulting in my winning this bet, would therefore require Labour to win 25 or fewer seats from the Tories, i.e. 310 - 285. On anything close to current polling trends, even including ICM's latest findings, they are set to do a great deal better than that. Accordingly odds of almost evens (actually 10/11) amount to what we in the betting game refer to as a steal ..... but DYOR!
I have DMOR and conclude that current polling trends are a good deal more favourable to the Tories than you'd think, and they will not lose more than 20 seats to the muppet that is currently leader of the Labour party.
FYI, I start with 304 seats (discounting Clacton and Corby) knock off 19 seats for Labour (aka Peter Kellner style), 2 for UKIP (Boston, and Thanet South) and add 12 for the Lib Dems, and Southampton Itchen to get to my 296 seats for the Tories.
Casino ..... are you that other "established punter" to whom I referred in my last post? Are we on?
So despite the very different headline numbers, the England subdata is not too bad for Labour. And its a statistically significant subset.
Ah yes, OGH's oft, some might say tediously repeated 11.4% statistic. We won't argue about the 0.1% rounding difference.
Still confident of the CON seats sub 284.5 bet at 10-11 ?
Yes I am - the way I see things is as follows: The Tories won 306 seats in 2010. Assuming they win 10 seats from the LibDems and lose 6 to UKIP/SNP/PC, this would leave them with 310 seats before taking account of losses to Labour. To achieve a total of 284 seats or fewer, resulting in my winning this bet, would therefore require Labour to win 25 or fewer seats from the Tories, i.e. 310 - 285. On anything close to current polling trends, even including ICM's latest findings, they are set to do a great deal better than that. Accordingly odds of almost evens (actually 10/11) amount to what we in the betting game refer to as a steal ..... but DYOR!
Only way this bet wins is if UKIP take 10+ seats from the Tories, Labour will not take 25 seats from the Tories.
Agreed LAB will not take 25 seats from the Tories. Based on what we know at the moment it could be substantially higher.
the church of england should shut up about politics or it should disestablish
Yup. Their interventions helps no one, especially not their congregation.
Hmm. I'd been led to believe that it was wishy-washy soft lefty claptrap. So I went and read it - starting from a rather sceptical mindset.
Having read all the way through, I've been pleasantly surprised. It seems to be a thoughtful and fairly well-informed tract, aiming to minimise tendencies towards wings or partisanship, positive and coherent. I don't agree with every point or policy hint, but I do find myself noticeably more positively inclined towards them than I do any of the political parties.
To be fair, that's not a very high hurdle to clear, mind you...
So despite the very different headline numbers, the England subdata is not too bad for Labour. And its a statistically significant subset.
Ah yes, OGH's oft, some might say tediously repeated 11.4% statistic. We won't argue about the 0.1% rounding difference.
Still confident of the CON seats sub 284.5 bet at 10-11 ?
Yes I am - the way I see things is as follows: The Tories won 306 seats in 2010. Assuming they win 10 seats from the LibDems and lose 6 to UKIP/SNP/PC, this would leave them with 310 seats before taking account of losses to Labour. To achieve a total of 284 seats or fewer, resulting in my winning this bet, would therefore require Labour to win 25 or fewer seats from the Tories, i.e. 310 - 285. On anything close to current polling trends, even including ICM's latest findings, they are set to do a great deal better than that. Accordingly odds of almost evens (actually 10/11) amount to what we in the betting game refer to as a steal ..... but DYOR!
Only way this bet wins is if UKIP take 10+ seats from the Tories, Labour will not take 25 seats from the Tories.
Fancy an evens money bet on that Nigel? I say Labour wins 26 seats or more (net) from the Tories You say Labour wins 24 seats or fewer (net) from the Tories. Numbers exclude the Speaker's seat (Buckingham) Bet void if Labour wins exactly 25 seats (net) from the Tories. Loser pays Winner £20 by electronic bank transfer within 7 days of General Election date, ie. by 14 May 2015. What say you? I'll take the same bet from another established punter on PB.com for the same amount on the same terms.
I say that you are a much more experienced political punter than me, I would pit my racing knowledge against anyone but I am a novice at political stuff, I am learning from you lot.
However I always have an opinion and I should put my money where my gob is, so yes I will go for the bet on those terms.
Before the HSBC revelations were published – by the Guardian and a range of other outlets including the BBC – and while discussions were continuing over the material, the bank put its advertising with the Guardian’s parent company, Guardian News & Media, “on pause”.
No sensible business is going to advertise in a publication that is criticising it, and overt or covert pressure always exists to behave a certain way if you are reliant on the income from a certain group.
Political parties funded by hedge funds or trade unions, or broadcasters reliant on advertisers or political parties that support licence fees, are all subject to the same pressures and judgements.
The deeper issue is that the media is more dependent on advertisers than it was previously when print buyers funded it.
A few years ago, I was sent a press release from a client, it had limited circulation. It was lauding that company's achievements.
I was surprised next day to read, pretty much, word for word, that press release appearing as an article in a national newspaper.
"Press release" and "limited circulation" are mutually exclusive
So despite the very different headline numbers, the England subdata is not too bad for Labour. And its a statistically significant subset.
Ah yes, OGH's oft, some might say tediously repeated 11.4% statistic. We won't argue about the 0.1% rounding difference.
Still confident of the CON seats sub 284.5 bet at 10-11 ?
Yes I am - the way I see things is as follows: The Tories won 306 seats in 2010. Assuming they win 10 seats from the LibDems and lose 6 to UKIP/SNP/PC, this would leave them with 310 seats before taking account of losses to Labour. To achieve a total of 284 seats or fewer, resulting in my winning this bet, would therefore require Labour to win 25 or fewer seats from the Tories, i.e. 310 - 285. On anything close to current polling trends, even including ICM's latest findings, they are set to do a great deal better than that. Accordingly odds of almost evens (actually 10/11) amount to what we in the betting game refer to as a steal ..... but DYOR!
I have DMOR and conclude that current polling trends are a good deal more favourable to the Tories than you'd think, and they will not lose more than 20 seats to the muppet that is currently leader of the Labour party.
FYI, I start with 304 seats (discounting Clacton and Corby) knock off 19 seats for Labour (aka Peter Kellner style), 2 for UKIP (Boston, and Thanet South) and add 12 for the Lib Dems, and Southampton Itchen to get to my 296 seats for the Tories.
Casino ..... are you that other "established punter" to whom I referred in my last post? Are we on?
If you really want to, Peter. But it's silly for us to do so just to make a point. We both want a similar outcome (you probably even more so than me) and are seasoned (and experienced) analysts; so I ask you to reconsider if this is what you really want to do?
So despite the very different headline numbers, the England subdata is not too bad for Labour. And its a statistically significant subset.
Ah yes, OGH's oft, some might say tediously repeated 11.4% statistic. We won't argue about the 0.1% rounding difference.
Still confident of the CON seats sub 284.5 bet at 10-11 ?
Yes I am - the way I see things is as follows: The Tories won 306 seats in 2010. Assuming they win 10 seats from the LibDems and lose 6 to UKIP/SNP/PC, this would leave them with 310 seats before taking account of losses to Labour. To achieve a total of 284 seats or fewer, resulting in my winning this bet, would therefore require Labour to win 25 or fewer seats from the Tories, i.e. 310 - 285. On anything close to current polling trends, even including ICM's latest findings, they are set to do a great deal better than that. Accordingly odds of almost evens (actually 10/11) amount to what we in the betting game refer to as a steal ..... but DYOR!
Only way this bet wins is if UKIP take 10+ seats from the Tories, Labour will not take 25 seats from the Tories.
Fancy an evens money bet on that Nigel? I say Labour wins 26 seats or more (net) from the Tories You say Labour wins 24 seats or fewer (net) from the Tories. Numbers exclude the Speaker's seat (Buckingham) Bet void if Labour wins exactly 25 seats (net) from the Tories. Loser pays Winner £20 by electronic bank transfer within 7 days of General Election date, ie. by 14 May 2015. What say you? I'll take the same bet from another established punter on PB.com for the same amount on the same terms.
I say that you are a much more experienced political punter than me, I would pit my racing knowledge against anyone but I am a novice at political stuff, I am learning from you lot.
However I always have an opinion and I should put my money where my gob is, so yes I will go for the bet on those terms.
Likewise, I would be happy to take £20 on those terms. I win if Labour win 26 (net) Tory seats or more, PtP if they fall below 25 (net).
So despite the very different headline numbers, the England subdata is not too bad for Labour. And its a statistically significant subset.
Ah yes, OGH's oft, some might say tediously repeated 11.4% statistic. We won't argue about the 0.1% rounding difference.
Still confident of the CON seats sub 284.5 bet at 10-11 ?
Yes I am - the way I see things is as follows: The Tories won 306 seats in 2010. Assuming they win 10 seats from the LibDems and lose 6 to UKIP/SNP/PC, this would leave them with 310 seats before taking account of losses to Labour. To achieve a total of 284 seats or fewer, resulting in my winning this bet, would therefore require Labour to win 25 or fewer seats from the Tories, i.e. 310 - 285. On anything close to current polling trends, even including ICM's latest findings, they are set to do a great deal better than that. Accordingly odds of almost evens (actually 10/11) amount to what we in the betting game refer to as a steal ..... but DYOR!
I have DMOR and conclude that current polling trends are a good deal more favourable to the Tories than you'd think, and they will not lose more than 20 seats to the muppet that is currently leader of the Labour party.
FYI, I start with 304 seats (discounting Clacton and Corby) knock off 19 seats for Labour (aka Peter Kellner style), 2 for UKIP (Boston, and Thanet South) and add 12 for the Lib Dems, and Southampton Itchen to get to my 296 seats for the Tories.
Casino ..... are you that other "established punter" to whom I referred in my last post? Are we on?
If you really want to, Peter. But it's silly for us to do so just to make a point. We both want a similar outcome (you probably even more so than me) and are seasoned (and experienced) analysts; so I ask you to reconsider if this is what you really want to do?
Casino - I always thought that betting with fellow PBers was all about making a point, as well as money of course! But you're clearly not comfortable with this (and I do understand why) so we'd best call it off.
So despite the very different headline numbers, the England subdata is not too bad for Labour. And its a statistically significant subset.
Ah yes, OGH's oft, some might say tediously repeated 11.4% statistic. We won't argue about the 0.1% rounding difference.
Still confident of the CON seats sub 284.5 bet at 10-11 ?
I have DMOR and conclude that current polling trends are a good deal more favourable to the Tories than you'd think, and they will not lose more than 20 seats to the muppet that is currently leader of the Labour party.
FYI, I start with 304 seats (discounting Clacton and Corby) knock off 19 seats for Labour (aka Peter Kellner style), 2 for UKIP (Boston, and Thanet South) and add 12 for the Lib Dems, and Southampton Itchen to get to my 296 seats for the Tories.
Casino ..... are you that other "established punter" to whom I referred in my last post? Are we on?
If you really want to, Peter. But it's silly for us to do so just to make a point. We both want a similar outcome (you probably even more so than me) and are seasoned (and experienced) analysts; so I ask you to reconsider if this is what you really want to do?
Casino - I always thought that betting with fellow PBers was all about making a point, as well as money of course! But you're clearly not comfortable with this (and I do understand why) so we'd best call it off.
I am comfortable with the bet itself and the analysis. I just don't like taking your money off you, particularly when we both probably want the same thing and are just in various emotional states about GE2015.
FWIW I would make no personal gain on this one and suggest a donation to this charity, if successful:
Nigel - thanks for being a sport and agreeing to this bet. As we both have circa 2500 vanilla posts to our name, I'm halppy to take this on trust if you are, but should you wish to confirm things with PtP then that's fine with me also ... let me know what you decide.
Any other bona fide taker of this bet, please confirm within the next 15 minutes, i.e by 10:30pm when the shutters come down.
Nigel - thanks for being a sport and agreeing to this bet. As we both have circa 2500 vanilla posts to our name, I'm halppy to take this on trust if you are, but should you wish to confirm things with PtP then that's fine with me also ... let me know what you decide.
Any other bona fide taker of this bet, please confirm within the next 15 minutes, i.e by 10:30pm when the shutters come down.
No mate I am happy to take it on trust.
I didn't realize I had that many posts, I really need to get out more.
Nigel - thanks for being a sport and agreeing to this bet. As we both have circa 2500 vanilla posts to our name, I'm halppy to take this on trust if you are, but should you wish to confirm things with PtP then that's fine with me also ... let me know what you decide.
Any other bona fide taker of this bet, please confirm within the next 15 minutes, i.e by 10:30pm when the shutters come down.
Did you see my post? This is the Lab net Tory wins over/under 25? I'm up for evens with £20 stake. I'm over, you under.
What odds will any of the EICIPMers give me for my £20 on Con to win over 299.5 seats?
6/4? You win £30 if they get 300 seats or more, I win your £20 if they fall short.
Think I'll hold out for better than that..
6-4 seems like a fair price - what are you looking for ?
Hopefully someone to bet with their balls over their brain!
Edit - I can get 3/1 and 6/1 with Shadsy on 301-325 and 326-350 which is pretty much 6/4 and I can't see Con over 350.
If I wanted Ladbrokes' odds I'd bet with them
Personally I'd always take PB.com odds over Ladbrokes if they are the same, since my ego enjoys the publicity. I see you've been offered 7/4 however, and whilst I'm tempted at those odds I won't intrude on a done deal.
He probably does make some valid points about the current state of the Tele, but I get the feeling he'd be a nightmare to work with, to be honest.
He is extremely pompous and pious. He hates American's (not great when his bosses are American's) and seems to spend most of his life in a VERY heightened emotional state. I've seen a few TV appearances where I've wondered if he's just p*ssed or actually a tad irrational...
Greece. This does not bode well for a deal: "Greece's government has called for a vote to scrap its austerity programme on Friday, the same day that the eurozone has declared a deadline for it to seek an extension to its bailout." (from the Beeb)
How did Greece get into the eurozone in the first place? It's been a basket case for years. Was it a case of ignore the truth, think pure thoughts and onward to ever closer union?
Goldman fiddled the figures
Everyone knew that though so it isn't the reason, just an excuse for the reason. The Euro is a utopian political project that ignores reality.
Evening all, now I wonder what tonights poll will show?
According to you it will either show triumphant Tories massively overreacting to a small lead. Or Tories massively overreacting to a small deficit. Neither of which will be true.
Comments
What was the gig?
Who was on at the gig, the Odeon and Shepherds Bush Empire are my favourite venues these days.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/01/19/how-cameron-could-win-and-lose/
You assume that voting patterns and densities will be the same as last time - they won't be. The Conservatives can afford to lose up to 20 seats to Labour - Peter Kellner predicts 19 losses. I think they'll make 12 gains from the Lib Dems. So I expect 295-296 seats, at present.
David Butler, Peter Kellner, Vernon Bogdanor, Ed Fieldhouse, Rod Crosby and Jack W all agree on a seat score near 300 on vote share figures very similar to this. I believe Sean Fear isn't miles off this either.
Even if you don't rate my analysis, which I'm backing with cash, that should count for something.
Their only UK tour date, so headed down to the smoke for it.
GF rly enjoyed it too !
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jamieross/youve-been-sassed-by-the-nhs
I must say I liked the claim from the Times no less which said 'men should not be at the birth' - based on a study that did not involve pregnant women. Rather ''the pain felt by 39 women given 'pinprick' laser pulses on their fingers was not reduced by the presence of their partner.''
You may love journalists indeed you may think them the cleverest people you know. Me? Nah.
At the end of 2014, bookies odds on UKIP gaining 100 seats or more were 100/1, last month
down to 25/1,now 18/1, by May it will be evens.
David Jones @DavidJo52951945 6m6 minutes ago
@oowmygawd @db7857603db2430 so you are on for a £2000 pay out! good going mate
NowI don't know how true the above is, or which bookie they are talking about, but it looks good.
It doesn't compute, Ed Miliband and his Labour Party are just not that popular.
At the risk of drinking heavily from the sub-sample cup, this is also worth noting - Ed may not be piling on the votes where he most needs them. They could be just in metropolitan cities:
"In the English battleground seats, however – defined as those which the Tories won by up to 15 points last time, plus those where Labour clung on by no more than 10 points – the Conservatives are unchanged on 38%, while Labour is actually down three on 33%. That amounts to a positive swing to the Conservatives of around 1.5%. Some caution is needed because the sub-samples involved are relatively small, but not so tiny as to allow Labour to sustain hopes of an atypically strong movement towards Miliband in middle England."
At the same time I've got CON backed in Sherwood.
"Depressing news. Are people so blind to how friggin evil this party is? Damn."
"Sometimes I truly despair of humanity."
"What do these lying, thieving, cheating bastards actually have to do to convince people what they truly are, and stand for?"
"So which Swiss bank account holder conducted this poll? Sounds like rubbish to me - I know of hardly anyone that admits to being a tory voter without looking at their shoes and apologising first..."
"I don't want to live in this country any more."
"Welcome to Hell."
last GE
Conservative 39.6%,
Labour 28.1%
Last ICM has 38 vs 34, a 3.75% swing to Labour
The tories have gone from 39.6 to 38. Clearly this is down but by 1.6%, but is it +3.75% from Conservatives to Labour? I simply ask.
Our Good Host also regularly points out that the GE is in fact 650 (649) separate elections.
Charles, CycleFree and Robert assured it was because it was because the potential regulatory fines is why HSBC did it. I said it seemed odd, as other banks were quite happy to provide banking to similar people.
Peter Oborne's missive confirms to me that something very odd is going on at HSBC.
(PS this isn't a dig at Charles, CycleFree and Robert, it is more, I got involved it, and I know something odd is going on)
I think there'll be a few, at the same time as Labour miss out on some of their easiest targets.
I like Crewe & Nantwich (#87), Portsmouth North (#114) and Calder Valley (#91)
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/feb/17/peter-oborne-telegraph-hsbc-coverage-fraud-readers
It makes me want to pull the dusty blue rosette out of my man drawer and wear it with pride.
(But then I remember how Cameron and his team has let us down, and has a take-it-or-leave-it attitude to traditional Conservatives)
They praise William Beveridge and the Atlee government but point out that Beveridge's requirement for voluntary work as well as state intervention got forgotten.
They praise Thatcher's vision and push for individual enterprise but claim this resulted in people becoming more separate from each other.
They praise the Big Society, they praise 0.7% going on overseas aid.
They want Trident to be reviewed (=stopped).
Getting so involved in politics they may find their donations reduce.
Say in 2010, Dave had managed to get a small majority.
Given Ed's poor ratings, do you think right now, the Lib Dems, led by Nick Clegg, might have been leading in the polls now, and had been for quite some time?
Egypt is also buying 24 French Rafale jets.
Meantime - and despite the furore at the time - the Indian govt 'decision' to buy the Rafale is on the verge of collapse, over cost. India already has 200 Sukhoi Su-30s and builds its own since 2000. It might well just carry on building a few more.
The Tories won 306 seats in 2010. Assuming they win 10 seats from the LibDems and lose 6 to UKIP/SNP/PC, this would leave them with 310 seats before taking account of losses to Labour. To achieve a total of 284 seats or fewer, resulting in my winning this bet, would therefore require Labour to win 25 or fewer seats from the Tories, i.e. 310 - 285. On anything close to current polling trends, even including ICM's latest findings, they are set to do a great deal better than that. Accordingly odds of almost evens (actually 10/11) amount to what we in the betting game refer to as a steal ..... but DYOR!
"How positive or negative you feel about each of the following, using a scale from -100 (very negative) to +100 (very positive), where zero means neither positive nor negative ...
-The UK Independence Party (UKIP)"
+27% / -47%
p.22
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/ANP-150216-Full-data-tables.pdf
----
Re: swing voters
Lord Ashcroft defines them as "who either say they don’t know how they will vote or that they may yet change their mind"
a lot of those 'may yet change their mind' are counted among current-LD.
need to be much more subtle than that
Similiarly Great Grimsby/Labour.
And.. I have no idea.
Using local election results as a guide, Slugger O'Toole came up with UKIP 38 seats.
http://sluggerotoole.com/2015/01/24/forecasting-the-2015-uk-general-election/
FYI, I start with 304 seats (discounting Clacton and Corby) knock off 19 seats for Labour (aka Peter Kellner style), 2 for UKIP (Boston, and Thanet South) and add 12 for the Lib Dems, and Southampton Itchen to get to my 296 seats for the Tories.
I say Labour wins 26 seats or more (net) from the Tories
You say Labour wins 24 seats or fewer (net) from the Tories.
Numbers exclude the Speaker's seat (Buckingham)
Bet void if Labour wins exactly 25 seats (net) from the Tories.
Loser pays Winner £20 by electronic bank transfer within 7 days of General Election date, ie. by 14 May 2015.
What say you?
I'll take the same bet from another established punter on PB.com for the same amount on the same terms.
No sensible business is going to advertise in a publication that is criticising it, and overt or covert pressure always exists to behave a certain way if you are reliant on the income from a certain group.
Political parties funded by hedge funds or trade unions, or broadcasters reliant on advertisers or political parties that support licence fees, are all subject to the same pressures and judgements.
The deeper issue is that the media is more dependent on advertisers than it was previously when print buyers funded it.
Con 5% clear??
I was surprised next day to read, pretty much, word for word, that press release appearing as an article in a national newspaper.
Are we on?
Having read all the way through, I've been pleasantly surprised. It seems to be a thoughtful and fairly well-informed tract, aiming to minimise tendencies towards wings or partisanship, positive and coherent. I don't agree with every point or policy hint, but I do find myself noticeably more positively inclined towards them than I do any of the political parties.
To be fair, that's not a very high hurdle to clear, mind you...
However I always have an opinion and I should put my money where my gob is, so yes I will go for the bet on those terms.
Edit - I can get 3/1 and 6/1 with Shadsy on 301-325 and 326-350 which is pretty much 6/4 and I can't see Con over 350.
If I wanted Ladbrokes' odds I'd bet with them
FWIW I would make no personal gain on this one and suggest a donation to this charity, if successful:
http://www.combatstress.org.uk/
Any other bona fide taker of this bet, please confirm within the next 15 minutes, i.e by 10:30pm when the shutters come down.
I've backed EICIPM but broadly only at 6-4 or higher.
Current average is 2.67.
I didn't realize I had that many posts, I really need to get out more.
He probably does make some valid points about the current state of the Tele, but I get the feeling he'd be a nightmare to work with, to be honest.
He is extremely pompous and pious. He hates American's (not great when his bosses are American's) and seems to spend most of his life in a VERY heightened emotional state. I've seen a few TV appearances where I've wondered if he's just p*ssed or actually a tad irrational...
Do we have a bet?