Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Something to scare those who’ve been betting heavily on UKI

135

Comments

  • Sean_F said:

    I don't want to get into a flame war about Peak Kipper or not, but I am right in thinking, UKIP haven't been as visible as much recently, whilst the big two kick lumps out of each other.

    So we've seen UKIP going down, and the big two on the up.

    Given the format of the debates was the Cameron v Miliband head to head to be the final debate, a week before election day, perhaps UKIP have dodged a bullet with the likelihood of no debates.

    UKIP haven't been as visible but I think that's partly a deliberate strategy (and partly the natural squeeze of the election). The question will be as to how much purchase they can get later.
    Yep - UKIP have been jaw droppingly invisible.
    Plus Chelsea fan and £9k Farage claim for non existent rent invisible.
    So, despite several newspapers emphasising that the Chelsea fan in question was not involved in the racial abuse, you continue to smear him.
    Chelsea fans causing more problems:

    https://twitter.com/DutchVanGaal/status/569857628949626880/photo/1
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514

    Had to drop off the previous thread but I wanted to just come back to those who objected to my characterising UKIP and Labour supporters as morally ugly and morally incompetent.

    Re the first, there is simply too much UKIP corruption, racism and homophobia smoke to argue there's no fire. It has got to the point where to suggest otherwise simply prompts laughter.

    Re the Labour case, don't take it from me; take it, first of all, from Austin Mitchell, MP:
    "Even if we selected a raving alcoholic sex paedophile we wouldn't lose Grimsby" - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/labour-mp-austin-mitchell-even-if-we-selected-a-raving-alcoholic-sex-paedophile-we-wouldnt-lose-grimsby-10061754.html

    ..which is, as far as I know, the first horse's-mouth actual boast that Labour voters will elect a paedophile, as long as they're a Labour paedophile.

    This is not just a straw in the wind, in the way that the BBC's blind eye to Labour-supporting paedophile Jimmy Savile was a straw in the wind. This isn't an allegation by someone hostile to Labour designed simply to wind up Labour supporters. This is a statement of the facts by someone who's not trying to damage or insult the party and who benefits from this attitude.

    Exhibit two is the fact that the voters of Rotherham replaced the disgraced Labour PCC with another Labour PCC. This is wholly of a piece with Austin Mitchell's view of them.

    This tolerance of the most abject conceivable moral incompetence is, I am afraid, a Labour-specific problem. As I have pointed out before, there are examples of Tory voters who have turned on their MP in disgust merely for being a trougher (Neil Hamilton), there are examples of Lib Dem voters who have turned on their MP for merely having been suspected of an unpleasant crime (Jeremy Thorpe), and where they have very nearly lost the seat because of similar revulsion (Eastleigh). With the Greens and the regional parties, the sample is too small.

    But as far as I am aware, there is no example of Labour losing a seat that you'd expect them to have kept, where the loss was patently because of the disgusting personal behaviour of the MP. Ed Miliband is at no risk of losing his seat because of his tax fiddling; Ed Balls didn't lose his seat in 2010 despite his home-flipping and troughing.

    So it is a Labour-voter problem, I'm afraid, and it's just the bit of the moral ineptitude iceberg that sticks up above the surface.

    Self-serving bollocks.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411
    edited February 2015

    Had to drop off the previous thread but I wanted to just come back to those who objected to my characterising UKIP and Labour supporters as morally ugly and morally incompetent.

    Re the first, there is simply too much UKIP corruption, racism and homophobia smoke to argue there's no fire. It has got to the point where to suggest otherwise simply prompts laughter.

    Re the Labour case, don't take it from me; take it, first of all, from Austin Mitchell, MP:
    "Even if we selected a raving alcoholic sex paedophile we wouldn't lose Grimsby" - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/labour-mp-austin-mitchell-even-if-we-selected-a-raving-alcoholic-sex-paedophile-we-wouldnt-lose-grimsby-10061754.html

    ..which is, as far as I know, the first horse's-mouth actual boast that Labour voters will elect a paedophile, as long as they're a Labour paedophile.

    This is not just a straw in the wind, in the way that the BBC's blind eye to Labour-supporting paedophile Jimmy Savile was a straw in the wind. This isn't an allegation by someone hostile to Labour designed simply to wind up Labour supporters. This is a statement of the facts by someone who's not trying to damage or insult the party and who benefits from this attitude.

    Exhibit two is the fact that the voters of Rotherham replaced the disgraced Labour PCC with another Labour PCC. This is wholly of a piece with Austin Mitchell's view of them.

    This tolerance of the most abject conceivable moral incompetence is, I am afraid, a Labour-specific problem. As I have pointed out before, there are examples of Tory voters who have turned on their MP in disgust merely for being a trougher (Neil Hamilton), there are examples of Lib Dem voters who have turned on their MP for merely having been suspected of an unpleasant crime (Jeremy Thorpe), and where they have very nearly lost the seat because of similar revulsion (Eastleigh). With the Greens and the regional parties, the sample is too small.

    But as far as I am aware, there is no example of Labour losing a seat that you'd expect them to have kept, where the loss was patently because of the disgusting personal behaviour of the MP. Ed Miliband is at no risk of losing his seat because of his tax fiddling; Ed Balls didn't lose his seat in 2010 despite his home-flipping and troughing.

    So it is a Labour-voter problem, I'm afraid, and it's just the bit of the moral ineptitude iceberg that sticks up above the surface.

    Saville kept his support of Labour tremendously hidden. Actually tell a lie he seemed to be a supporter of both Blair and Thatcher, so perhaps a shocking score draw on that one.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,975
    edited February 2015
    Excellent populist measure from Ed. No paid directorships or consultancies for Labour MPs if Labour get in. The idea that Ken Clarke had three one of which was BAT was a joke
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    edited February 2015
    Pulpstar said:

    Frankly this poll is absurd. It shows Labour are 15 points ahead of the Tories (43% to 28%) in the South East.

    Pink elephants have now joined the pigs flying over Westminster........

    Complete rubbish he should be embarrassed to have published it.
    Another thing we agree on.

    All LARGER polls are a complete joke
    Nope.
    Ashcroft National Poll 9/2/15: Con 34%, Lab 31%, Lib Dem 9%, UKIP 14%, Green 6%

    Nope

    Ashcroft National Poll 23/2/15: Con 32%, Lab 36%, Lib Dem 7%, UKIP 11%, Green 8%

    Nope

    Nope Nope embarrassingly Nope
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    edited February 2015
    Roger.. what wars.. Have you been in a coma for the last fifty years or so..The big breaking news today was the complete breakdown and arse kicking that Balls got from Osborne..the big Labour bruiser was humiliated at UQ..sad to watch really.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,514
    edited February 2015
    Roger said:

    Excellent populist measure from Ed. No paid directorships or working for lobbying firms if Labour get in. The idea that Ken Clarke had three one of which was BAT was a joke

    I will believe it when I see it....I can easily see this being something that mysteriously disappears from sight once a few people have a word with him about money they are going to be missing out on. Or the loopholes will be so large you can drive a bus through.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411
    edited February 2015

    Pulpstar said:

    Frankly this poll is absurd. It shows Labour are 15 points ahead of the Tories (43% to 28%) in the South East.

    Pink elephants have now joined the pigs flying over Westminster........

    Complete rubbish he should be embarrassed to have published it.
    Another thing we agree on.

    All LARGER polls are a complete joke
    Nope.
    Ashcroft National Poll 9/2/15: Con 34%, Lab 31%, Lib Dem 9%, UKIP 14%, Green 6%

    Nope

    Ashcroft National Poll 23/2/15: Con 32%, Lab 36%, Lib Dem 7%, UKIP 11%, Green 8%

    Nope

    Nope Nope embarrassingly Nope
    Take the average of those two...

    Con 33% Lab 33.5% Lib Dem 8% UKIP 12.5%.

    Not far off what we all "believe" the true picture is now, don't you think ?
  • antifrank said:

    The New Statesman have republished a piece from a defeated Labour MP in the wake of the 1983 debacle. Some lessons here for both main parties; Labour's 1980/81 experience is precisely why this is not a "good election to lose".

    http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/02/christopher-price-reflections-landslide

    This really isn't a good election to lose anyway. As we start 2015, the economic conditions that the incoming government will inherit are about as benign as could reasonably be hoped for - good growth, inflation firmly under control, employment surging, wage growth starting to appear. Yes, there's a big deficit that needs dealing with, but that should be manageable if growth continues on its current path.
    Indeed, although Labour's traditional way of dealing with a deficit is not to. Instead they make it even bigger, then claim in the subsequent election that it's a choice between a baby unicorn for every child versus wicked Toory "cuts".

    If the Tories get in, it's not a disaster. Labour recognises that the country needs spells of Tory governments to fix the economy enough for there to be money for Labour to pi55 away when they get back in. Labour needs the Tories to get in now and then; the reverse is absolutely not true, though Thatcher certainly benefited from being able to point at the antics of Labour councils.
  • AndreaParma_82AndreaParma_82 Posts: 4,714
    edited February 2015
    Conservative shortlist for Fareham

    Suella Fernandes (a regular feature of Conservative shortlists)
    Donna Jones (Portsmouth Cllr)
    Jeremy Quinn (a company adviser from Buckinghamshire who already appeared in a couple of shortlists)
    Nick Rose (from Bournemouth, former soldier, works in the hi tech sector)

    Selection on Saturday.

    I think Faversham and Mid Kent will select tomorrow. Among safe seats, Horsham selection is also coming up.

    Kensington may another last minute hope for Conservatives high flyers in search for a seat


    On Labour side, the held seats without a candidate are Torfaen, Midlothian (but not safe anymore given SLAB status) and Halifax. Both Torfaen and Midlothian are scheduled for the beginning of March. Halifax is behind as they don't have a shortlist in place yet.
  • Anyone with a big Scottish position should take a look at the electionforecast Scottish tables:

    http://electionforecast.co.uk/tables/SNP_seat_gains.html

    Their overall forecast is 37 SNP wins, which is in line with the betting markets. However, the interesting thing about it is that they rank all the seats by probability of the SNP winning, and the detail of which seats they think are likely to go SNP is very different to Shadsy's. That could be an indicator of some value, especially for those of us wanting to finesse our pro-SNP betting positions.

  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @richardDodd
    Ozzie says that it is "nothing to do with me mate, I am only the Chancellor, it's your fault as a junior minister for not acting on the uncollated data"
  • antifrank said:

    antifrank said:

    TGOHF said:

    BenM said:

    Nah. Try again Lord A.

    Am worried about my Kippers "2 Mps" bet - should I go for a saver on "1" ?
    11/2 with Ladbrokes that UKIP get under 1.5 MPs.

    I'm not recommending this bet, mind.
    Which half of Mark Reckless would you prefer?
    Half would not be enough.

    My narrowest margin of victory for a successful political bet was betting on An Independence From Europe getting under 1.5% at the Euro elections last year. They got 1.49%.

    I'm sure I'll have one that fails by a similar margin sooner or later, so I'll try to remember that one when I do.
    That was very lucky. I understand thousands of people wanted to vote for them but got tricked into voting UKIP instead because of their similar branding.
    I voted for them deliberately to piss off UKIPpers, because the Euro elections are wholly without point, and there's little funnier than an angry UKIPper.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Frankly this poll is absurd. It shows Labour are 15 points ahead of the Tories (43% to 28%) in the South East.

    Pink elephants have now joined the pigs flying over Westminster........

    Complete rubbish he should be embarrassed to have published it.
    Another thing we agree on.

    All LARGER polls are a complete joke
    Nope.
    Ashcroft National Poll 9/2/15: Con 34%, Lab 31%, Lib Dem 9%, UKIP 14%, Green 6%

    Nope

    Ashcroft National Poll 23/2/15: Con 32%, Lab 36%, Lib Dem 7%, UKIP 11%, Green 8%

    Nope

    Nope Nope embarrassingly Nope
    Take the average of those two...

    Con 33% Lab 33.5% Lib Dem 8% UKIP 12.5%.

    Not far off what we all "believe" the true picture is now, don't you think ?
    So if one showed a 20% Lab lead and one showed a 19% Con lead that would be OK because if you add them together its about right.

    Have been saying for weeks they are as bad as Angus Reid in 2010
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Pulpstar said:

    Had to drop off the previous thread but I wanted to just come back to those who objected to my characterising UKIP and Labour supporters as morally ugly and morally incompetent.

    Re the first, there is simply too much UKIP corruption, racism and homophobia smoke to argue there's no fire. It has got to the point where to suggest otherwise simply prompts laughter.

    Re the Labour case, don't take it from me; take it, first of all, from Austin Mitchell, MP:
    "Even if we selected a raving alcoholic sex paedophile we wouldn't lose Grimsby" - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/labour-mp-austin-mitchell-even-if-we-selected-a-raving-alcoholic-sex-paedophile-we-wouldnt-lose-grimsby-10061754.html

    ..which is, as far as I know, the first horse's-mouth actual boast that Labour voters will elect a paedophile, as long as they're a Labour paedophile.

    This is not just a straw in the wind, in the way that the BBC's blind eye to Labour-supporting paedophile Jimmy Savile was a straw in the wind. This isn't an allegation by someone hostile to Labour designed simply to wind up Labour supporters. This is a statement of the facts by someone who's not trying to damage or insult the party and who benefits from this attitude.

    Exhibit two is the fact that the voters of Rotherham replaced the disgraced Labour PCC with another Labour PCC. This is wholly of a piece with Austin Mitchell's view of them.

    This tolerance of the most abject conceivable moral incompetence is, I am afraid, a Labour-specific problem. As I have pointed out before, there are examples of Tory voters who have turned on their MP in disgust merely for being a trougher (Neil Hamilton), there are examples of Lib Dem voters who have turned on their MP for merely having been suspected of an unpleasant crime (Jeremy Thorpe), and where they have very nearly lost the seat because of similar revulsion (Eastleigh). With the Greens and the regional parties, the sample is too small.

    But as far as I am aware, there is no example of Labour losing a seat that you'd expect them to have kept, where the loss was patently because of the disgusting personal behaviour of the MP. Ed Miliband is at no risk of losing his seat because of his tax fiddling; Ed Balls didn't lose his seat in 2010 despite his home-flipping and troughing.

    So it is a Labour-voter problem, I'm afraid, and it's just the bit of the moral ineptitude iceberg that sticks up above the surface.

    Saville kept his support of Labour tremendously hidden. Actually tell a lie he seemed to be a supporter of both Blair and Thatcher, so perhaps a shocking score draw on that one.
    Yeah Saville spent many a NYE at Chequers at the pleasure of Labour PM Thatcher during the 80s
  • There is much comment about MPs having outside business interests in the light of todays events.

    Personally, and I suspect most people would agree, that if you are a plumber or a lawyer, a journalist or a nurse, I don't see why you cannot continue to work part time. Indeed, in professions such as nurses you need to complete a number of shifts a year to keep your competency licence.

    The problem comes when the work is related to or flows from the position as an MP, I think this is what sticks in the craw with the public. For example, if the plumber who became an MP got the contract to fix the house of commons drains or unduly influenced legislation on a plumbers licencing scheme, it would cause outrage. MPs don't seem to appreciate this distinction.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411

    Anyone with a big Scottish position should take a look at the electionforecast Scottish tables:

    http://electionforecast.co.uk/tables/SNP_seat_gains.html

    Their overall forecast is 37 SNP wins, which is in line with the betting markets. However, the interesting thing about it is that they rank all the seats by probability of the SNP winning, and the detail of which seats they think are likely to go SNP is very different to Shadsy's. That could be an indicator of some value, especially for those of us wanting to finesse our pro-SNP betting positions.

    Ross, Skye Lochaber 89%.

    If Lord Ashcroft had looked inside Charlie Kennedy's box the SNP would be heavy odds on there.
  • @Mr Bond - Please identify the troughing Labour MP returned to parliament following the withdrawal of the Tory and LD candidates from the constituency in which he was standing; as well as the one returned having been implicated in an attempted murder.

    David Cameron was returned at the last election despite making hay with his home allowance:

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/dec/10/david-cameron-mps-expenses

    And I imagine George Osborne will be back next time round:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/9694923/George-Osborne-makes-400K-profit-on-constituency-home.html

    You have also libelled Ed Miliband.


  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,975
    Richard N

    Maybe I'm being stupid but I can't follow the table you've posted
  • weejonnieweejonnie Posts: 3,820
    Roger said:

    Excellent populist measure from Ed. No paid directorships or consultancies for Labour MPs if Labour get in. The idea that Ken Clarke had three one of which was BAT was a joke

    And presumably no Union positions either.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,222
    There's a lot of variation across the polls, and Ukip definitely have dropped somewhat. But so too have the Lib Dems, and I think they are in serious danger of falling below 20 seats now.
  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    I don't want to get into a flame war about Peak Kipper or not, but I am right in thinking, UKIP haven't been as visible as much recently, whilst the big two kick lumps out of each other.

    So we've seen UKIP going down, and the big two on the up.

    Given the format of the debates was the Cameron v Miliband head to head to be the final debate, a week before election day, perhaps UKIP have dodged a bullet with the likelihood of no debates.

    UKIP haven't been as visible but I think that's partly a deliberate strategy (and partly the natural squeeze of the election). The question will be as to how much purchase they can get later.
    Yep - UKIP have been jaw droppingly invisible.
    Plus Chelsea fan and £9k Farage claim for non existent rent invisible.
    So, despite several newspapers emphasising that the Chelsea fan in question was not involved in the racial abuse, you continue to smear him.
    You can emphasise him how you like but he, Farage's claim and Farage's local party have not been invisible.
    And what is so dreadful about Farage claiming an allowance that he's entitled to?

    You defend who you want. Claiming £9k for utilities, insurance and rates for a pokey rent free office seems a bit much on top of £16k for computers, furniture, telephones, stationery, salaries or travel during the same 6 month period. More to the point it hardly smacks of breaking the mould.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,041
    weejonnie said:

    Roger said:

    Excellent populist measure from Ed. No paid directorships or consultancies for Labour MPs if Labour get in. The idea that Ken Clarke had three one of which was BAT was a joke

    And presumably no Union positions either.
    No, they are allowed.
  • Roger said:

    Richard N

    Maybe I'm being stupid but I can't follow the table you've posted

    The third column gives their estimated probabillity of the SNP winning the seat
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Frankly this poll is absurd. It shows Labour are 15 points ahead of the Tories (43% to 28%) in the South East.

    Pink elephants have now joined the pigs flying over Westminster........

    Complete rubbish he should be embarrassed to have published it.
    Another thing we agree on.

    All LARGER polls are a complete joke
    Nope.
    Ashcroft National Poll 9/2/15: Con 34%, Lab 31%, Lib Dem 9%, UKIP 14%, Green 6%

    Nope

    Ashcroft National Poll 23/2/15: Con 32%, Lab 36%, Lib Dem 7%, UKIP 11%, Green 8%

    Nope

    Nope Nope embarrassingly Nope
    Take the average of those two...

    Con 33% Lab 33.5% Lib Dem 8% UKIP 12.5%.

    Not far off what we all "believe" the true picture is now, don't you think ?
    So if one showed a 20% Lab lead and one showed a 19% Con lead that would be OK because if you add them together its about right.

    Have been saying for weeks they are as bad as Angus Reid in 2010
    But they aren't.

    Natural variation in the polls is to be damn well expected, if there was none then THAT would be of more concern. Yougov does actually concern me on this front - their lack of outliers is concerning.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    edited February 2015

    Anyone with a big Scottish position should take a look at the electionforecast Scottish tables:

    http://electionforecast.co.uk/tables/SNP_seat_gains.html

    Their overall forecast is 37 SNP wins, which is in line with the betting markets. However, the interesting thing about it is that they rank all the seats by probability of the SNP winning, and the detail of which seats they think are likely to go SNP is very different to Shadsy's. That could be an indicator of some value, especially for those of us wanting to finesse our pro-SNP betting positions.

    Isn't this basically because they're applying a national swing within Scotland? Whereas the shrewdies know to expect bigger swings in Glasgow and smaller ones in Edinburgh. Which, given where those seats start from, means increased volatility in their result.

    Basically the bookies (helped by Ashcroft) are probably a lot closer to the truth than Electoral Forecast.

    Charlie Kennedy is a special case.
  • Anyone with a big Scottish position should take a look at the electionforecast Scottish tables:

    http://electionforecast.co.uk/tables/SNP_seat_gains.html

    Their overall forecast is 37 SNP wins, which is in line with the betting markets. However, the interesting thing about it is that they rank all the seats by probability of the SNP winning, and the detail of which seats they think are likely to go SNP is very different to Shadsy's. That could be an indicator of some value, especially for those of us wanting to finesse our pro-SNP betting positions.

    The percentage chances are as interesting as the order.

    If Orkney & Shetland really is a 50/50 bet, the 9/2 on the SNP with Betfair and Bet365 is amazing value. Some of the percentages for the odds-on bets would represent value too if they are correct.

    I note that on their prediction, the Conservatives take Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk.

    In most seats, the estimate of the Lib Dem share looks way too high. They are projected to lose their deposit in only 9 seats. That sounds... optimistic.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411

    Roger said:

    Richard N

    Maybe I'm being stupid but I can't follow the table you've posted

    The third column gives their estimated probabillity of the SNP winning the seat
    Note they are expecting the SNP to pick up 3.2% of the UK vote, which is below where they are at at the moment.
  • Pulpstar said:

    Ross, Skye Lochaber 89%.

    If Lord Ashcroft had looked inside Charlie Kennedy's box the SNP would be heavy odds on there.

    LibDems might want to divert their gaze from the estimate for Orkney & Shetland..
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411

    Anyone with a big Scottish position should take a look at the electionforecast Scottish tables:

    http://electionforecast.co.uk/tables/SNP_seat_gains.html

    Their overall forecast is 37 SNP wins, which is in line with the betting markets. However, the interesting thing about it is that they rank all the seats by probability of the SNP winning, and the detail of which seats they think are likely to go SNP is very different to Shadsy's. That could be an indicator of some value, especially for those of us wanting to finesse our pro-SNP betting positions.

    Isn't this basically because they're applying a national swing within Scotland? Whereas the shrewdies know to expect bigger swings in Glasgow and smaller ones in Edinburgh. Which, given where those seats start from, means increased volatility in their result.

    Basically the bookies (helped by Ashcroft) are probably a lot closer to the truth than Electoral Forecast.

    Charlie Kennedy is a special case.
    Depends which bit of Edinburgh, Edinburgh East simply must go SNP on any sort of analysis.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411
    Are both Charlie Kennedy and Carmichael special cases... If you listen to some... Viscount Thurso is the actual special case.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,975
    There is a certain irony in two of our most upright MP's getting caught in a sting. It would be so much more reassuring if it had been Gove and Abbott
  • Had to drop off the previous thread but I wanted to just come back to those who objected to my characterising UKIP and Labour supporters as morally ugly and morally incompetent.

    Re the first, there is simply too much UKIP corruption, racism and homophobia smoke to argue there's no fire. It has got to the point where to suggest otherwise simply prompts laughter.

    Re the Labour case, don't take it from me; take it, first of all, from Austin Mitchell, MP:
    "Even if we selected a raving alcoholic sex paedophile we wouldn't lose Grimsby" - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/labour-mp-austin-mitchell-even-if-we-selected-a-raving-alcoholic-sex-paedophile-we-wouldnt-lose-grimsby-10061754.html

    ..which is, as far as I know, the first horse's-mouth actual boast that Labour voters will elect a paedophile, as long as they're a Labour paedophile.

    This is not just a straw in the wind, in the way that the BBC's blind eye to Labour-supporting paedophile Jimmy Savile was a straw in the wind. This isn't an allegation by someone hostile to Labour designed simply to wind up Labour supporters. This is a statement of the facts by someone who's not trying to damage or insult the party and who benefits from this attitude.

    Exhibit two is the fact that the voters of Rotherham replaced the disgraced Labour PCC with another Labour PCC. This is wholly of a piece with Austin Mitchell's view of them.

    This tolerance of the most abject conceivable moral incompetence is, I am afraid, a Labour-specific problem. As I have pointed out before, there are examples of Tory voters who have turned on their MP in disgust merely for being a trougher (Neil Hamilton), there are examples of Lib Dem voters who have turned on their MP for merely having been suspected of an unpleasant crime (Jeremy Thorpe), and where they have very nearly lost the seat because of similar revulsion (Eastleigh). With the Greens and the regional parties, the sample is too small.

    But as far as I am aware, there is no example of Labour losing a seat that you'd expect them to have kept, where the loss was patently because of the disgusting personal behaviour of the MP. Ed Miliband is at no risk of losing his seat because of his tax fiddling; Ed Balls didn't lose his seat in 2010 despite his home-flipping and troughing.

    So it is a Labour-voter problem, I'm afraid, and it's just the bit of the moral ineptitude iceberg that sticks up above the surface.

    UKIP did well in the PCC election in Rotherham. The issue was that Rotherham was outvoted by much larger Sheffield

    As for MPs thrown out, I would observe that Jacqui Smith had an above average swing against her in Redditch.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821
    edited February 2015


    Isn't this basically because they're applying a national swing within Scotland? Whereas the shrewdies know to expect bigger swings in Glasgow and smaller ones in Edinburgh. Which, given where those seats start from, means increased volatility in their result.

    Basically the bookies (helped by Ashcroft) are probably a lot closer to the truth than Electoral Forecast..

    They claim to take account of the Ashcroft polls. It's very hard to know where the truth lies with this, but at the very least it might prove a prompt for where to look for value.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411
    Why is there such a big difference in the estimate for Paisley and Renfrewshire South/North ?
  • @Mr Bond - Please identify the troughing Labour MP returned to parliament following the withdrawal of the Tory and LD candidates from the constituency in which he was standing; as well as the one returned having been implicated in an attempted murder.

    David Cameron was returned at the last election despite making hay with his home allowance:

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/dec/10/david-cameron-mps-expenses

    And I imagine George Osborne will be back next time round:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/9694923/George-Osborne-makes-400K-profit-on-constituency-home.html

    You have also libelled Ed Miliband.


    I suggest you re-read my post. Neil Hamilton was dismissed from a safe Tory seat by disgusted Tory voters. There has been no similar rejection of any troughing Labour MP. Jeremy Thorpe was dismissed by his Lib supporters merely for having been implicated in a crime. Labour MPs implicated in crimes do not lose their seats; see Denis Macshane.

    Pointing out that Ed Miliband dodged inheritance is not libel, but a valid opinion shared by many including a former DPP and Labour HoC candidate:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11410824/Ed-Miliband-intended-to-reduce-tax-admits-Keir-Starmer.html

    So in yer face.
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664

    antifrank said:

    antifrank said:

    TGOHF said:

    BenM said:

    Nah. Try again Lord A.

    Am worried about my Kippers "2 Mps" bet - should I go for a saver on "1" ?
    11/2 with Ladbrokes that UKIP get under 1.5 MPs.

    I'm not recommending this bet, mind.
    Which half of Mark Reckless would you prefer?
    Half would not be enough.

    My narrowest margin of victory for a successful political bet was betting on An Independence From Europe getting under 1.5% at the Euro elections last year. They got 1.49%.

    I'm sure I'll have one that fails by a similar margin sooner or later, so I'll try to remember that one when I do.
    That was very lucky. I understand thousands of people wanted to vote for them but got tricked into voting UKIP instead because of their similar branding.
    I voted for them deliberately to piss off UKIPpers, because the Euro elections are wholly without point, and there's little funnier than an angry UKIPper.
    Shame it backfired so badly, then.
  • Lord Ashcroft ‏@LordAshcroft · 1m1 minute ago
    Average of the Ashcroft National Poll 2nd February to 23rd February CON 31.8% LAB 32.2% LDEM 8.2% UKIP 14.0% GRNS 7.8%
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Frankly this poll is absurd. It shows Labour are 15 points ahead of the Tories (43% to 28%) in the South East.

    Pink elephants have now joined the pigs flying over Westminster........

    Complete rubbish he should be embarrassed to have published it.
    Another thing we agree on.

    All LARGER polls are a complete joke
    Nope.
    Ashcroft National Poll 9/2/15: Con 34%, Lab 31%, Lib Dem 9%, UKIP 14%, Green 6%

    Nope

    Ashcroft National Poll 23/2/15: Con 32%, Lab 36%, Lib Dem 7%, UKIP 11%, Green 8%

    Nope

    Nope Nope embarrassingly Nope
    Take the average of those two...

    Con 33% Lab 33.5% Lib Dem 8% UKIP 12.5%.

    Not far off what we all "believe" the true picture is now, don't you think ?
    So if one showed a 20% Lab lead and one showed a 19% Con lead that would be OK because if you add them together its about right.

    Have been saying for weeks they are as bad as Angus Reid in 2010
    But they aren't.

    Natural variation in the polls is to be damn well expected, if there was none then THAT would be of more concern. Yougov does actually concern me on this front - their lack of outliers is concerning.
    When you mentioned you were unwell I didn't realise you were this ill!!!

    I am amazed you think Ashcroft polling is OK

    We will have to agree to disagree as I am off out now.

    Any good pubs in Killamarsh by the way as i am supposed to be meeting someone at Rother Valley later in the week.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    edited February 2015
    Smarmeron..and Balls stuttered.. I knew nowt about it even tho I was the tax adviser to the government..Which really means he was lying..stupid..incompetent or all three.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411
    edited February 2015

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Frankly this poll is absurd. It shows Labour are 15 points ahead of the Tories (43% to 28%) in the South East.

    Pink elephants have now joined the pigs flying over Westminster........

    Complete rubbish he should be embarrassed to have published it.
    Another thing we agree on.

    All LARGER polls are a complete joke
    Nope.
    Ashcroft National Poll 9/2/15: Con 34%, Lab 31%, Lib Dem 9%, UKIP 14%, Green 6%

    Nope

    Ashcroft National Poll 23/2/15: Con 32%, Lab 36%, Lib Dem 7%, UKIP 11%, Green 8%

    Nope

    Nope Nope embarrassingly Nope
    Take the average of those two...

    Con 33% Lab 33.5% Lib Dem 8% UKIP 12.5%.

    Not far off what we all "believe" the true picture is now, don't you think ?
    So if one showed a 20% Lab lead and one showed a 19% Con lead that would be OK because if you add them together its about right.

    Have been saying for weeks they are as bad as Angus Reid in 2010
    But they aren't.

    Natural variation in the polls is to be damn well expected, if there was none then THAT would be of more concern. Yougov does actually concern me on this front - their lack of outliers is concerning.
    When you mentioned you were unwell I didn't realise you were this ill!!!

    I am amazed you think Ashcroft polling is OK

    We will have to agree to disagree as I am off out now.

    Any good pubs in Killamarsh by the way as i am supposed to be meeting someone at Rother Valley later in the week.
    antifrank said:

    Lord Ashcroft ‏@LordAshcroft · 1m1 minute ago
    Average of the Ashcroft National Poll 2nd February to 23rd February CON 31.8% LAB 32.2% LDEM 8.2% UKIP 14.0% GRNS 7.8%


    Nether Green Working Mens Club
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    edited February 2015


    Isn't this basically because they're applying a national swing within Scotland? Whereas the shrewdies know to expect bigger swings in Glasgow and smaller ones in Edinburgh. Which, given where those seats start from, means increased volatility in their result.

    Basically the bookies (helped by Ashcroft) are probably a lot closer to the truth than Electoral Forecast..

    They claim to take account of the Ashcroft polls. It's very hard to know where the truth lies with this, but at the very least it might prove a prompt for where to look for value.
    Whatever happens in Scotland [and for example, it wouldn't be beyond the realms of possibility to see the Tories beat Labour in seats!] there are going to be a shedload of "marginals" created! I have 42/59 seats being won by under 10%.
  • Ishmael_X said:

    antifrank said:

    antifrank said:

    TGOHF said:

    BenM said:

    Nah. Try again Lord A.

    Am worried about my Kippers "2 Mps" bet - should I go for a saver on "1" ?
    11/2 with Ladbrokes that UKIP get under 1.5 MPs.

    I'm not recommending this bet, mind.
    Which half of Mark Reckless would you prefer?
    Half would not be enough.

    My narrowest margin of victory for a successful political bet was betting on An Independence From Europe getting under 1.5% at the Euro elections last year. They got 1.49%.

    I'm sure I'll have one that fails by a similar margin sooner or later, so I'll try to remember that one when I do.
    That was very lucky. I understand thousands of people wanted to vote for them but got tricked into voting UKIP instead because of their similar branding.
    I voted for them deliberately to piss off UKIPpers, because the Euro elections are wholly without point, and there's little funnier than an angry UKIPper.
    Shame it backfired so badly, then.
    Tyndall went absolutely berserk. It was excellent value, worth what I paid.

    Incidentally I would retract a part of my post that you quoted. Where I referred to "an angry UKIPper", I should have course said "a UKIPper", to avoid tautology. As far as I can tell all UKIPpers are angry. When did you last come across a cheery, laid back UKIPper? When did anyone?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411


    Isn't this basically because they're applying a national swing within Scotland? Whereas the shrewdies know to expect bigger swings in Glasgow and smaller ones in Edinburgh. Which, given where those seats start from, means increased volatility in their result.

    Basically the bookies (helped by Ashcroft) are probably a lot closer to the truth than Electoral Forecast..

    They claim to take account of the Ashcroft polls. It's very hard to know where the truth lies with this, but at the very least it might prove a prompt for where to look for value.
    SNP being ahead in Paisley and Renfrewshire South, difficult to believe a poll conducted at the same point would have found Labour ahead in P&RN, especially as @Antifrank's model identified the extraordinary value in Cumbernauld.
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664

    Ishmael_X said:

    antifrank said:

    antifrank said:

    TGOHF said:

    BenM said:

    Nah. Try again Lord A.

    Am worried about my Kippers "2 Mps" bet - should I go for a saver on "1" ?
    11/2 with Ladbrokes that UKIP get under 1.5 MPs.

    I'm not recommending this bet, mind.
    Which half of Mark Reckless would you prefer?
    Half would not be enough.

    My narrowest margin of victory for a successful political bet was betting on An Independence From Europe getting under 1.5% at the Euro elections last year. They got 1.49%.

    I'm sure I'll have one that fails by a similar margin sooner or later, so I'll try to remember that one when I do.
    That was very lucky. I understand thousands of people wanted to vote for them but got tricked into voting UKIP instead because of their similar branding.
    I voted for them deliberately to piss off UKIPpers, because the Euro elections are wholly without point, and there's little funnier than an angry UKIPper.
    Shame it backfired so badly, then.
    Tyndall went absolutely berserk. It was excellent value, worth what I paid.

    Incidentally I would retract a part of my post that you quoted. Where I referred to "an angry UKIPper", I should have course said "a UKIPper", to avoid tautology. As far as I can tell all UKIPpers are angry. When did you last come across a cheery, laid back UKIPper? When did anyone?
    Nigel Farage, for starters.

    Tyndall pointed out that voting on that basis makes you look a bit of a childish twerp, and that a vote for overt racists is a vote for overt racists, whatever its motivation. He didn't go absolutely berserk, though.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514

    @Mr Bond - Please identify the troughing Labour MP returned to parliament following the withdrawal of the Tory and LD candidates from the constituency in which he was standing; as well as the one returned having been implicated in an attempted murder.

    David Cameron was returned at the last election despite making hay with his home allowance:

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/dec/10/david-cameron-mps-expenses

    And I imagine George Osborne will be back next time round:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/9694923/George-Osborne-makes-400K-profit-on-constituency-home.html

    You have also libelled Ed Miliband.


    I suggest you re-read my post. Neil Hamilton was dismissed from a safe Tory seat by disgusted Tory voters. There has been no similar rejection of any troughing Labour MP. Jeremy Thorpe was dismissed by his Lib supporters merely for having been implicated in a crime. Labour MPs implicated in crimes do not lose their seats; see Denis Macshane.

    Pointing out that Ed Miliband dodged inheritance is not libel, but a valid opinion shared by many including a former DPP and Labour HoC candidate:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11410824/Ed-Miliband-intended-to-reduce-tax-admits-Keir-Starmer.html

    So in yer face.
    Hamilton still had over 18k Conservatives who voted for him. He was defeated by having only one real opponent and the 97 Tsunami to Labour. Hardly Tory high principle.
  • Ishmael_X said:

    antifrank said:

    antifrank said:

    TGOHF said:

    BenM said:

    Nah. Try again Lord A.

    Am worried about my Kippers "2 Mps" bet - should I go for a saver on "1" ?
    11/2 with Ladbrokes that UKIP get under 1.5 MPs.

    I'm not recommending this bet, mind.
    Which half of Mark Reckless would you prefer?
    Half would not be enough.

    My narrowest margin of victory for a successful political bet was betting on An Independence From Europe getting under 1.5% at the Euro elections last year. They got 1.49%.

    I'm sure I'll have one that fails by a similar margin sooner or later, so I'll try to remember that one when I do.
    That was very lucky. I understand thousands of people wanted to vote for them but got tricked into voting UKIP instead because of their similar branding.
    I voted for them deliberately to piss off UKIPpers, because the Euro elections are wholly without point, and there's little funnier than an angry UKIPper.
    Shame it backfired so badly, then.
    Tyndall went absolutely berserk. It was excellent value, worth what I paid.

    Incidentally I would retract a part of my post that you quoted. Where I referred to "an angry UKIPper", I should have course said "a UKIPper", to avoid tautology. As far as I can tell all UKIPpers are angry. When did you last come across a cheery, laid back UKIPper? When did anyone?
    It's the same when people try to talk about Shy UKIP supporters in the polls. Have you ever met a kipper who is shy?

  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @richardDodd
    Stuttering is a sign of guilt?, And there was me thinking it was a speech impediment.
    Probably why I never got a job as a judge?
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    antifrank said:

    Lord Ashcroft ‏@LordAshcroft · 1m1 minute ago
    Average of the Ashcroft National Poll 2nd February to 23rd February CON 31.8% LAB 32.2% LDEM 8.2% UKIP 14.0% GRNS 7.8%

    Seems like Lord Ashers does as I do after a couple of bad days punting.. average back until it looks respectable!

    Probably the correct thing to do though
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @richardDodd
    And as for being in possession of all the facts? Apparently after 5 years, the government has only just got round to working out that the bank itself has some serious questions to answer, and are still apparently tidying up some of the names on the list.
  • Ishmael_X said:

    antifrank said:

    antifrank said:

    TGOHF said:

    BenM said:

    Nah. Try again Lord A.

    Am worried about my Kippers "2 Mps" bet - should I go for a saver on "1" ?
    11/2 with Ladbrokes that UKIP get under 1.5 MPs.

    I'm not recommending this bet, mind.
    Which half of Mark Reckless would you prefer?
    Half would not be enough.

    My narrowest margin of victory for a successful political bet was betting on An Independence From Europe getting under 1.5% at the Euro elections last year. They got 1.49%.

    I'm sure I'll have one that fails by a similar margin sooner or later, so I'll try to remember that one when I do.
    That was very lucky. I understand thousands of people wanted to vote for them but got tricked into voting UKIP instead because of their similar branding.
    I voted for them deliberately to piss off UKIPpers, because the Euro elections are wholly without point, and there's little funnier than an angry UKIPper.
    Shame it backfired so badly, then.
    Tyndall went absolutely berserk. It was excellent value, worth what I paid.

    Incidentally I would retract a part of my post that you quoted. Where I referred to "an angry UKIPper", I should have course said "a UKIPper", to avoid tautology. As far as I can tell all UKIPpers are angry. When did you last come across a cheery, laid back UKIPper? When did anyone?
    It's the same when people try to talk about Shy UKIP supporters in the polls. Have you ever met a kipper who is shy?

    Have you ever met a Lib Dem who is trustworthy?
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    Ishmael_X said:

    antifrank said:

    antifrank said:

    TGOHF said:

    BenM said:

    Nah. Try again Lord A.

    Am worried about my Kippers "2 Mps" bet - should I go for a saver on "1" ?
    11/2 with Ladbrokes that UKIP get under 1.5 MPs.

    I'm not recommending this bet, mind.
    Which half of Mark Reckless would you prefer?
    Half would not be enough.

    My narrowest margin of victory for a successful political bet was betting on An Independence From Europe getting under 1.5% at the Euro elections last year. They got 1.49%.

    I'm sure I'll have one that fails by a similar margin sooner or later, so I'll try to remember that one when I do.
    That was very lucky. I understand thousands of people wanted to vote for them but got tricked into voting UKIP instead because of their similar branding.
    I voted for them deliberately to piss off UKIPpers, because the Euro elections are wholly without point, and there's little funnier than an angry UKIPper.
    Shame it backfired so badly, then.
    Tyndall went absolutely berserk. It was excellent value, worth what I paid.

    Incidentally I would retract a part of my post that you quoted. Where I referred to "an angry UKIPper", I should have course said "a UKIPper", to avoid tautology. As far as I can tell all UKIPpers are angry. When did you last come across a cheery, laid back UKIPper? When did anyone?
    It's the same when people try to talk about Shy UKIP supporters in the polls. Have you ever met a kipper who is shy?

    What a strange thing to say.. if there were shy Ukippers you wouldn't know they were kippers would you?

    Several friends of mine are going to vote UKIP, but have told me they would say "don't know" if asked in polite company as it has connatations of racism etc.. call it anecdote if you will, we all have them, but I am very confident UKIP will do extremely well in Essex, much better than pollsters predict
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    Smarmeron..which never happened at all under the Labour Gov..when Balls was the tax adviser..
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411
    324 unweighted UKIPpers with Populus, decent score for them.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    edited February 2015

    Just released a market for 'turnout' on sporting index for anyone interested.

    Interesting poll, not just this but the last 20 or so. I make Tories around 54% chance of most seats, big lay at current bf prices.

    The SPIN turnout market opening prices are interesting. 69.7 - 70.3% I plan a thread tomorrow.

    Jungleland is the political trader at SPIN

  • Ishmael_X said:

    antifrank said:

    antifrank said:

    TGOHF said:

    BenM said:

    Nah. Try again Lord A.

    Am worried about my Kippers "2 Mps" bet - should I go for a saver on "1" ?
    11/2 with Ladbrokes that UKIP get under 1.5 MPs.

    I'm not recommending this bet, mind.
    Which half of Mark Reckless would you prefer?
    Half would not be enough.

    My narrowest margin of victory for a successful political bet was betting on An Independence From Europe getting under 1.5% at the Euro elections last year. They got 1.49%.

    I'm sure I'll have one that fails by a similar margin sooner or later, so I'll try to remember that one when I do.
    That was very lucky. I understand thousands of people wanted to vote for them but got tricked into voting UKIP instead because of their similar branding.
    I voted for them deliberately to piss off UKIPpers, because the Euro elections are wholly without point, and there's little funnier than an angry UKIPper.
    Shame it backfired so badly, then.
    Tyndall went absolutely berserk. It was excellent value, worth what I paid.

    Incidentally I would retract a part of my post that you quoted. Where I referred to "an angry UKIPper", I should have course said "a UKIPper", to avoid tautology. As far as I can tell all UKIPpers are angry. When did you last come across a cheery, laid back UKIPper? When did anyone?
    Lying again Bond. Typical of you I am afraid. In point of fact I didn't go berserk at all. If you bother to go back you will find I was one of those who made no criticism of AIFE naming themselves as they did nor of anyone who was fooled into voting for them. The only exception I made was for you who, after claiming to be anti-racist, were frankly stupid enough to vote for a bunch of Ex-BNP people purely on the grounds it would take significant votes from UKIP - which apparently it failed to do.

    As I remember it I thoroughly enjoyed pointing out you were voting pseudo-BNP because it showed just how little you actually care for anti-racism and how shallow and hypocritical you were. Needless to say nothing you have posted since has changed that view.
  • Ishmael_X said:

    antifrank said:

    antifrank said:

    TGOHF said:

    BenM said:

    Nah. Try again Lord A.

    Am worried about my Kippers "2 Mps" bet - should I go for a saver on "1" ?
    11/2 with Ladbrokes that UKIP get under 1.5 MPs.

    I'm not recommending this bet, mind.
    Which half of Mark Reckless would you prefer?
    Half would not be enough.

    My narrowest margin of victory for a successful political bet was betting on An Independence From Europe getting under 1.5% at the Euro elections last year. They got 1.49%.

    I'm sure I'll have one that fails by a similar margin sooner or later, so I'll try to remember that one when I do.
    That was very lucky. I understand thousands of people wanted to vote for them but got tricked into voting UKIP instead because of their similar branding.
    I voted for them deliberately to piss off UKIPpers, because the Euro elections are wholly without point, and there's little funnier than an angry UKIPper.
    Shame it backfired so badly, then.
    Tyndall went absolutely berserk. It was excellent value, worth what I paid.

    Incidentally I would retract a part of my post that you quoted. Where I referred to "an angry UKIPper", I should have course said "a UKIPper", to avoid tautology. As far as I can tell all UKIPpers are angry. When did you last come across a cheery, laid back UKIPper? When did anyone?
    Lying again Bond. Typical of you I am afraid. In point of fact I didn't go berserk at all. If you bother to go back you will find I was one of those who made no criticism of AIFE naming themselves as they did nor of anyone who was fooled into voting for them. The only exception I made was for you who, after claiming to be anti-racist, were frankly stupid enough to vote for a bunch of Ex-BNP people purely on the grounds it would take significant votes from UKIP - which apparently it failed to do.

    As I remember it I thoroughly enjoyed pointing out you were voting pseudo-BNP because it showed just how little you actually care for anti-racism and how shallow and hypocritical you were. Needless to say nothing you have posted since has changed that view.
    A typically angry KIPper post that makes the point for me better than I ever could.
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    It only happened under Ozzie after journalists who had being working on the data finally collated the data to be able to make a release.
    How long did that take them?
    Since that time, there has been a sudden flurry of activity with other departments being called in to investigate.
    Try applying a bit of logic instead of following the Tory press?
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,706
    edited February 2015
    Interesting to see Labour ahead outside the MoE.

    Mike is right about the bravery of Tory punters. Remind me increasingly of left-wingers in the 1980s who talked to themselves and couldn't see how the other side could win.
  • john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    @SouthamObserver

    'You have also libelled Ed Miliband.'

    Stop the pompous prat routine.


  • A typically angry KIPper post that makes the point for me better than I ever could.

    Er no. Simply enjoying pointing out the fact that you are a racist who voted for a racist party. I have no reason to be angry about anything at all. You forget that I dislike all parties including UKIP who are simply a necessary evil as far as I am concerned.

    The only really thing that annoys me is hypocrisy which you have in bucketloads.
  • john_zims said:

    @SouthamObserver

    'You have also libelled Ed Miliband.'

    Stop the pompous prat routine.

    He's a Labour supporter - you might as well tell him to stop breathing.


  • A typically angry KIPper post that makes the point for me better than I ever could.

    Er no. Simply enjoying pointing out the fact that you are a racist who voted for a racist party. I have no reason to be angry about anything at all. You forget that I dislike all parties including UKIP who are simply a necessary evil as far as I am concerned.

    The only really thing that annoys me is hypocrisy which you have in bucketloads.
    Anything you say, crybaby. Angry crybaby.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,386
    antifrank said:

    Lord Ashcroft ‏@LordAshcroft · 1m1 minute ago
    Average of the Ashcroft National Poll 2nd February to 23rd February CON 31.8% LAB 32.2% LDEM 8.2% UKIP 14.0% GRNS 7.8%

    #neckandneck
  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    isam said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    antifrank said:

    antifrank said:

    TGOHF said:

    BenM said:

    Nah. Try again Lord A.

    Am worried about my Kippers "2 Mps" bet - should I go for a saver on "1" ?
    11/2 with Ladbrokes that UKIP get under 1.5 MPs.

    I'm not recommending this bet, mind.
    Which half of Mark Reckless would you prefer?
    Half would not be enough.

    My narrowest margin of victory for a successful political bet was betting on An Independence From Europe getting under 1.5% at the Euro elections last year. They got 1.49%.

    I'm sure I'll have one that fails by a similar margin sooner or later, so I'll try to remember that one when I do.
    That was very lucky. I understand thousands of people wanted to vote for them but got tricked into voting UKIP instead because of their similar branding.
    I voted for them deliberately to piss off UKIPpers, because the Euro elections are wholly without point, and there's little funnier than an angry UKIPper.
    Shame it backfired so badly, then.
    Tyndall went absolutely berserk. It was excellent value, worth what I paid.

    Incidentally I would retract a part of my post that you quoted. Where I referred to "an angry UKIPper", I should have course said "a UKIPper", to avoid tautology. As far as I can tell all UKIPpers are angry. When did you last come across a cheery, laid back UKIPper? When did anyone?
    It's the same when people try to talk about Shy UKIP supporters in the polls. Have you ever met a kipper who is shy?

    What a strange thing to say.. if there were shy Ukippers you wouldn't know they were kippers would you?

    Several friends of mine are going to vote UKIP, but have told me they would say "don't know" if asked in polite company as it has connatations of racism etc.. call it anecdote if you will, we all have them, but I am very confident UKIP will do extremely well in Essex, much better than pollsters predict
    Your sample may be self selecting. Your scenario hardly does UKIP any favours.
    It strikes me as problematic to talk about shy kippers in polling terms since there were relatively few of them in the last election and 'shyness' by some pollers is based on the vote at the last election. YouGov ignore 'Don't Knows' completely I think, but I would have thought a panel must be somewhat self selecting as well.




  • A typically angry KIPper post that makes the point for me better than I ever could.

    Er no. Simply enjoying pointing out the fact that you are a racist who voted for a racist party. I have no reason to be angry about anything at all. You forget that I dislike all parties including UKIP who are simply a necessary evil as far as I am concerned.

    The only really thing that annoys me is hypocrisy which you have in bucketloads.
    Anything you say, crybaby. Angry crybaby.
    LOL. Now you really have descended into the playground.

    It is simple, though I know you probably can't handle basic logic. I judge people by their words and actions. You voted for a party consisting of ex-BNP supporters and people expelled from UKIP for racism. You were happy to admit this which, I believe makes you a racist.

    I have criticised UKIP and Farage regularly on here so your attacks are frankly ludicrous.

    Given that I have also predicted very few UKIP gains and a UKIP share of the vote below where they are currently polling I really fail to see what I have to be upset about.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    edited February 2015
    How can OGH possibly say Labour edge closer to an overall majority.. on the basis of this single poll which could easily be an outlier ?? Nor is it logical to deduce this from recent polling data AFAICS
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,916
    Ashcroft moving about a bit, though interesting that Labour has a bigger lead in England than the UK as a whole, so much for Labour needing Scotland!
  • Hengists_GiftHengists_Gift Posts: 628
    edited February 2015
    Sean_F said:

    Frankly this poll is absurd. It shows Labour are 15 points ahead of the Tories (43% to 28%) in the South East.

    Pink elephants have now joined the pigs flying over Westminster........

    One shouldn't pay too much attention to the sub-samples. A Labour lead of 4% is quite consistent with an average of 0-1% (as are leads in the other direction).
    Labour have only polled 36% in an Ashcroft poll once before and that was back in July last year. They have not polled higher than 32% since the 28th of September. The average over the last 6 months has been 31%. A sudden jump of 5% in such circumstances is highly implausible.

    At best I think we can describe the Ashcroft polls as volatile. Watch out for the pink elephants
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,916
    Sesame Street House of Cards' Spoof with Frank Underwolf!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92NXMtVtv8o#t=253
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    I wonder if Will Straw will suffer from his father's entrepreneurial activities ?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,538

    Had to drop off the previous thread but I wanted to just come back to those who objected to my characterising UKIP and Labour supporters as morally ugly and morally incompetent.

    Re the first, there is simply too much UKIP corruption, racism and homophobia smoke to argue there's no fire. It has got to the point where to suggest otherwise simply prompts laughter.

    Re the Labour case, don't take it from me; take it, first of all, from Austin Mitchell, MP:
    "Even if we selected a raving alcoholic sex paedophile we wouldn't lose Grimsby" - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/labour-mp-austin-mitchell-even-if-we-selected-a-raving-alcoholic-sex-paedophile-we-wouldnt-lose-grimsby-10061754.html

    ..which is, as far as I know, the first horse's-mouth actual boast that Labour voters will elect a paedophile, as long as they're a Labour paedophile.

    This is not just a straw in the wind, in the way that the BBC's blind eye to Labour-supporting paedophile Jimmy Savile was a straw in the wind. This isn't an allegation by someone hostile to Labour designed simply to wind up Labour supporters. This is a statement of the facts by someone who's not trying to damage or insult the party and who benefits from this attitude.

    Exhibit two is the fact that the voters of Rotherham replaced the disgraced Labour PCC with another Labour PCC. This is wholly of a piece with Austin Mitchell's view of them.

    This tolerance of the most abject conceivable moral incompetence is, I am afraid, a Labour-specific problem. As I have pointed out before, there are examples of Tory voters who have turned on their MP in disgust merely for being a trougher (Neil Hamilton), there are examples of Lib Dem voters who have turned on their MP for merely having been suspected of an unpleasant crime (Jeremy Thorpe), and where they have very nearly lost the seat because of similar revulsion (Eastleigh). With the Greens and the regional parties, the sample is too small.

    But as far as I am aware, there is no example of Labour losing a seat that you'd expect them to have kept, where the loss was patently because of the disgusting personal behaviour of the MP. Ed Miliband is at no risk of losing his seat because of his tax fiddling; Ed Balls didn't lose his seat in 2010 despite his home-flipping and troughing.

    So it is a Labour-voter problem, I'm afraid, and it's just the bit of the moral ineptitude iceberg that sticks up above the surface.

    You post that on a day when one eminent Conservative has just been suspended from the Parliamentary party, while another (currently serving a prison sentence) is about to go on trial for perjury in Scotland.

    Take the beam out of your own eye, before you start criticising the speck in others'.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited February 2015
    @Flighpath

    The point is that they aren't shy people generally, far from it, but can't be arsed to get in to a row with a load of smart alecs who will try and make them out to be the devil for voting UKIP, or worry that someone will say "I've got a Bulgarian half sister that must mean you hate her" and they'll spend half the night arguing about something they don't care that much about (normal people don't care that much about politics)... so they say "don't know"
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,366
    edited February 2015
    Mr Smithson (senior),

    "At best I think we can describe the Ashcroft polls as volatile."

    I know that Lord A is a mate of yours and I 'm sure that he thinks it's money well-spent, but you're old enough to remember the old saying .. 'More money than sense, some people."

    Of course, it could be electorate that's yo-yoing
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821
    edited February 2015
    Jonathan said:

    Interesting to see Labour ahead outside the MoE.

    Mike is right about the bravery of Tory punters. Remind me increasingly of left-wingers in the 1980s who talked to themselves and couldn't see how the other side could win.

    A lot depends on Scotland, though. Currently the betting markets are factoring in quite a substantial Labour recovery in Scotland relative to current polls. That might not materialise.

    More generally, as often, I think there is more uncertainty than punters allow for. Personally I'm trying to ensure that my betting position will be profitable over quite a wide range of possible outcomes.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,538



    A typically angry KIPper post that makes the point for me better than I ever could.

    Er no. Simply enjoying pointing out the fact that you are a racist who voted for a racist party. I have no reason to be angry about anything at all. You forget that I dislike all parties including UKIP who are simply a necessary evil as far as I am concerned.

    The only really thing that annoys me is hypocrisy which you have in bucketloads.
    Anything you say, crybaby. Angry crybaby.
    LOL. Now you really have descended into the playground.

    It is simple, though I know you probably can't handle basic logic. I judge people by their words and actions. You voted for a party consisting of ex-BNP supporters and people expelled from UKIP for racism. You were happy to admit this which, I believe makes you a racist.

    I have criticised UKIP and Farage regularly on here so your attacks are frankly ludicrous.

    Given that I have also predicted very few UKIP gains and a UKIP share of the vote below where they are currently polling I really fail to see what I have to be upset about.
    Anti-UKIP voters backing AIFE was as self-defeating as their voting for Al Murray, but as the man said, you don't interrupt your opponents when they're making a mistake.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,538
    Lord Ashcroft's polls are fine. They bounce around, as polls should do. Look at the trend, which has the big two tied, and UKIP on 14% or so.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411

    Jonathan said:

    Interesting to see Labour ahead outside the MoE.

    Mike is right about the bravery of Tory punters. Remind me increasingly of left-wingers in the 1980s who talked to themselves and couldn't see how the other side could win.

    A lot depends on Scotland, though. Currently the betting markets are factoring in quite a substantial Labour recovery in Scotland relative to current polls. That might not materialise.

    More generally, as often, I think there is more uncertainty than punters allow for. Personally I'm trying to ensure that my betting position will be profitable over quite a wide range of possible outcomes.
    http://may2015.com/category/seat-calculator/

    That's based on a "nowcast". Bad for Labour, worse for the Conservatives.
  • Pulpstar said:

    That's based on a "nowcast". Bad for Labour, worse for the Conservatives.

    But jolly good for this Conservative if it really does turn out to be SNP 56!
  • volcanopetevolcanopete Posts: 2,078

    Does anyone know if the UKIP documentary is being repeated? All I read about on twitter this morning was some Kipper woman who feels uncomfortable around black people. She seemed to be digging a hole for herself faster than Malcolm Rifkind can say "self employed".

    Meet The Kippers.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fSbpNh9fDY&itct=CDcQpDAYASITCNH5gLP79sMCFcOLHAodMXkAZlIRbWVldCB0aGUgdWtpcHBlcnM=&hl=en-GB&gl=ZA&client=mv-google&app=desktop
  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    isam said:

    @Flighpath

    The point is that they aren't shy people generally, far from it, but can't be arsed to get in to a row with a load of smart alecs who will try and make them out to be the devil for voting UKIP, or worry that someone will say "I've got a Bulgarian half sister that must mean you hate her" and they'll spend half the night arguing about something they don't care that much about (normal people don't care that much about politics)... so they say "don't know"

    If UKIP spent more time trying to rationally make its case over the EU there might be no need to be shy.
    But it does not. In its chase for votes it has peddled the policies it has and attracted the activists and votes that it has. UKIP has become what it is.
  • john_zims said:

    @SouthamObserver

    'You have also libelled Ed Miliband.'

    Stop the pompous prat routine.

    Accusing Miliband of fiddling his taxes is libellous. There is nothing pompous in pointing that out.

  • Sean_F said:

    Had to drop off the previous thread but I wanted to just come back to those who objected to my characterising UKIP and Labour supporters as morally ugly and morally incompetent.

    Re the first, there is simply too much UKIP corruption, racism and homophobia smoke to argue there's no fire. It has got to the point where to suggest otherwise simply prompts laughter.

    Re the Labour case, don't take it from me; take it, first of all, from Austin Mitchell, MP:
    "Even if we selected a raving alcoholic sex paedophile we wouldn't lose Grimsby" - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/labour-mp-austin-mitchell-even-if-we-selected-a-raving-alcoholic-sex-paedophile-we-wouldnt-lose-grimsby-10061754.html

    ..which is, as far as I know, the first horse's-mouth actual boast that Labour voters will elect a paedophile, as long as they're a Labour paedophile.

    Exhibit two is the fact that the voters of Rotherham replaced the disgraced Labour PCC with another Labour PCC. This is wholly of a piece with Austin Mitchell's view of them.

    This tolerance of the most abject conceivable moral incompetence is, I am afraid, a Labour-specific problem. As I have pointed out before, there are examples of Tory voters who have turned on their MP in disgust merely for being a trougher (Neil Hamilton), there are examples of Lib Dem voters who have turned on their MP for merely having been suspected of an unpleasant crime (Jeremy Thorpe), and where they have very nearly lost the seat because of similar revulsion (Eastleigh). With the Greens and the regional parties, the sample is too small.

    But as far as I am aware, there is no example of Labour losing a seat that you'd expect them to have kept, where the loss was patently because of the disgusting personal behaviour of the MP. Ed Miliband is at no risk of losing his seat because of his tax fiddling; Ed Balls didn't lose his seat in 2010 despite his home-flipping and troughing.

    So it is a Labour-voter problem, I'm afraid, and it's just the bit of the moral ineptitude iceberg that sticks up above the surface.

    You post that on a day when one eminent Conservative has just been suspended from the Parliamentary party, while another (currently serving a prison sentence) is about to go on trial for perjury in Scotland.

    Take the beam out of your own eye, before you start criticising the speck in others'.
    I've never suggested that all tarnished Tories or LibDems get voted out, just that it is known to happen. It is totally unknown for this to befall any Labour incumbents at all.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411

    Pulpstar said:

    That's based on a "nowcast". Bad for Labour, worse for the Conservatives.

    But jolly good for this Conservative if it really does turn out to be SNP 56!
    :D
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,587
    Just this second received a leaflet from UKIP, on what a UKIP government would do, and very text heavy. As this is a safe Tory seat, I appreciate their effort at least.
  • HYUFD said:

    Sesame Street House of Cards' Spoof with Frank Underwolf!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92NXMtVtv8o#t=253

    Brilliant
  • Sean_F said:

    Lord Ashcroft's polls are fine. They bounce around, as polls should do. Look at the trend, which has the big two tied, and UKIP on 14% or so.

    Yep. The trend is your friend. I agree with Richard N that the UKIP drop seems extreme for one week and I assume that the poll was conducted before the UKIP programme last night so that cannot have been an influence. But the bottom line is that the UKIP share has been falling for a few weeks now now pretty much across the board so I don't see the Ashcroft score being that far out even if the week on week drop is large.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,672
    edited February 2015

    @Mr Bond - Please identify the troughing Labour MP returned to parliament following the withdrawal of the Tory and LD candidates from the constituency in which he was standing; as well as the one returned having been implicated in an attempted murder.

    David Cameron was returned at the last election despite making hay with his home allowance:

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/dec/10/david-cameron-mps-expenses

    And I imagine George Osborne will be back next time round:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/9694923/George-Osborne-makes-400K-profit-on-constituency-home.html

    You have also libelled Ed Miliband.


    I suggest you re-read my post. Neil Hamilton was dismissed from a safe Tory seat by disgusted Tory voters. There has been no similar rejection of any troughing Labour MP. Jeremy Thorpe was dismissed by his Lib supporters merely for having been implicated in a crime. Labour MPs implicated in crimes do not lose their seats; see Denis Macshane.

    Pointing out that Ed Miliband dodged inheritance is not libel, but a valid opinion shared by many including a former DPP and Labour HoC candidate:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11410824/Ed-Miliband-intended-to-reduce-tax-admits-Keir-Starmer.html

    So in yer face.

    No, stating that Miliband fiddled his taxes is libellous.

    Thorpe was implicated in an attempted murder. Hamilton stood against one candidate after Labour and the LibDems withdrew their candidates. As I suspected, you can find no equivalent situations in which Labour candidates stood for election and won.

    It would be much easier if you just stated that you hate Labour and those who vote Labour. Your justifications are rather embarrassing as they demonstrate a complete absence of even the most basic knowledge.



  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    isam said:

    @Flighpath

    The point is that they aren't shy people generally, far from it, but can't be arsed to get in to a row with a load of smart alecs who will try and make them out to be the devil for voting UKIP, or worry that someone will say "I've got a Bulgarian half sister that must mean you hate her" and they'll spend half the night arguing about something they don't care that much about (normal people don't care that much about politics)... so they say "don't know"

    If UKIP spent more time trying to rationally make its case over the EU there might be no need to be shy.
    But it does not. In its chase for votes it has peddled the policies it has and attracted the activists and votes that it has. UKIP has become what it is.
    Successful, agreed
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411
    edited February 2015
    I have has a look at the votes/seats prices and what they imply right now.

    http://ponyonthetories.blogspot.co.uk/
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411
    kle4 said:

    Just this second received a leaflet from UKIP, on what a UKIP government would do, and very text heavy. As this is a safe Tory seat, I appreciate their effort at least.

    Which is your seat ?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,587
    Pulpstar said:

    kle4 said:

    Just this second received a leaflet from UKIP, on what a UKIP government would do, and very text heavy. As this is a safe Tory seat, I appreciate their effort at least.

    Which is your seat ?
    SW Wiltshire, just moved to it from West Somerset.
  • Bond_James_BondBond_James_Bond Posts: 1,939
    edited February 2015
    Sean_F said:



    A typically angry KIPper post that makes the point for me better than I ever could.

    Er no. Simply enjoying pointing out the fact that you are a racist who voted for a racist party. I have no reason to be angry about anything at all. You forget that I dislike all parties including UKIP who are simply a necessary evil as far as I am concerned.

    The only really thing that annoys me is hypocrisy which you have in bucketloads.
    Anything you say, crybaby. Angry crybaby.
    LOL. Now you really have descended into the playground.

    It is simple, though I know you probably can't handle basic logic. I judge people by their words and actions. You voted for a party consisting of ex-BNP supporters and people expelled from UKIP for racism. You were happy to admit this which, I believe makes you a racist.

    I have criticised UKIP and Farage regularly on here so your attacks are frankly ludicrous.

    Given that I have also predicted very few UKIP gains and a UKIP share of the vote below where they are currently polling I really fail to see what I have to be upset about.
    Anti-UKIP voters backing AIFE was as self-defeating as their voting for Al Murray, but as the man said, you don't interrupt your opponents when they're making a mistake.
    To say a vote is self defeating is to imply that some beneficial result is possible from some other cast of vote. I couldn't disagree more where the euros are concerrned. All votes in the Euros are wasted votes. I say this because nobody can ever point me to anything achieved for the UK by any MEP, of any party, at any time. AFAIK, there is literally not one thing of benefit that sending MEPs to Yerp has ever achieved.

    I'd be interested to learn of any exceptions to this, although I'd guess that any such list would be comically short compared to how long MEPs have been around and what they cost.

    As for AIFE, well, here's a reason to vote for them right here:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-27128417

    If it enrages UKIPpers, then it is worth doing. It's a rare actual benefit from casting a Euros vote, and one moreover that reminds us all that UKIP, AIFE, WDARN, etc are all in fact cheeks of the same backward, racist arse. They insist on this point themselves in insisting that they are very easily confused.
  • Sean_F said:

    Lord Ashcroft's polls are fine. They bounce around, as polls should do. Look at the trend, which has the big two tied, and UKIP on 14% or so.

    Yep. The trend is your friend. I agree with Richard N that the UKIP drop seems extreme for one week and I assume that the poll was conducted before the UKIP programme last night so that cannot have been an influence. But the bottom line is that the UKIP share has been falling for a few weeks now now pretty much across the board so I don't see the Ashcroft score being that far out even if the week on week drop is large.

    My guess is that viewing figures will show that very few folk indeed watched either the BBC or the C4 UKIP programmes.

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,636
    I could be wrong, but I suspect that UKIP has not lost one third of its supporters in the last month.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411
    rcs1000 said:

    I could be wrong, but I suspect that UKIP has not lost one third of its supporters in the last month.

    Of course they haven't.
  • Sean_F said:



    A typically angry KIPper post that makes the point for me better than I ever could.

    Er no. Simply enjoying pointing out the fact that you are a racist who voted for a racist party. I have no reason to be angry about anything at all. You forget that I dislike all parties including UKIP who are simply a necessary evil as far as I am concerned.

    The only really thing that annoys me is hypocrisy which you have in bucketloads.
    Anything you say, crybaby. Angry crybaby.
    LOL. Now you really have descended into the playground.

    It is simple, though I know you probably can't handle basic logic. I judge people by their words and actions. You voted for a party consisting of ex-BNP supporters and people expelled from UKIP for racism. You were happy to admit this which, I believe makes you a racist.

    I have criticised UKIP and Farage regularly on here so your attacks are frankly ludicrous.

    Given that I have also predicted very few UKIP gains and a UKIP share of the vote below where they are currently polling I really fail to see what I have to be upset about.
    Anti-UKIP voters backing AIFE was as self-defeating as their voting for Al Murray, but as the man said, you don't interrupt your opponents when they're making a mistake.
    To say a vote is self defeating is to imply that some beneficial result is possible from some other cast of vote. I couldn't disagree more where the euros are concerrned. All votes in the Euros are wasted votes. I say this because nobody can ever point me to anything achieved for the UK by any MEP, of any party, at any time. AFAIK, there is literally not one thing of benefit that sending MEPs to Yerp has ever achieved.

    I'd be interested to learn of any exceptions to this, although I'd guess that any such list would be comically short compared to how long MEPs have been around and what they cost.

    As for AIFE, well, here's a reason to vote for them right here:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-27128417

    If it enrages UKIPpers, then it is worth doing. It's a rare actual benefit from casting a Euros vote, and one moreover that reminds us all that UKIP, AIFE, WDARN, etc are all in fact cheeks of the same backward, racist arse. They insist on this point themselves in insisting that they are very easily confused.
    There is only one racist posting here at the moment - the one who voted for the racist party.
  • The big difference between this week's Ashcroft poll and last week's is that I didn't form part of the sample. Maybe that partly explains the big drop in UKIP's share.

    Last week the fieldwork was carried out by ICM - I wonder if ir was the same this week.

This discussion has been closed.