Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Turnout’s going to be higher surely on May 7th – but how mu
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Turnout’s going to be higher surely on May 7th – but how much higher?
Sporting Index, which is sponsoring PB’s GE15 coverage, has put up a range of new spread markets including one on the turnout level. The opening spread is 69.7% – 70.3% making a mid-point of 70%.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I'd say 65 much more likely
SELL!!! SELL!!!
(If anyone disagrees I will play, can't get on w Spin)
1) What happened between 1997 and 2001 to drive down turnout by over 10 points?
2) Why is the recent direction of travel in NI the reverse that of everywhere else? (recent meaning since 2001)
On the day (presuming SPIN keep their markets open) I could see this creeping up to mid-70%
That will be the time to sell this bet.
The reality is that the major parties can not and probably do not want to offer an inspiring offering but instead a largely statist bureaucratic offering. Its not the sort of thing to bring the voters out in their masses and frankly Cameron and Miliband are not Obama material either. As a result If the major parties and their media outlets can also talk down the lesser parties as they no doubt will try then turnout could be even below last time simply because there will be precious little to attract them.
Basically people don't vote in increasing numbers.
The fixed line is usually lower than the spread mid but I guess here the upside is bigger with the sell, so it may not be like goals and runs
But seems v odd to me to fix the mid so much higher than the previous three elections, I don't think its a time to be clever clever, just look at the last three in the thread header!
Postal Votes % up as it makes voting easy
Individual Registration % up as the more committed will register
Apathy of the young % down - only if they are registered
Zeal of new converts to an insurgent party % up if UKIP energises previous DNV
Apathy from Milliband effect % down - main party fatigue
Despair from LibDems effect % down - main party fatigue
Social reform (Gay Marriage) etc from Torys % down - main party fatigue
Cleansing the register, to use Mikes phrase (which sounds ominous) % up if it has happened.
If banks had been state owned, we would directly have lost billions of pounds. We will recoup much of our stake in the ba ks upon sale.
I was on the other side of that bet!
The Bennett interview shows the difference between a professional politician and the average man on the street. If I was asked to go on air and defend an ill-thought policy, I would probably choke, just as she did. A professional politician would have warbled on and easily deflected the fairly soft questioning and leave the listener even less enlightened.
It's why, perversely, we need more people like Bennett and less professional politicians ...
Lots of short term pain, phoenix rises from the ashes and people eventually are wealthier.
Any attempt to preserve the status quo for an inefficient system leads to lots of pain: see the USSR,
The banks have had the biggest bail out ever. More than shipbuilding, mining, BL, steel and railways added together.
That the subsidy hasn't been direct but has been sneaked through via taxpayer guarantees, historically low interest rates and soft loans doesn;t mean it doesn't exist, and we the taxpayers will never get the money back in any real sense.
Funding for the Darien scheme was by public subscription and not funded by debt (beyond that which individuals may have got themselves into with private moneylenders to over-extend their investment.
So, if investors make a bad bet, the rest of the population pays for them to start betting again?
Then once the markets are rigged, those investors can be guaranteed a return and can shaft the country by clever tax avoidance schemes?
Sounds a good deal... Where can I apply, or is it mainly for those who inherited cash?
To be honest, until a couple of years ago, I thought there was a serious chance of turnout dropping below 50%, but UKIP's rise will probably get some people who previously were planning on not voting out to the polling stations.
Students who turn out will now count 100%, whereas before they only counted 50%. And it's not as if they don't know where they're going to be on May 7th.
It's why we need more professional politicians and more John Humphreys/Andrew Neills/Jeremy Paxmans.
Look on it as a socratic discourse. By constant and harsh examination, an acceptable version of the truth will out.
Professional politicians are good at this. Hence the "professional" bit. They discern the crux of the issue and might obfuscate but are aware of what they are obfuscating.
Interested members of the public and leaders of the Green Party (which latter I accept is more a state of mind than anything else) do not and should rightly be dismissed.
Possibly, but you haven't made a cogent case why investment should become a risk free enterprise?
However, remove the profit motive and it's all a lot worse, there's not much actual drive to incentivise improvement and creating anew. Trabants v Golfs being a good example.
It's a paradox that individual desire for wealth can drive up living standards for the greater good. Take away the incentives and people will do and create less which doesn't do the individual or the wider whole any good.
GordonBennett. Natalie now 7/1 to resign before #GE2015. Next Green Party leader after Natalie Bennett: 2/1 Peter Cranie, 3/1 Caroline Lucas
One of the critiques of QE from the monetarist side of the fence is that it was continued for much longer than either necessary or desirable. Returning to a normal monetary policy (allowing interest rates to rise) would have been better from 2013 onwards than encouraging another debt-fuelled boom aimed at buying votes.
The other lesson from the global financial crisis is that it is now impossible for a medium to large consumer bank to be allowed to collapse. Has RBS or HBOS been allowed to fail, it would have opened up the rest of the banking sector to a consumer-driven panic with disastrous consequences for the economy and for public order. It's perhaps fortunate that Northern Rock happened when it did - had the measures that were put in place after that run not been in place when the likes of RBS were on the edge...
On topic, I think turnout up on 2010 - I've not seen (obviously) the changes in electoral roll numbers. It would be fascinating to know how many electors East Ham has lost to the registration process not that will have any impact other than to trim Stephen Timms' majority.
That's a bit less than I would have guessed, so you are relying on large numbers of extra voters to go to the polls in order to get above 70%.
On the other hand, we are always told that oldies are more likely to vote and that the country is ageing - so that should mean that turnout is increasing for systemic reasons..?
Final thought - lots of 2010 Lib Dems still tell the pollsters they aren't sure how they will vote (roughly 20% compared to 10% for Lab/Con). Some of them won't be able to make up their mind, and just won't do so.
Tails the taxpayer loses
Just like in privatisation
[A parallel point: It's why tax breaks for entrepreneurs are important - we should incentivise start-ups and genuine wealth creation, not try and claw as much as possible away after people have risked the shirt on their back to be a success.]
Good greed? as opposed to bad greed of the peasants?
I guess some Lib Dems will be lost to the electoral process and possibly some Labour and Conservative supporters from 2010 will decide that they are busy washing their hair. But all told, I expect turnout to be up quite a bit from 2010. The current spread looks just about right to me.
All systems have their faults, what I can't stand is the jihadist capitalists who believe their system is the only "true way"
Can't argue with the rationale of all UK MPs having a say on matters affecting the whole of the UK whatever their view on the continued existence of the UK in its present form. As democratically elected representatives they have a right to be in the Commons and a right to vote on such legislation if they choose.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-31603152
This kind of business needs squelching and it's good to see it happening. It's wicked.
The same applies if your starting to make some widget in your garage say and pour your efforts into it in the hope of becoming much better off individually. You can be a "peasant" and do that and if you succeed good luck to you. You deserve it. The rest of us can then enjoy the wider benefits of your widget.
Greed is good in that sense. Though I was trying to avoid using the word as it's so associated with the Gekko's of this world.
The shareholders lost 100% of their money in the cases of Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley, 95% of their money in the case of RBS, and 90% in the case of Lloyds TSB. (And Lloyds only needed a bail out because the government strong armed them into buying HBOS.) In the case of Lloyds, the tax payer is already in profit, and it is likely a profit will be made in RBS too.
I also feel to see why a politician who is 'obfuscating' for a bad policy they do not understand is any way a good thing.
I should perhaps have put a smiley at the end of my first post, because it was in half-jest. But only half.
No, the investors in the bank still had shares in them, the shares were adjusted to reflect the banks true value, so they never had that amount of value in the first place.
If the bank had been allowed to fail, they would have lost all their money, which would have been natural capitalism.
What we have is a betting system that is backstopped against losses.
That was my point: generally professional politicians understand the policies ("bad" or "good") that they are proposing and the key is to understand what that policy is. The media can do a good job of this.
A member of the public or leader of the Greens who doesn't understand the policy in the first place (apart from to say: "we want everyone to be happy") does not belong in the political arena.
IMO.
Edit: oh - that's a flash smiley...
So in your world, the minority is right and should make the rules?
http://www.ncpolitics.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Turnout-1024x529.jpg
https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/poll.aspx?oItemId=61
And of course, once the bank is sorted with public money and returned to profit, it needs to be sold of to the private investors who furucked it in the first place?
Thank you.
We'll see how well the Williams and Glynn sale goes...
Coalition politics has killed Buggins's Turn.
We know what the level of non-performing loans (i.e. people not paying interest or keeping up with principal repayments) in the RBS loan book is, and it really isn't that high.
You are essentially taking the view that management is lying.
In the capatilist system you advocate ( allegedly) they would have lost money for banking with a bunch of crooks.
But you are only interested in a specialized form of capitalism where failure is not an option.
I know you are mainly into banking, but would you like to explain to the good folks on here what happened when the companies called in the liabilities of the "names"?
If you are clueless, look it up.
What else are they going to do?
Oh yes, reform themselves and not run out of money by Tuesday.
I agree the more egregious examples of interest accumulation need to be addressed.
There was no government bail out of the insurance market, so I really have no idea what you're talking about.
You keep saying banks should have been allowed to fail.
Now; imagine that John Smith Software Ltd banked with RBS. RBS has been allowed to fail. It's in adminstration. How does John Smith Software Ltd pay its staff at the end of the month?
£75,000 deposit insurance won't help it, if its monthly wage bill is £200k.