Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The GE2015 prospects for Clegg, Salmond, and Farage are all

SystemSystem Posts: 12,215
edited March 2015 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The GE2015 prospects for Clegg, Salmond, and Farage are all dependent on tactical voting either for or against

One of those attending the PB party on Tuesday, a long standing lurker who has never posted, told me that one of his favourite bets at the moment was the then 50/1 he’d got that Farage, Salmond and Clegg would all fail to be elected at the election.

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    edited March 2015
    First.

    Like all three in their seats. :smile:
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,173
    edited March 2015
    Yes - I suspect all 3 to win with Farage the least likely and Salmond the most. I don't like Clegg very much but he serves it just about for doing the right thing over the Coalition.

    I'd be delighted if Salmond lost :)
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,706
    The worst Bee-Gees tribute act ever.

    What a thing to wake up to!

    If Clegg does "stay alive", a by-election surely follows soon enough. Wonders what's the point.
  • PClippPClipp Posts: 2,138
    Jonathan said:

    If Clegg does "stay alive", a by-election surely follows soon enough. Wonders what's the point.

    What makes you think there would be a byelection?
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    edited March 2015
    Latest ARSE with added APLOMB 2015 General Election & "JackW Dozen" Projection Countdown :

    3150 minutes
  • GadflyGadfly Posts: 1,191
    Moving average chart of the 100 most recent YouGov polls. Click to enlarge...

    Simple, Free Image and File Hosting at MediaFire
  • So Labour are accusing the Conservatives of having secret plans for massive spending cuts. Historically, how well does this kind of accusation work?

    To me, it has always smacked of desperation. It's always possible to accuse your opposite numbers of having secret plans, and near impossible for them to prove you wrong, so I''d expect undecided voters to dismiss the accusation as 'just what you'd expect them to say', unless they're already leaning your way.
  • So Labour are accusing the Conservatives of having secret plans for massive spending cuts. Historically, how well does this kind of accusation work?

    To me, it has always smacked of desperation. It's always possible to accuse your opposite numbers of having secret plans, and near impossible for them to prove you wrong, so I''d expect undecided voters to dismiss the accusation as 'just what you'd expect them to say', unless they're already leaning your way.

    It probably wouldn't work. Except that
    a) The Tories told us they wouldn't raise VAT. And then did
    b) The Tories are trying to deny there have been massive spending cuts this parliament despite the gutting of funding to real things that people use, and
    b) The Tories are planning massive spending cuts after the election. They've dulled the impact slightly since the autumn statement by selling our things and promising not to have quite as big a surplus, but as noone believes these forecasts anyway (as Osborne has consistently missed them by a country mile) we're back to intent.

    Believe me, on the doorstep, people have felt the cuts that the Tories try and claim haven't happened this parliament. They're worried what is to come. So yes, it works.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Those of you upset by the Sun front page would be advised to avoid the Scottish version as it features GOs head and a different body.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,706
    Interesting moves on transport in the South-West in The Budget on P.47:

    "1.167 The Secretary of State for Transport will shortly set out details of the new franchise for
    the Great Western Route, which will introduce the new £3 billion Intercity Express
    trains, more frequent services and faster journey times. "

    It sounds to me like electrification will either be extended into Devon and Cornwall, so the Hitachi Super Express trains (or similar) can operate there (expensive) or they'll purchase a new fleet of Class 220/221 Voyagers. Both would require some signalling/infrastructure tweaks.

    Interestingly, there are still ongoing discussions going on about £7bn of infrastructure upgrades too from what I read. I imagine that includes the back-up route from Exeter-Plymouth.

    "1.168 Transport: The government has asked the South West Peninsula Task Force
    on rail to consider improvements to the Exeter to Salisbury line as part of its work.
    The government also encourages the relevant local authorities and Local Enterprise
    Partnership to develop a business case for investment in the North Devon Link road,
    to form the basis of a future application to the Local Growth Fund."

    Probably a bit more duelling of track, and more frequent services. Could help with marginal seats in North Devon, Somerton & Frome, Wells, Mid Dorset, Taunton etc. all of which aren't far away.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966


    b) The Tories are trying to deny there have been massive spending cuts this parliament despite the gutting of funding to real things that people use, and

    2015 Total Public Spending = £731bn
    2010 Total Public Spending = £673bn

    Positively hacking it away. The rate of increase has been reduced, no real cuts have been made.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,706
    TGOHF said:

    Those of you upset by the Sun front page would be advised to avoid the Scottish version as it features GOs head and a different body.

    http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Gordon is interesting. Alex Salmond is clear favourite, but most of the extra votes must come from Labour and LD as the Scottish Tories were so solid for the Union. So the Conservatives may well be in second place, particularly with Bruce stepping down. Possibly Tories may get a boost for the lifeline to the oil industry. The Conservatives held the seat in 1992.

    I suspect the Tories will be in distant second place, but it would be hilarious to see Salmonds face as all Scotland goes SNP, but his own seat turns blue...
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300

    TGOHF said:

    Those of you upset by the Sun front page would be advised to avoid the Scottish version as it features GOs head and a different body.

    http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/
    shades of Austin Powers jokes about boobs Ozzie.

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,471

    Interesting moves on transport in the South-West in The Budget on P.47:

    "1.167 The Secretary of State for Transport will shortly set out details of the new franchise for
    the Great Western Route, which will introduce the new £3 billion Intercity Express
    trains, more frequent services and faster journey times. "

    It sounds to me like electrification will either be extended into Devon and Cornwall, so the Hitachi Super Express trains (or similar) can operate there (expensive) or they'll purchase a new fleet of Class 220/221 Voyagers. Both would require some signalling/infrastructure tweaks.

    Interestingly, there are still ongoing discussions going on about £7bn of infrastructure upgrades too from what I read. I imagine that includes the back-up route from Exeter-Plymouth.

    "1.168 Transport: The government has asked the South West Peninsula Task Force
    on rail to consider improvements to the Exeter to Salisbury line as part of its work.
    The government also encourages the relevant local authorities and Local Enterprise
    Partnership to develop a business case for investment in the North Devon Link road,
    to form the basis of a future application to the Local Growth Fund."

    Probably a bit more duelling of track, and more frequent services. Could help with marginal seats in North Devon, Somerton & Frome, Wells, Mid Dorset, Taunton etc. all of which aren't far away.

    About a third (I think) of the terrible IEP trains are going to be dual-mode: i.e. they operate on electric power or diesel for when they're away from the knitting, so electrification might not be needed past Bristol.

    But note the 'Great Western route' might just mean the London-Bristol-South Wales route, not the spur off past Exeter into Cornwall.

    I'd said on here they might actually announce something concrete on the Dawlish problem at the budget - I was wrong.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,500
    felix said:

    Yes - I suspect all 3 to win with Farage the least likely and Salmond the most. I don't like Clegg very much but he serves it just about for doing the right thing over the Coalition.

    I'd be delighted if Salmond lost :)

    You will be sadly disappointed
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,538

    TGOHF said:

    Those of you upset by the Sun front page would be advised to avoid the Scottish version as it features GOs head and a different body.

    http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/
    That's really not very appealing.

  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 5,331
    Sean_F said:

    TGOHF said:

    Those of you upset by the Sun front page would be advised to avoid the Scottish version as it features GOs head and a different body.

    http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/
    That's really not very appealing.

    Nor funny.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,173
    malcolmg said:

    felix said:

    Yes - I suspect all 3 to win with Farage the least likely and Salmond the most. I don't like Clegg very much but he serves it just about for doing the right thing over the Coalition.

    I'd be delighted if Salmond lost :)

    You will be sadly disappointed
    Don't turnips read anything other than the last line this early in the morning?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,500

    Sean_F said:

    TGOHF said:

    Those of you upset by the Sun front page would be advised to avoid the Scottish version as it features GOs head and a different body.

    http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/
    That's really not very appealing.

    Nor funny.
    I disagree it is very funny
  • EasterrossEasterross Posts: 1,915
    Morning all and glad you had a jolly time last night at the pub. Would have loved to be a fly on the wall for some discussions.

    Personally I think Salmond and Clegg will make it and Farage will fail.

    Did we get a Survation poll yesterday or was OGH just tweeting stuff from the last one?
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 5,331
    malcolmg said:

    Sean_F said:

    TGOHF said:

    Those of you upset by the Sun front page would be advised to avoid the Scottish version as it features GOs head and a different body.

    http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/
    That's really not very appealing.

    Nor funny.
    I disagree it is very funny
    How they strained for that bum/boom pun.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,500
    felix said:

    malcolmg said:

    felix said:

    Yes - I suspect all 3 to win with Farage the least likely and Salmond the most. I don't like Clegg very much but he serves it just about for doing the right thing over the Coalition.

    I'd be delighted if Salmond lost :)

    You will be sadly disappointed
    Don't turnips read anything other than the last line this early in the morning?
    Yes , you said you would be delighted , I said you would be disappointed , ie it will not happen while your ar** points downwards. Why would you be delighted if Salmond lost , why did you pick him in particular , why not the other two , wonder if I can guess why.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 6,312
    Indigo said:


    b) The Tories are trying to deny there have been massive spending cuts this parliament despite the gutting of funding to real things that people use, and

    2015 Total Public Spending = £731bn
    2010 Total Public Spending = £673bn

    Positively hacking it away. The rate of increase has been reduced, no real cuts have been made.
    Does that include benefits? On some measures they are not considered public spending as they just shift money from one person to another.

  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,975
    edited March 2015
    I had lunch with a friend yesterday and because it was budget day we slightly meandered into politics. I even asked him who he would be voting for. He's reasonably well off-his house is worth over a million-and he takes the Telegraph.

    He said he wasn't sure. He thought Labour had a better front bench team but the Tories had a better leader. He didn't rate Labour's leader at all. He voted Lib Dem last time but wouldn't again.

    He's in advertising so unlikely to have a social conscience and is as far away from a media trot as it's possible to be. As we wound up the conversation he said his wife was probably going to vote Labour this time so in all likelihood he'd do the same............

    This person earns well into a six figure salary and I know not everyone is as hooked on the minutiae of politics as we are on here. But I think if I was a politician and he's as typical as I suspect then you might as well just throw your tea leaves in the air
  • MillsyMillsy Posts: 900
    re the Budget, you can tell Osborne did a good job when all Labour can do is try to scare voters with lies about the NHS
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,173
    malcolmg said:

    felix said:

    malcolmg said:

    felix said:

    Yes - I suspect all 3 to win with Farage the least likely and Salmond the most. I don't like Clegg very much but he serves it just about for doing the right thing over the Coalition.

    I'd be delighted if Salmond lost :)

    You will be sadly disappointed
    Don't turnips read anything other than the last line this early in the morning?
    Yes , you said you would be delighted , I said you would be disappointed , ie it will not happen while your ar** points downwards. Why would you be delighted if Salmond lost , why did you pick him in particular , why not the other two , wonder if I can guess why.
    I also said he was most likely to win - you forgot that bit. Not hard to guess why I'd like him to lose - can't stand him. I'd be marginally happier if Farage lost and overall wouldn't shed too many tears over Clegg - but I'd hate to see Labour/SNP win anywhere. Now if you read it all ever so carefully you might guess my political leanings :)
  • Indigo said:


    b) The Tories are trying to deny there have been massive spending cuts this parliament despite the gutting of funding to real things that people use, and

    2015 Total Public Spending = £731bn
    2010 Total Public Spending = £673bn

    Positively hacking it away. The rate of increase has been reduced, no real cuts have been made.
    It's the gift that keeps on giving on the doorstep. Never mind the massive cuts to front line services that you have seen with your own two eyes. Never mind the obr yesterday saying the squeeze in the next parliament will be far bigger than the cuts seen so far. Never mind that you're struggling to make ends meet and your school can't afford to hire teachers and police patrols have been cut as your chief constable has had his budget decimated or that your council has more than half it's funding taken away your library and sure start centre both closed and your hospital has declared a capacity cricis due to lack of money.

    Because statistically none of these things happened! Yes, that'll work to win voters to the conservatives, call people liars and idiots....

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,500

    malcolmg said:

    Sean_F said:

    TGOHF said:

    Those of you upset by the Sun front page would be advised to avoid the Scottish version as it features GOs head and a different body.

    http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/
    That's really not very appealing.

    Nor funny.
    I disagree it is very funny
    How they strained for that bum/boom pun.
    most unusual for London rags to be lampooning anyone other than Scottish politicians, most of staff must have been on holiday last night and the office junior mixed up Swinney and Osbourne.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,500
    felix said:

    malcolmg said:

    felix said:

    malcolmg said:

    felix said:

    Yes - I suspect all 3 to win with Farage the least likely and Salmond the most. I don't like Clegg very much but he serves it just about for doing the right thing over the Coalition.

    I'd be delighted if Salmond lost :)

    You will be sadly disappointed
    Don't turnips read anything other than the last line this early in the morning?
    Yes , you said you would be delighted , I said you would be disappointed , ie it will not happen while your ar** points downwards. Why would you be delighted if Salmond lost , why did you pick him in particular , why not the other two , wonder if I can guess why.
    I also said he was most likely to win - you forgot that bit. Not hard to guess why I'd like him to lose - can't stand him. I'd be marginally happier if Farage lost and overall wouldn't shed too many tears over Clegg - but I'd hate to see Labour/SNP win anywhere. Now if you read it all ever so carefully you might guess my political leanings :)
    A Labour vote is a wasted vote.
  • make it stop


    Ross Hawkins retweeted
    Tim Gatt‏@TimGatt·14 mins14 minutes ago
    MT @rosschawkins I almost spilt my coffee when I saw front page of Sun Chancellor tells BBC // http://youtu.be/kmC6GaqKl9Y
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,500
    Roger said:

    I had lunch with a friend yesterday and because it was budget day we slightly meandered into politics. I even asked him who he would be voting for. He's reasonably well off-his house is worth over a million-and he takes the Telegraph.

    He said he wasn't sure. He thought Labour had a better front bench team but the Tories had a better leader. He didn't rate Labour's leader at all. He voted Lib Dem last time but wouldn't again.

    He's in advertising so unlikely to have a social conscience and is as far away from a media trot as it's possible to be. As we wound up the conversation he said his wife was probably going to vote Labour this time so in all likelihood he'd do the same............

    This person earns well into a six figure salary and I know not everyone is as hooked on the minutiae of politics as we are on here. But I think if I was a politician and he's as typical as I suspect then you might as well just throw your tea leaves in the air

    Sounds like he is a sandwich short of a picnic and surprising he has a job at all. Name one even remotely competent person on their front bench.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,712
    edited March 2015
    Roger, there are some people who vote according to whether the country is to be governed in the interets of all, or of the fortunate. The present Conservative party comes across as very definitely governing in the interests of the latter.
    IMHO the problem for the LD’s is that they used to be tjhought of as being in the "interests of all” camp but keeping company with the Tories is ruining that perception!
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @juliahobsbawm: Ed Balls sounds deeply panicked @BBCr4today
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    edited March 2015
    malcolmg said:

    Roger said:

    I had lunch with a friend yesterday and because it was budget day we slightly meandered into politics. I even asked him who he would be voting for. He's reasonably well off-his house is worth over a million-and he takes the Telegraph.

    He said he wasn't sure. He thought Labour had a better front bench team but the Tories had a better leader. He didn't rate Labour's leader at all. He voted Lib Dem last time but wouldn't again.

    He's in advertising so unlikely to have a social conscience and is as far away from a media trot as it's possible to be. As we wound up the conversation he said his wife was probably going to vote Labour this time so in all likelihood he'd do the same............

    This person earns well into a six figure salary and I know not everyone is as hooked on the minutiae of politics as we are on here. But I think if I was a politician and he's as typical as I suspect then you might as well just throw your tea leaves in the air

    Sounds like he is a sandwich short of a picnic and surprising he has a job at all. Name one even remotely competent person on their front bench.
    How many people could he name from Labour's front bench?
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @nickeardley: Nothing in yesterday's Budget would be reversed by Labour, says @edballsmp http://t.co/3gbBibPqj4

  • Can anyone conceive that GO wouldn't get positive headlines from the Telegraph, Mail and Sun 49 days before a General Election?


  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @DPJHodges: Ed Balls interview exposes Labour's strategic problem. No clear attack lines now. "They may put up VAT. And hurt the NHS. And...er...".

  • Can anyone conceive that GO wouldn't get positive headlines from the Telegraph, Mail and Sun 49 days before a General Election?


    The Indie is surprising -no?

    You forgot how the mirror slavishly spins the Labour line but that doesn't count of course.


  • saddosaddo Posts: 534
    Scott_P said:

    @nickeardley: Nothing in yesterday's Budget would be reversed by Labour, says @edballsmp http://t.co/3gbBibPqj4

    Labour are clearly betting on voters being completely stupid and believing what the Ed's say.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,975
    Malc.

    "Sounds like he is a sandwich short of a picnic and surprising he has a job at all. Name one even remotely competent person on their front bench."

    I can't and that was my point. He's far from a sandwich short of a picnic but with such odd notions picked up from God knows where how do politicians possibly get through
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,706

    Interesting moves on transport in the South-West in The Budget on P.47:

    "1.167 The Secretary of State for Transport will shortly set out details of the new franchise for
    the Great Western Route, which will introduce the new £3 billion Intercity Express
    trains, more frequent services and faster journey times. "

    It sounds to me like electrification will either be extended into Devon and Cornwall, so the Hitachi Super Express trains (or similar) can operate there (expensive) or they'll purchase a new fleet of Class 220/221 Voyagers. Both would require some signalling/infrastructure tweaks.

    Interestingly, there are still ongoing discussions going on about £7bn of infrastructure upgrades too from what I read. I imagine that includes the back-up route from Exeter-Plymouth.

    "1.168 Transport: The government has asked the South West Peninsula Task Force
    on rail to consider improvements to the Exeter to Salisbury line as part of its work.
    The government also encourages the relevant local authorities and Local Enterprise
    Partnership to develop a business case for investment in the North Devon Link road,
    to form the basis of a future application to the Local Growth Fund."

    Probably a bit more duelling of track, and more frequent services. Could help with marginal seats in North Devon, Somerton & Frome, Wells, Mid Dorset, Taunton etc. all of which aren't far away.

    About a third (I think) of the terrible IEP trains are going to be dual-mode: i.e. they operate on electric power or diesel for when they're away from the knitting, so electrification might not be needed past Bristol.

    But note the 'Great Western route' might just mean the London-Bristol-South Wales route, not the spur off past Exeter into Cornwall.

    I'd said on here they might actually announce something concrete on the Dawlish problem at the budget - I was wrong.
    Fair points. The local Devon and Cornish press seem to think they're in line for something but, as you say, nothing concrete yet.

    I think both the Lib Dems and Tories must have come to some arrangement not to make too many spending commitments in the budget, so they can credibly beef up their manifestos with their preferred spending pledges.

  • b) The Tories are trying to deny there have been massive spending cuts this parliament despite the gutting of funding to real things that people use, and ....

    Believe me, on the doorstep, people have felt the cuts that the Tories try and claim haven't happened this parliament. They're worried what is to come. So yes, it works.

    Some people, perhaps, but how many? Are the people willing to talk to you on the doorstep a good random sample?

    Undoubtedly, much of the spending Labour were planning hasn't happened, but such cuts don't mean much to the general public since the future spending plans were just politicians' promises, in which they place little credence. If the jam tomorrow never materialises, that's only what was cynically expected.

    What counts is actual spending on the ground, impacting the general public, and there I've noticed no deterioration despite all the panic-mongering. The NHS did their normal excellent job treating my father's cancer and my nephew's meningitis, my benefits have always been paid on time, and none of the other services I get from the government have been noticeably affected either.

    You're free to tell me how blind I've been, of course, free to list a hundred cuts affecting me I've completely missed, but I'm not convinced effectively telling voters they're naive idiots if they don't agree with the Labour line is a winning strategy. It may work on some people, but others would rather believe their own eyes than any politician, no matter how often their eyes have deceived them in the past.
  • MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792
    Roger said:

    I had lunch with a friend yesterday and because it was budget day we slightly meandered into politics. I even asked him who he would be voting for. He's reasonably well off-his house is worth over a million-and he takes the Telegraph.

    He said he wasn't sure. He thought Labour had a better front bench team but the Tories had a better leader. He didn't rate Labour's leader at all. He voted Lib Dem last time but wouldn't again.

    He's in advertising so unlikely to have a social conscience and is as far away from a media trot as it's possible to be. As we wound up the conversation he said his wife was probably going to vote Labour this time so in all likelihood he'd do the same............

    This person earns well into a six figure salary and I know not everyone is as hooked on the minutiae of politics as we are on here. But I think if I was a politician and he's as typical as I suspect then you might as well just throw your tea leaves in the air

    Sounds like he was humouring you to prevent,I'd guess, a gruesome social encounter becoming intolerable.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411
    On topic:


    All 3 0.3592
    Clegg, Salmond 0.1715
    Salmond, Farage 0.1870
    Salmond 0.0892
    Clegg, Farage 0.0860
    Clegg 0.0410
    Farage 0.0447
    None 0.0214


  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,937

    Roger, there are some people who vote according to whether the country is to be governed in the interets of all, or of the fortunate. The present Conservative party comes across as very definitely governing in the interests of the latter.
    IMHO the problem for the LD’s is that they used to be tjhought of as being in the "interests of all” camp but keeping company with the Tories is ruining that perception!

    How does the threshold at which you pay tax being raised to £11,000 remotely fit with your narrative? The fortunate get paid way more than this.

    How does creating 2 million jobs remotely fit with your narrative? The fortunate already have jobs. The very fortunate don't need them.

    How does the top 1% paying 27% of all tax remotely fit your narrative?

    How does granting rights of gay marriage to bring about equality in our society fit your narrative?

    How does meeting our pledge to international aid targets fit your narrative? The fortunate are those who shout loudest against this policy.

    How does ring-fencing the funding for the NHS fit your narrative? The fortunate already had BUPA.

    Today's Conservative Party - working together with the LibDems - have five years of Government they should be rightly proud of. Proud that it has been one of the most redistributive in decades. Certainly far more than the last Labour Govt.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited March 2015
    There's nothing like over-humouring someone and only they think you're actually interested and try to recruit you - I did that with a couple whom I discovered were Wiccans. I only realised it too late and found it doubly difficult to wriggle out of my previous faux Oh How Interesting remarks.

    Roger said:

    I had lunch with a friend yesterday and because it was budget day we slightly meandered into politics. I even asked him who he would be voting for. He's reasonably well off-his house is worth over a million-and he takes the Telegraph.

    He said he wasn't sure. He thought Labour had a better front bench team but the Tories had a better leader. He didn't rate Labour's leader at all. He voted Lib Dem last time but wouldn't again.

    He's in advertising so unlikely to have a social conscience and is as far away from a media trot as it's possible to be. As we wound up the conversation he said his wife was probably going to vote Labour this time so in all likelihood he'd do the same............

    This person earns well into a six figure salary and I know not everyone is as hooked on the minutiae of politics as we are on here. But I think if I was a politician and he's as typical as I suspect then you might as well just throw your tea leaves in the air

    Sounds like he was humouring you to prevent,I'd guess, a gruesome social encounter becoming intolerable.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411
    As a player I'd be happy to take all three at 2-1, as a layer the 40-1 on none is very nice.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,046
    Roger said:

    I had lunch with a friend yesterday and because it was budget day we slightly meandered into politics. I even asked him who he would be voting for. He's reasonably well off-his house is worth over a million-and he takes the Telegraph.

    He said he wasn't sure. He thought Labour had a better front bench team but the Tories had a better leader. He didn't rate Labour's leader at all. He voted Lib Dem last time but wouldn't again.

    He's in advertising so unlikely to have a social conscience and is as far away from a media trot as it's possible to be. As we wound up the conversation he said his wife was probably going to vote Labour this time so in all likelihood he'd do the same............

    This person earns well into a six figure salary and I know not everyone is as hooked on the minutiae of politics as we are on here. But I think if I was a politician and he's as typical as I suspect then you might as well just throw your tea leaves in the air

    Perfectly understandable: by the third Grappa we all yearn for the carefree life of a student and the ideals we held so sincerely.

    Different story when he is sober.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,937


    Can anyone conceive that GO wouldn't get positive headlines from the Telegraph, Mail and Sun 49 days before a General Election?


    The Indie is surprising -no?

    You forgot how the mirror slavishly spins the Labour line but that doesn't count of course.


    If there was any justice, then the Mirror should have been closed down. Same fate as the News of the World. Isn't that justice, Lefties?

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,963
    Good morning, everyone.

    If I were betting on this, which I'm not, I'd probably go for all three or Farage + Salmond.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,025
    From the BBC

    'Labour's plans steadier'

    Posted at 07:46


    I think people will see George Osborne's plans as "pretty scary", Ed Balls says.

    He says the Labour plan is steadier and more balanced. His party will cut debt and get a budget surplus, but in a different way. Instead of just spending cuts, Labour will save money in some areas, but will also make tough decisions on taking some benefits away, put the top rate of income tax up and deal with insecure employment and zero hours contracts."

    Roger has a point that startling percentages of the population are simply oblivious to politics but surely even they might notice the absurdity of these comments.

    Nasty Tories cut public spending.
    Nice Labour only save money.
    Nasty Tories cut benefits.
    Nice Labour make some "tough decisions" on benefits.

    This is what our politics have come to and it is frankly depressing.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Roger said:

    I had lunch with a friend yesterday and because it was budget day we slightly meandered into politics. I even asked him who he would be voting for. He's reasonably well off-his house is worth over a million-and he takes the Telegraph.

    He said he wasn't sure. He thought Labour had a better front bench team but the Tories had a better leader. He didn't rate Labour's leader at all. He voted Lib Dem last time but wouldn't again.

    He's in advertising so unlikely to have a social conscience and is as far away from a media trot as it's possible to be. As we wound up the conversation he said his wife was probably going to vote Labour this time so in all likelihood he'd do the same............

    This person earns well into a six figure salary and I know not everyone is as hooked on the minutiae of politics as we are on here. But I think if I was a politician and he's as typical as I suspect then you might as well just throw your tea leaves in the air

    [My bolding]

    Roger - had to break it to you dahling.

    Someone earning well into six figures is in no way typical
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,975
    OKC

    "Roger, there are some people who vote according to whether the country is to be governed in the interets of all, or of the fortunate. The present Conservative party comes across as very definitely governing in the interests of the latter. "

    That would be my reading of it too. But the point of my story is that even someone as attuned to modern culture as he has to be doesn't even seem to have made that simple extrapolation.

    It seems to me that most pepople follow politics with less than one ear and getting your message accross to them is near impossible

  • SMukeshSMukesh Posts: 1,759
    Labour have got the debate where they want them to be-on spending cuts.

    They should and will use it mercilessly to scare waverers to turn up and vote this Tory government out.

    George focussing the entire budget on defence from Labour indicates the Labour campaign is working so far.
  • saddosaddo Posts: 534
    DavidL said:

    From the BBC

    'Labour's plans steadier'

    Posted at 07:46


    I think people will see George Osborne's plans as "pretty scary", Ed Balls says.

    He says the Labour plan is steadier and more balanced. His party will cut debt and get a budget surplus, but in a different way. Instead of just spending cuts, Labour will save money in some areas, but will also make tough decisions on taking some benefits away, put the top rate of income tax up and deal with insecure employment and zero hours contracts."

    Roger has a point that startling percentages of the population are simply oblivious to politics but surely even they might notice the absurdity of these comments.

    Nasty Tories cut public spending.
    Nice Labour only save money.
    Nasty Tories cut benefits.
    Nice Labour make some "tough decisions" on benefits.

    This is what our politics have come to and it is frankly depressing.

    You are right to point out that Labour talk total BS. They haven't even detailed any of their "nice" cuts other than c£50m from getting rid of police commissioners.
  • DadgeDadge Posts: 2,052

    Roger, there are some people who vote according to whether the country is to be governed in the interets of all, or of the fortunate. The present Conservative party comes across as very definitely governing in the interests of the latter.
    IMHO the problem for the LD’s is that they used to be tjhought of as being in the "interests of all” camp but keeping company with the Tories is ruining that perception!

    Indeed. The LDs have lost half their supporters to Labour not because they went into coalition with the Tories but because they've allowed the Tories to behave as if they have a majority.

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Roger, there are some people who vote according to whether the country is to be governed in the interets of all, or of the fortunate. The present Conservative party comes across as very definitely governing in the interests of the latter.
    IMHO the problem for the LD’s is that they used to be tjhought of as being in the "interests of all” camp but keeping company with the Tories is ruining that perception!

    That's a question of interpretation.

    The reforms to the education system give kids from poor backgrounds the chance to break through and do something positive with their lives. The collapse of social mobility under the last government should be something they hang their heads in shame about.

    The welfare reforms are about encouraging people to re-enter the workforce, which has massive psychological benefits. Someone (@notme?) described people he knew who had benefited from starting work. They may have been slower that ideal, but it could be transformational for the country.

    Labour is content to leave people on (marginally more generous) handouts and are not too bothered about their education. That's absolutely NOT governing in the "interests of all"
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    SMukesh said:

    Labour have got the debate where they want them to be-on spending cuts.

    Ed Balls "Labour would not reverse yesterday's budget"

    Yup, right where they they want it...
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,706
    DavidL said:

    From the BBC

    'Labour's plans steadier'

    Posted at 07:46


    I think people will see George Osborne's plans as "pretty scary", Ed Balls says.

    He says the Labour plan is steadier and more balanced. His party will cut debt and get a budget surplus, but in a different way. Instead of just spending cuts, Labour will save money in some areas, but will also make tough decisions on taking some benefits away, put the top rate of income tax up and deal with insecure employment and zero hours contracts."

    Roger has a point that startling percentages of the population are simply oblivious to politics but surely even they might notice the absurdity of these comments.

    Nasty Tories cut public spending.
    Nice Labour only save money.
    Nasty Tories cut benefits.
    Nice Labour make some "tough decisions" on benefits.

    This is what our politics have come to and it is frankly depressing.

    Both main parties are relying on fear to win the election for them.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,514
    Roger said:

    I had lunch with a friend yesterday and because it was budget day we slightly meandered into politics. I even asked him who he would be voting for. He's reasonably well off-his house is worth over a million-and he takes the Telegraph.

    He said he wasn't sure. He thought Labour had a better front bench team but the Tories had a better leader. He didn't rate Labour's leader at all. He voted Lib Dem last time but wouldn't again.

    He's in advertising so unlikely to have a social conscience and is as far away from a media trot as it's possible to be. As we wound up the conversation he said his wife was probably going to vote Labour this time so in all likelihood he'd do the same............

    This person earns well into a six figure salary and I know not everyone is as hooked on the minutiae of politics as we are on here. But I think if I was a politician and he's as typical as I suspect then you might as well just throw your tea leaves in the air

    So wealth privilege and no social conscience.

    A typical Labour voter in your own words.

    Roger leave the Dark side behind come over to the Right you know you need to.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,706
    I see electionforecast gives the Tories a 34% chance of taking Bath, and the Lib Dems holding by a 3% margin (35% LD and 32% Tory)

    This is still my favoured black swan at 7/2. Like Harrogate and Winchester, a posh Spa town/city with an incumbent standing down that might easily fall.

    A constitutency poll might be nice, although might also flatter the LDs if not everyone has realised Don Foster is standing down yet.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,538
    SMukesh said:

    Labour have got the debate where they want them to be-on spending cuts.

    They should and will use it mercilessly to scare waverers to turn up and vote this Tory government out.

    George focussing the entire budget on defence from Labour indicates the Labour campaign is working so far.

    Anything to do with the economy, tax, spending is precisely where the debate shouldn't be, from Labour's point of view. The Conservatives own these issues, in the way that Labour own the NHS, and UKIP own immigration.
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    edited March 2015
    Having closed the door on Labour's inadequate revenue sources, by using the lifetime pension allowance and a bank levy, the question to Labour will unremittingly be, "Where's the money coming from to pay for it all?"

    The answer will be borrowing.

    "So, the last five years was for nothing? You're just going to do the same thing that helped create the mess?"

    An election losing strategy.

    Economic ratings and leadership ratings will come home to roost.

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,046

    DavidL said:

    From the BBC

    'Labour's plans steadier'

    Posted at 07:46


    I think people will see George Osborne's plans as "pretty scary", Ed Balls says.

    He says the Labour plan is steadier and more balanced. His party will cut debt and get a budget surplus, but in a different way. Instead of just spending cuts, Labour will save money in some areas, but will also make tough decisions on taking some benefits away, put the top rate of income tax up and deal with insecure employment and zero hours contracts."

    Roger has a point that startling percentages of the population are simply oblivious to politics but surely even they might notice the absurdity of these comments.

    Nasty Tories cut public spending.
    Nice Labour only save money.
    Nasty Tories cut benefits.
    Nice Labour make some "tough decisions" on benefits.

    This is what our politics have come to and it is frankly depressing.

    Both main parties are relying on fear to win the election for them.
    Agree. Pretty simple.

    Fear of c*cking it up all over again on the one hand vs more nastiness on the other.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,025

    DavidL said:

    From the BBC

    'Labour's plans steadier'

    Posted at 07:46


    I think people will see George Osborne's plans as "pretty scary", Ed Balls says.

    He says the Labour plan is steadier and more balanced. His party will cut debt and get a budget surplus, but in a different way. Instead of just spending cuts, Labour will save money in some areas, but will also make tough decisions on taking some benefits away, put the top rate of income tax up and deal with insecure employment and zero hours contracts."

    Roger has a point that startling percentages of the population are simply oblivious to politics but surely even they might notice the absurdity of these comments.

    Nasty Tories cut public spending.
    Nice Labour only save money.
    Nasty Tories cut benefits.
    Nice Labour make some "tough decisions" on benefits.

    This is what our politics have come to and it is frankly depressing.

    Both main parties are relying on fear to win the election for them.
    Yep. One tries to generate fear by saying that Labour would let public spending and borrowing rip yet again as they have done in the past. The other tries to maintain that the government is not committed to its own public spending plans and intends to cut public spending even more aggressively.

    The actual declared plans of the main parties grow ever closer. Yesterday's budget at least halved the gap between what the Tories said in the Autumn statement just a few months ago and what can be inferred from Ed Balls' occasional mumbling. Some are now suggesting that it is as low as £7bn a year which is less than 1% of public spending.

    The hyperbole on both sides is designed to hide the fact that the British public are not really getting a choice of policies at all. They are simply getting a choice of leadership.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411

    I see electionforecast gives the Tories a 34% chance of taking Bath, and the Lib Dems holding by a 3% margin (35% LD and 32% Tory)

    This is still my favoured black swan at 7/2. Like Harrogate and Winchester, a posh Spa town/city with an incumbent standing down that might easily fall.

    A constitutency poll might be nice, although might also flatter the LDs if not everyone has realised Don Foster is standing down yet.

    "The phantom incumbency"

    Yep I thought Foster standing down could make it a deep Tory gain and have a cheeky fiver on this at 6s :)
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,366

    Our politics in a nutshell ...

    The 45p rate or the 50p rate of taxation?

    The 45p rate shows the Tories value people who get on. The 50p rate shows Labour are determined that we're all in it together. Tories claim that the lower rate actually brings in more tax, Labour are financing their plans on the extra money it brings in.

    Neither can show any scientific proof, but both want their version to be true, Therefore it is true.

    Politics of the schoolyard.
  • macisbackmacisback Posts: 382
    Sean_F said:

    SMukesh said:

    Labour have got the debate where they want them to be-on spending cuts.

    They should and will use it mercilessly to scare waverers to turn up and vote this Tory government out.

    George focussing the entire budget on defence from Labour indicates the Labour campaign is working so far.

    Anything to do with the economy, tax, spending is precisely where the debate shouldn't be, from Labour's point of view. The Conservatives own these issues, in the way that Labour own the NHS, and UKIP own immigration.
    Correct but it would be a smart move for the Tories in the manifesto to 100% rule out an increase in VAT. Unless they do that there is a lot of mileage for Balls.
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    edited March 2015
    Labour's econonic policy now appears to be solely a collective of adjectives, no actual policy.

    Nasty, fair, better, scary, reckless (TPD copyright)
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411
    £10 Farron special

    I'll go Evens Westmorland and Lonsdale recording the biggest Lib Dem majority against any other specified constituency ! (% terms)

    First taker gets it.
  • currystarcurrystar Posts: 1,171

    Roger, there are some people who vote according to whether the country is to be governed in the interets of all, or of the fortunate. The present Conservative party comes across as very definitely governing in the interests of the latter.
    IMHO the problem for the LD’s is that they used to be tjhought of as being in the "interests of all” camp but keeping company with the Tories is ruining that perception!

    How does the threshold at which you pay tax being raised to £11,000 remotely fit with your narrative? The fortunate get paid way more than this.

    How does creating 2 million jobs remotely fit with your narrative? The fortunate already have jobs. The very fortunate don't need them.

    How does the top 1% paying 27% of all tax remotely fit your narrative?

    How does granting rights of gay marriage to bring about equality in our society fit your narrative?

    How does meeting our pledge to international aid targets fit your narrative? The fortunate are those who shout loudest against this policy.

    How does ring-fencing the funding for the NHS fit your narrative? The fortunate already had BUPA.

    Today's Conservative Party - working together with the LibDems - have five years of Government they should be rightly proud of. Proud that it has been one of the most redistributive in decades. Certainly far more than the last Labour Govt.
    Post of the year!
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,712
    Charles said:

    Roger, there are some people who vote according to whether the country is to be governed in the interets of all, or of the fortunate. The present Conservative party comes across as very definitely governing in the interests of the latter.
    IMHO the problem for the LD’s is that they used to be tjhought of as being in the "interests of all” camp but keeping company with the Tories is ruining that perception!

    That's a question of interpretation.

    The reforms to the education system give kids from poor backgrounds the chance to break through and do something positive with their lives. The collapse of social mobility under the last government should be something they hang their heads in shame about.

    The welfare reforms are about encouraging people to re-enter the workforce, which has massive psychological benefits. Someone (@notme?) described people he knew who had benefited from starting work. They may have been slower that ideal, but it could be transformational for the country.

    Labour is content to leave people on (marginally more generous) handouts and are not too bothered about their education. That's absolutely NOT governing in the "interests of all"
    I’m not sure you are right about the education reforms. Seems to me that the proliferation of free schools is a middle class issue, and that there is some truth in the allegation that they are resulting in the over-provision of schools in some areas. I also don’t believe that allowing such schools to discriminate on the grounds of religion is in the wider interests of either the children who attend them or the country as a whole.

    There are many people who would avoid work if they could. Managing ones life without doing so has been been the aim of many across all classes. Bertie Wooster was a prime example! However for many others the opportunities are, or were, just not there.
  • When is a debate not a debate?

    PoliticsHome‏@politicshome·1 min1 minute ago
    First TV leaders' debate to take place next week, broadcasters say http://polho.me/1GsNTPK
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,706
    Pulpstar said:

    I see electionforecast gives the Tories a 34% chance of taking Bath, and the Lib Dems holding by a 3% margin (35% LD and 32% Tory)

    This is still my favoured black swan at 7/2. Like Harrogate and Winchester, a posh Spa town/city with an incumbent standing down that might easily fall.

    A constitutency poll might be nice, although might also flatter the LDs if not everyone has realised Don Foster is standing down yet.

    "The phantom incumbency"

    Yep I thought Foster standing down could make it a deep Tory gain and have a cheeky fiver on this at 6s :)
    Good work!
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    *Claps*

    Labour's econonic policy now appears to be solely a collective of adjectives, no actual policy.

    Nasty, fair, better, scary, reckless (TPD copyright)

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,937
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    From the BBC

    'Labour's plans steadier'

    Posted at 07:46


    I think people will see George Osborne's plans as "pretty scary", Ed Balls says.

    He says the Labour plan is steadier and more balanced. His party will cut debt and get a budget surplus, but in a different way. Instead of just spending cuts, Labour will save money in some areas, but will also make tough decisions on taking some benefits away, put the top rate of income tax up and deal with insecure employment and zero hours contracts."

    Roger has a point that startling percentages of the population are simply oblivious to politics but surely even they might notice the absurdity of these comments.

    Nasty Tories cut public spending.
    Nice Labour only save money.
    Nasty Tories cut benefits.
    Nice Labour make some "tough decisions" on benefits.

    This is what our politics have come to and it is frankly depressing.

    Both main parties are relying on fear to win the election for them.
    Yep. One tries to generate fear by saying that Labour would let public spending and borrowing rip yet again as they have done in the past. The other tries to maintain that the government is not committed to its own public spending plans and intends to cut public spending even more aggressively.

    The actual declared plans of the main parties grow ever closer. Yesterday's budget at least halved the gap between what the Tories said in the Autumn statement just a few months ago and what can be inferred from Ed Balls' occasional mumbling. Some are now suggesting that it is as low as £7bn a year which is less than 1% of public spending.

    The hyperbole on both sides is designed to hide the fact that the British public are not really getting a choice of policies at all. They are simply getting a choice of leadership.
    I think it is a bit more nuanced than that. It is choice of leadership to bring about delivering an improved economy. Cameron has a track record of delivery on the economy. Miliband? Not so much....
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,568
    Quite hard to call that one - needs three quite different assessments. Salmond only at 8-1 might be the value bet.

    A more or less non-partisan question. Nottingham is developing a tram network, largely with government funding, and clearly fancy building lots more, since all public transport networks gain exponentially from more links. They are largely dependent on government funding for this. Should they feel encouraged by Osborne talking about support for strategic transport planning and developing cities? Or is this actually about something else?
  • SMukeshSMukesh Posts: 1,759
    Sean_F said:

    SMukesh said:

    Labour have got the debate where they want them to be-on spending cuts.

    They should and will use it mercilessly to scare waverers to turn up and vote this Tory government out.

    George focussing the entire budget on defence from Labour indicates the Labour campaign is working so far.

    Anything to do with the economy, tax, spending is precisely where the debate shouldn't be, from Labour's point of view. The Conservatives own these issues, in the way that Labour own the NHS, and UKIP own immigration.
    Sorry,don't agree...in 2010,the debate was on managing the deficit and business confidence-natural Tory territory.

    At present,the debate has turned out so far to be on how deep the Tory cuts will be-a scary prospects for a lot of people.That's why George focused almost his entire budget on trying to shoot Labour's fox and didn't quite succeed.
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 4,042
    Pulpstar said:

    £10 Farron special

    I'll go Evens Westmorland and Lonsdale recording the biggest Lib Dem majority against any other specified constituency ! (% terms)

    First taker gets it.

    You think it will be highest, or won't be? Because I think it will be, so am happy to take the bet if you want the other side. But if I've just misunderstood you then sadly no bet.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    I worked this bet out a while ago and there was no edge

    The closest was all three at 6/4, the 9/2 about Clegg and Farage was, if I remember correctly, absolutely horrendous value, about 11-12% wrong
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,538
    SMukesh said:

    Sean_F said:

    SMukesh said:

    Labour have got the debate where they want them to be-on spending cuts.

    They should and will use it mercilessly to scare waverers to turn up and vote this Tory government out.

    George focussing the entire budget on defence from Labour indicates the Labour campaign is working so far.

    Anything to do with the economy, tax, spending is precisely where the debate shouldn't be, from Labour's point of view. The Conservatives own these issues, in the way that Labour own the NHS, and UKIP own immigration.
    Sorry,don't agree...in 2010,the debate was on managing the deficit and business confidence-natural Tory territory.

    At present,the debate has turned out so far to be on how deep the Tory cuts will be-a scary prospects for a lot of people.That's why George focused almost his entire budget on trying to shoot Labour's fox and didn't quite succeed.
    More people still blame Labour than the Conservatives for public spending cuts, though the gap has narrowed.

    And, on the economy generally, the Conservatives have a clear lead.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143

    Interesting moves on transport in the South-West in The Budget on P.47:

    "1.167 The Secretary of State for Transport will shortly set out details of the new franchise for
    the Great Western Route, which will introduce the new £3 billion Intercity Express
    trains, more frequent services and faster journey times. "

    It sounds to me like electrification will either be extended into Devon and Cornwall, so the Hitachi Super Express trains (or similar) can operate there (expensive) or they'll purchase a new fleet of Class 220/221 Voyagers. Both would require some signalling/infrastructure tweaks.

    Interestingly, there are still ongoing discussions going on about £7bn of infrastructure upgrades too from what I read. I imagine that includes the back-up route from Exeter-Plymouth.

    "1.168 Transport: The government has asked the South West Peninsula Task Force
    on rail to consider improvements to the Exeter to Salisbury line as part of its work.
    The government also encourages the relevant local authorities and Local Enterprise
    Partnership to develop a business case for investment in the North Devon Link road,
    to form the basis of a future application to the Local Growth Fund."

    Probably a bit more duelling of track, and more frequent services. Could help with marginal seats in North Devon, Somerton & Frome, Wells, Mid Dorset, Taunton etc. all of which aren't far away.

    About a third (I think) of the terrible IEP trains are going to be dual-mode: i.e. they operate on electric power or diesel for when they're away from the knitting, so electrification might not be needed past Bristol.

    But note the 'Great Western route' might just mean the London-Bristol-South Wales route, not the spur off past Exeter into Cornwall.

    I'd said on here they might actually announce something concrete on the Dawlish problem at the budget - I was wrong.
    The thing I found most interesting about the Network Rail options paper on Dawlish was that they made clear that the line has more problems than just Dawlish. It's vulnerable all the way up the Exe estuary, and it has been flooded in Somerset and north of Exeter too in recent years.

    So the work on the Waterloo line to Salisbury will be helpful as it provides a less vulnerable route out of Devon.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,366
    edited March 2015
    Debates are soundbites and even the interviews are soft-pedalled, Yesterday, Ed Balls was asked if Labour would rule out VAT and, of course, waffled until the interviewer switched questions.

    Obviously neither party will give that undertaking, so why is any politician allowed to change the subject? I'm no Paxman but a decent interviewer could make any of them look like Natalie Bennett on a bad day if they tried.

  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    isam said:

    I worked this bet out a while ago and there was no edge

    The closest was all three at 6/4, the 9/2 about Clegg and Farage was, if I remember correctly, absolutely horrendous value, about 11-12% wrong

    Actually 'all 3' is value now

    Best prices are 2/5 2/5 and 1/7 which is 5/4 so a decent bet
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    When is a debate not a debate?

    PoliticsHome‏@politicshome·1 min1 minute ago
    First TV leaders' debate to take place next week, broadcasters say http://polho.me/1GsNTPK

    Its a series of interviews - Ed will say its a debate so he can claim he got the 3 he asked for.

    Anyone got any debates pending - could be an interesting definition poser.
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,207
    Jonathan said:

    The worst Bee-Gees tribute act ever.

    What a thing to wake up to!

    If Clegg does "stay alive", a by-election surely follows soon enough. Wonders what's the point.

    Gordon Brown shows just how little an mp actually has to do.

    That man is a disgrace to our parliament .. but he is (in true socialist fashion) coining it in nicely.

    Must have learnt something from Tony.

  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    CD13 said:

    Debates are soundbites and even the interviews are soft-pedalled, Yesterday, Ed Balls was asked if Labour would rule out VAT and, of course, waffled until the interviewer switched questions.

    Obviously neither party will give that undertaking, so why is any politician allowed to change the subject? I'm no Paxman but a decent interviewer could make any of them look like Natalie Bennett on a bad day if they tried.

    Balls has said he will not change any of the budget - which rather undermines any attack Miliband made on it yesterday.
    His defence is to call it 'empty'. What is empty of course are the coffers, left by him.
    But the real issue is spending, to what extent will Balls commit to restraining spending. If he does not then he cannot commit to reducing the deficit, not without further raising taxes.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    chestnut said:
    Going back to the last Conservative budget in 1997 seems a bit odd, even for the two Eds ?!?

  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916

    Charles said:

    The reforms to the education system give kids from poor backgrounds the chance to break through and do something positive with their lives. The collapse of social mobility under the last government should be something they hang their heads in shame about.

    snip

    Labour is content to leave people on (marginally more generous) handouts and are not too bothered about their education. That's absolutely NOT governing in the "interests of all"
    I’m not sure you are right about the education reforms. Seems to me that the proliferation of free schools is a middle class issue, and that there is some truth in the allegation that they are resulting in the over-provision of schools in some areas. I also don’t believe that allowing such schools to discriminate on the grounds of religion is in the wider interests of either the children who attend them or the country as a whole.

    There are many people who would avoid work if they could. Managing ones life without doing so has been been the aim of many across all classes. Bertie Wooster was a prime example! However for many others the opportunities are, or were, just not there.
    @ OKC I believe that most people - and certainly the political parties - have not woken up to or do not want to fess up to the economic realities of the effects of globalisation and technology and GB's place in the world economy in the 21st century.

    Increasing technology will continue to eliminate jobs - often those in the middle - whilst there will be jobs for the innovators and creators and the sweepers-up/

    The UK has rewarded itself far too generously for years and now as it has priced itself out of many markets and certainly in the making many things (people will always buy the cheapest at the same quality -hence the rise of Aldi and Lidl), well-paid jobs for all in the UK will be much harder to find.

    The problem is compounded by the UK's low availability of the skill sets that are required to be able to compete in the global marketplace. The Welsh statistics that about 50% of its adult population have numeracy and literacy skills no greater than those of a 9- 11 year old reveals the massive extent of the problem. Why should Italy make the latest P&O liner - and not the UK - because we have lost both manufacturing facility and required skill sets.

    The only answer is to revolutionise our education system and remove it from the dead hands of the LAs who often are very satisfied if the pupils come out as average in a nation which have been rapidly slipping down the global education league.

    This is something that both the LDs and Labour will not countenance - are we going condemn many our children to a lifestyle of mediocrity for the sake of political ideology?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411
    Quincel said:

    Pulpstar said:

    £10 Farron special

    I'll go Evens Westmorland and Lonsdale recording the biggest Lib Dem majority against any other specified constituency ! (% terms)

    First taker gets it.

    You think it will be highest, or won't be? Because I think it will be, so am happy to take the bet if you want the other side. But if I've just misunderstood you then sadly no bet.
    We're on the same side of this one :)
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,132
    I may be being thick, or have missed something, but where does the new Personal Savings Allowance leave cash ISAs?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411
    edited March 2015
    isam said:

    isam said:

    I worked this bet out a while ago and there was no edge

    The closest was all three at 6/4, the 9/2 about Clegg and Farage was, if I remember correctly, absolutely horrendous value, about 11-12% wrong

    Actually 'all 3' is value now

    Best prices are 2/5 2/5 and 1/7 which is 5/4 so a decent bet

    Are you sure - I've worked the tissue out to

    All 3 0.3592
    Clegg, Salmond 0.1715
    Salmond, Farage 0.1870
    Salmond 0.0892
    Clegg, Farage 0.0860
    Clegg 0.0410
    Farage 0.0447
    None 0.0214

    That's using best bookie prices and removing the over-round, or do bookies never put over-round on a very short priced favourite :) ?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,975
    edited March 2015
    'I know that half the money i spend on advertising is wasted. The problem is I don't know which half'.......(.William Hesketh Lever)

    If voters break down roughly like this;

    1. 70% vote the same way they always do
    2. 10% vote according to what will benefit them most at that moment
    3. 10% vote on the merit of the various prospectuses
    4. 10% vote for random reasons such as candidates colour of logo wife/husbands preference

    then devising a campaign to win you the election without wasting your resourses shouldn't be too difficult. Ignore 1 and 4 because they're out of reach so concentrate on 2 and 3.

    '2' needs research. Find out what bribes will be the most effective and make sure they're believable. Ideally filter it down to one or two HUGE bribes (think Osborne). Then giant posters 'FREE CHILDCARE' (or whatever it is).......possibly dancing girls with pom poms for the PPB's. Think DFS sale.....

    '3' is more difficult than '2'. These are the thinkers. Not easily fooled. You need smart and articulate presenters to deliver the message. Ideally able to pose as members of your party. Might require appointing one or two actors to the Lords. Keep te team small but all media interviews to be undertaken by this crack team. Keep the riffraff as far away from a studio as possible.....

    to be cont....

  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    SMukesh said:

    Sean_F said:

    SMukesh said:

    Labour have got the debate where they want them to be-on spending cuts.

    They should and will use it mercilessly to scare waverers to turn up and vote this Tory government out.

    George focussing the entire budget on defence from Labour indicates the Labour campaign is working so far.

    Anything to do with the economy, tax, spending is precisely where the debate shouldn't be, from Labour's point of view. The Conservatives own these issues, in the way that Labour own the NHS, and UKIP own immigration.
    Sorry,don't agree...in 2010,the debate was on managing the deficit and business confidence-natural Tory territory.

    At present,the debate has turned out so far to be on how deep the Tory cuts will be-a scary prospects for a lot of people.That's why George focused almost his entire budget on trying to shoot Labour's fox and didn't quite succeed.
    Labour increased spending in real terms by 50% between 2000 and 2010. (That's 'real' tems and '50'%). The economy even in the supposed good times could not support that, it plunged into deficit - and we should always remember that what it needed then was to stay in surplus.
    So whichever way you want to look at it the nation needs to cut spending or raise taxes or both since growth alone cannot pay for such a massive increase.
    Growth did not pay for it in the first place and on top of that the banking collapse presided over by Brown wiped out a good chunck of the economy's ability to pay as well.
    So faced with that, why not try to answer your own question - how deep should cuts be and/or how high should tax rises be if you do not agree with the current budget plans?
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704

    I may be being thick, or have missed something, but where does the new Personal Savings Allowance leave cash ISAs?

    Redundant for most people.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    I wonder whether Unionist anti-SNP tactical voting will be more likely in the next elections to Holyrood than in the Westminster elections?

    I would have thought that it would be quite hard to win people to tactical voting across the traditional political divides when it could make a difference to the incumbent in Number 10. Also, in the Holyrood elections it is possible for people to vote tactically Unionist with their constituency vote, and for their true political preference in the list vote.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,132
    philiph said:

    I may be being thick, or have missed something, but where does the new Personal Savings Allowance leave cash ISAs?

    Redundant for most people.
    That's what I thought. I'm sure the savings industry who bombard us with ISA adverts are delighted this morning.
This discussion has been closed.