Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » LAB edge a notch up in the “most seats” betting but CON sti
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » LAB edge a notch up in the “most seats” betting but CON still very strong favourite
There’s been a small recovery for LAB in the most seats betting over the past week and since last night’s C4/Sky “debate” that trend has continued.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Whether this will impact on Sporting's seats spread prices and the other betting markets remain to be seen.
(edit)
26 hours 26 minutes 26 seconds
"Unsure why Paxman`s `Are you alright Ed?`would be talking point when Ed retorted beautifully `Are you?`. "
Paxo needed that reassurance. He was just water of ED's back.
It would have been quicker to write "Cameron can't win"
Good to see Tories winning a council seat in a key part of Wales too.
The party is set to advance by 5 percentage points from its previous general election performance to reach 42% – and is a full 10 points ahead of the Tories, who fall back 3 points from their 2010 result to land at 32%.
On a uniform swing, these numbers would deliver eight gains for Labour, mostly in the west of the city – where Brentford and Isleworth, Ealing Central and Acton, and Harrow East would all be picked up from the Tories.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/27/london-labour-gains-general-election-poll
Sell UKIP seats if you like though.
Basically, with the exception of a few dangerous moments (NHS, zero hours) Cameron was pretty composed throughout. If you were looking for competence in public speaking and general reassurance he was your man all the way. On the other hand, the questioning in the town hall section was so soft as to make it boring. I'll come back to this.
Ed had some moments when his training outweighed his general style and he looked passionate rather than wonkish or laid back a la Cameron. But put under any pressure he looked uncomfortable and repeated stock phrases, making him seem less credible. But whereas Cameron was almost relentlessly on message ("strong economy... long term plan... pay down the debts....hard decisions"), Miliband was able to disown New Labour and make a lot of substantive points - it will have done him no harm to mention Iraq, Syria, or bank reregulation. He was also memorable - particularly when fighting back against Paxman.
If you went into the debate disliking Miliband for style reasons, you will have come out with more ammunition. But if the door was open slightly Ed might have opened it further.
Being in all the debates is looking like a good move for Miliband if only because he will get his chance to hammer home the message: I'm not slick like Cameron but I have an alternative vision for Britain.
The other point to make is: what a disaster for Nick Clegg this is - dismissed as a byword for political lies, and ignored for the other 89 minutes.
Strange flicking through here you'd think there was a parallel universe.
Anyway from the snippets I've picked up Ed was somewhere short of a revelation but quite a surprise. So I suppose slightly positive.
Ed Miliband did reveal a bit of himself last night.
In particular he depicted his battle with his brother as a political one, a turning away from New Labour. His remarks about spending in the Brown years were interesting too. He thought that they had not tackled inequality enough by government spending. Yet he also said that spending would go down under his power.
It really was unclear even in his own mind whether Labour would continue austerity, or would spend even more to reduce inequality. Hopefully this will be clarified over the next six weeks.
If you make things easier for people to find and use, more people will use them. Advertising works.
Ask Roger
Government spending does not reduce inequality.
He is astonishingly and slightly scarily bad at solutions. He means well. He wants to help and make things better but he has absolutely no concept of how to do it. When he has tried, like with his energy freeze, he has come across as a joke. So we are left with bland and ultimately meaningless aspirations.
Last night he walked away from so many aspects of the last Labour government that it gave Paxo nowhere to go. Wrong on immigration, wrong on spending, wrong on borrowing, wrong on Iraq, wrong on bank regulation. The refusal to defend the indefensible was a good tactic. Since he has no clear current ideas either we were left with him so we had too much personal stuff, most of which he dealt with fairly well.
But at the end of the day I don't really care what his relationship with his brother is or even how his mum feels about it. I want a PM who is a man with a plan and in that category he is not even at the races.
The debates from what I can gather prattled on about not very much and missed all the big issues impacting the GBP ( Great British Public ) like can 1D survive without Zayn or why has Kim dyed her hair black again ? Not only did it appear Cameron and Miliband had no opinions on this but Paxman didn't even ask the questions !
A shoddy show.
Failed asylum seekers and those who have not complied with requirements for other benefits (such as evidence of job seeking) also have nowhere else to go.
Actual benefits levels are largely unchanged, indeed ascmost are CPI linked they have outpaced earnings over the last 5 years. What has happened is that the barriers have gone up making them harder to access.
Which leaves the obvious question: What would Miliband do about this? Allow people benefits even if they do not seek work? Have an ambesty for failed asylum seekers?
Miliband is not wrong on analysis, just incapable of solutions.
On the positive side, it made the discussion overwhelmingly positive or at least focused on the interviewee - what would you do and what did you get wrong, rather than why is the other lot rubbish. The few attempts to attack the other side were swiftly squashed or passed over. On the whole, I think the casual viewer would have drawn a somewhat more positive view of both of them.
On the downside, neither of them got a real opportunity to develop a theme, since it was dictated entirely by the questions. DavidL would have liked to hear more from Miliband about what he wants to do, but he was asked very little about that - the questions were mostly about past record, relations with his brother, and so on. In the same way, Cameron was pressed on food banks, NHS failings, and so on other perceived problems. Purely from the viewpoint of information, I think a mix of the debate format with 10 minutes to speak freely would be what works best.
@BBCNormanS: Scotland First Minister @NicolaSturgeon predicts many Labour MPs will back SNP over anti austerity and Trident @bbcr4today
@BBCNormanS: 4 out of 5 Labour candidates back @theSNP over opposing Trident says @NicolaSturgeon @BBCr4today
Nicola v Ed could be entertaining
Better to face the problem and come up with solutions.
The body is
Clacton; Thurrock; Thanet South
And then on a good night
Rochester is held, Castle point taken; Great Grimsby, Basildon, Dudley North, Walsall South.
....
The ICM figures were 54-46 to Cameron.
Have you become a ScotNat now Nick ?
Tried watching the interview/Q&A. Painful viewing. Miliband looked well-rehearsed, although as I only saw a few seconds that could be mistaken.
The segment on spending was poison for Ed - he needs better answer fast.
E&W only gives Cons 39; LAB 34, LD 6; UKIP 14; Green 5
The LD 2010 VI show 24% going to both Cons and LAB. Cons having been narrowing this gap recently, but this looks like an outlier.
SNP have another low margin over LAB - 9%
Approval keeping at the new lower range - at -12.
Just 45% of LAB VI think it is led by people of real ability.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/2015/malaysian-grand-prix/results/practice
Surprised Raikkonen was faster than Vettel and Ericsson than Nasr. Nice to see Manor Marussia show up, although they're 3s off the McLaren...
Presumably the person concerned was only partially motivated by money.
Would keep my left-leaning friends at home, or perhaps encourage them to vote Green, because it resonates with preconceptions. 'Oh ok then, another Tory government - lets fix the roof, but next time we'll find someone who knows how to solve problems and lead'
Nowadays we are about halfway towards the shift to identity politics (e.g. Israel, much of the USA) and this is what is producing the confusion for both voters and political professionals of all types. Not to mention punters!
I tend to think that Question Time is something of a hybrid. The initial questions come from the audience, but Dimbleby normally asks follow-up questions and tries to ensure the politicians don't obfuscate too much. So I think there's definite potential for either of Cameron, Miliband (or Clegg or Farage) to stumble in the April 30th setpiece.
Or are you saying your business doesn't pay a living wage ?
Or maybe you're making a racist comment that British people (many of whom near you are the children or grandchildren of earlier immigrants) are fundamentally idle ?
AndyJS thinks UKIP can win Cannock.
Like with the LibDems previously there's likely to be some shock UKIP gains while more obvious targets are missed.
I was chatting to one of their party organisers a couple of days ago about Southwark where they are going all out to unseat Simon Hughes. He described the campaigning as being like "the battle of Stalingrad" with both sides going house to house eking out every single vote. That will be one to watch for on May 8th
"Roger..Popped the windows on a plane... you should have used a Director of Photography"
I do my own lighting. It's my speciality! Do you know the technical difference between a cameraman and a DOP?
Rhetorical question.
It's because him and Balls have thought up a new wheeze, which the mainstream commentators seem to have let slide. The 'deficit' he is referring to is not the 'deficit' that we know, but something called the "current account deficit".
http://www.adamsmith.org/research/think-pieces/should-we-be-concerned-about-the-uks-current-account-deficit/
It might not be sleight of hand, maybe just using a simpler message to distinguish between capital spending and recurring spending. But I'm suspicious of the repeated use of "current account deficit".
Bring back Harold Macmillan!
Talk but no real action since this report
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordability_of_housing_in_the_United_Kingdom
The glaring omission from your post is any mention of benefit sanctions. People are having their benefits stopped for a variety of piddling bureaucratic reasons, or catch-22 situations where they are set up to fail (such as having to choose between job interviews and job centre appointments). It is mean, vindictive and inhumane. The increase in benefit sanctions (which were introduced by Labour) is directly linked to the increased use of food banks.
Anyone seen any viewing figures for Paxo 'debate'?
I dont really have a problem with a significant increase in social housing, but the model should be self funding (outside the capital costs). The rents should be market set, the only real difference would be the tenure. Private rentals leave very little security for people to put down roots.