politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » On election day 2010 the betting markets had CON with a 100 seat lead – it finished up at 49 seats
If this were the case then favourites would always win. They don’t. In the two TV debates during this campaign the betting markets made Nigel Farage favourite to be judged the winner in post debate polling. He wasn’t.
Mike, I agree entirely. The assumption behind the fallacy is the wisdom of crowds/law of large numbers applies. But for that to apply, all participants would have to be disinterested guessers. In a field like politics, while some bettors might be disinterested and betting purely on expected outcomes, others are not and are betting on desired outcomes which sets up value betting prospects for the like of you. These latter two groups invalidate the law of large numbers assumption.
In a field like politics, while some bettors might be disinterested and betting purely on expected outcomes, others are not and are betting on desired outcomes which sets up value betting prospects for the like of you. These latter two groups invalidate the law of large numbers assumption.
Quite. In 1997 Sporting Index's position on Tory seats always appeared to be shored up by , presumably, a bunch of city boys putting their money on their preferred outcome. The result showed the quotes had been miles out all along.
Lutfur Rahman.. who can say they weren't warned? But people don't want to hear what they don't want to hear
"Now we are seeing the growth of positive forces acting against integration, of vested interests in the preservation and sharpening of racial and religious differences, with a view to the exercise of actual domination, first over fellow-immigrants and then over the rest of the population. The cloud no bigger than a man's hand, that can so rapidly overcast the sky, has been visible recently in Wolverhampton and has shown signs of spreading quickly
For these dangerous and divisive elements the legislation proposed in the Race Relations Bill is the very pabulum they need to flourish. Here is the means of showing that the immigrant communities can organise to consolidate their members, to agitate and campaign against their fellow citizens, and to overawe and dominate the rest with the legal weapons which the ignorant and the ill-informed have provided. As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see "the River Tiber foaming with much blood"
I read a couple of weeks ago a piece of scuttlebutt that the White House would be releasing a steady drip drip drip of scandalous anti-Clinton tidbits to favoured media in the coming months to damage Clinton's campaign. The allegation was strongly denied by Jarrett, but this constant stream of embarrassing stories for Hillary in erstwhile Dem-friendly publications such as the NYT makes me wonder if there is truth to it. While the germ of this story is in Peter Schweizer's book "Clinton Cash", one wonders if the NYT would normally have so diligently pursued it (when hacks such as MSNBC are rubbishing Schweizer) if they had not received some outside, Democratic encouragement ...
Well, if we thought their odds were accurate assessments, there'd be no point in betting. Aside from wrong estimations or punters betting with their hearts rather than their heads, there's also the problem of conscious manipulation in order to boost your party's perception. I was very active on Intrade during the 2012 US presidential election (and thankfully got out before it folded), where Obama was ridiculously undervalued up to the very minute the polls closed, when large orders who'd kept the price down for months suddenly vanished. There's a paper about it written by researchers who could access Intrade's data, and who draw a very strong conclusion that somebody purposefully spent 2 million to prop up Romney. Not saying that something similar is happening with the UK elections, but the problem is there - although these people are almost certainly wasting their money pointlessly.
Seems timely to point this out Mike. Some are drawing far too much inference from the betting markets while not having their feet out there on the ground. This election in particular is hugely tricky. One indicator worth watching though is certainty to vote. The Tories will want to ensure that gap is closed (currently 3% behind Lab).
I read a couple of weeks ago a piece of scuttlebutt that the White House would be releasing a steady drip drip drip of scandalous anti-Clinton tidbits to favoured media in the coming months to damage Clinton's campaign. The allegation was strongly denied by Jarrett, but this constant stream of embarrassing stories for Hillary in erstwhile Dem-friendly publications such as the NYT makes me wonder if there is truth to it. While the germ of this story is in Peter Schweizer's book "Clinton Cash", one wonders if the NYT would normally have so diligently pursued it (when hacks such as MSNBC are rubbishing Schweizer) if they had not received some outside, Democratic encouragement ...
Forget it, the media is trying to pass time until election night.
Hillary will win the 2016 presidential election on a landslide no matter who the GOP candidate is or if any other democrat runs in the primaries or other trivia.
On US presidential politics it's all about who loses to Hillary in 2016 that might tell us who is not going to beat her in 2020.
If Bush, Walker or Rubio lose to Hillary in the 2016 landslide then a conservative will be picked up to beat her in 2020, if it's Paul, Cruz or Huckabee then it will be a moderate in 2020 who beats her.
Just a reflection on what a total hypocrite Osborne is.
He has just attacked Labour and SNP for not proposing a formal coalition ie exactly what he previously demanded Milliband did. Breathtaking andf totally desperate.
Shows why Milliband should have told them to take a hike when the Tories and their allies originally pressurised them!
One reason why the markets may not be all-knowing this time around is that there are so many different, almost unrelated mini-battles that will impact on the result...it's not just enough to have an informed view on one particular area. As well as the obvious SNP clean sweep question, there's the impact of UKIP on Tory (& Lab) vote, how the Tories do in Lib Dem-held seats, how much the Tory<Lab swing varies from North to Midlands to London etc, incumbency factor for different parties and so on. Which voters are shyest, are phone polls more accurate than online ones, how do potential tactical voters react given the increased number of marginals polled...there are so many variables to take into account to sort out the final equation.
Just a reflection on what a total hypocrite Osborne is.
He has just attacked Labour and SNP for not proposing a formal coalition ie exactly what he previously demanded Milliband did. Breathtaking andf totally desperate.
Shows why Milliband should have told them to take a hike when the Tories and their allies originally pressurised them!
He is playing the exquisitely awful (for Lab) Lab/SNP situation 1,000 ways. He in all probability comes off-stage/takes off the mike and has a fit of uncontrollable giggles.
So in the above thread the Tories were overstated by 15, the LD by 15 and Labour understated by 39 seats in the 2010 betting, if we apply it with today's betting then the implied result from the betting markets is:
CON 268 LAB 309 LD 11
A little extreme on the LD, LAB seats but the Tory number is in line with the polls.
Hillary will win the 2016 presidential election on a landslide no matter who the GOP candidate is or if any other democrat runs in the primaries or other trivia.
On US presidential politics it's all about who loses to Hillary in 2016 that might tell us who is not going to beat her in 2020.
If Bush, Walker or Rubio lose to Hillary in the 2016 landslide then a conservative will be picked up to beat her in 2020, if it's Paul, Cruz or Huckabee then it will be a moderate in 2020 who beats her.
In summary, Hillary 2016, GOP 2020. .
That's a very dangerous combination of overconfidence and simplistic assumptions about what decides these races.
Actually not bad for Tory seat prediction - an extra 0.5-1.0% ish in vote share would have made this more or less spot on i guess, which a pollster would have claimed as being very accurate. But LDs very overstated and Lab under.
LDs better hope the spreads aren't significantly overstating them this time or we might need a Martin Day memorial post about taxis...
Well, if we thought their odds were accurate assessments, there'd be no point in betting. Aside from wrong estimations or punters betting with their hearts rather than their heads, there's also the problem of conscious manipulation in order to boost your party's perception. I was very active on Intrade during the 2012 US presidential election (and thankfully got out before it folded), where Obama was ridiculously undervalued up to the very minute the polls closed, when large orders who'd kept the price down for months suddenly vanished. There's a paper about it written by researchers who could access Intrade's data, and who draw a very strong conclusion that somebody purposefully spent 2 million to prop up Romney. Not saying that something similar is happening with the UK elections, but the problem is there - although these people are almost certainly wasting their money pointlessly.
It happened here last time. The Tory seat spread was OK within reasonable bounds but there was a conscious attempt to manipulate the Labour spread. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of politics could have said 211 was ridiculous.
Just a reflection on what a total hypocrite Osborne is.
He has just attacked Labour and SNP for not proposing a formal coalition ie exactly what he previously demanded Milliband did. Breathtaking andf totally desperate.
Shows why Milliband should have told them to take a hike when the Tories and their allies originally pressurised them!
He is playing the exquisitely awful (for Lab) Lab/SNP situation 1,000 ways. He in all probability comes off-stage/takes off the mike and has a fit of uncontrollable giggles.
Yes. The arsehole can do that for another 14 days.
I think the betting can be over-rated as a predictor by some, but to say that "the favourites would always win" doesn't make sense. If the market makes a two horse race a 60:40 shot, then the outsider should win 40% of the time. Not 0%.
One reason why the markets may not be all-knowing this time around is that there are so many different, almost unrelated mini-battles that will impact on the result...it's not just enough to have an informed view on one particular area. As well as the obvious SNP clean sweep question, there's the impact of UKIP on Tory (& Lab) vote, how the Tories do in Lib Dem-held seats, how much the Tory
The so called UKIP 10 Comres poll highlights one thing: how well Labour is polling in the South.
The actual vote shares in a lot of the polls were not far off (Lib Dems were a bit overstated, but were falling away in the last few days)
What the indexes got wrong, apart from following the pollsters LD scores is that they under estimated the electoral bias between LAB & CON.
If you are assuming the same will happen again, then you are assuming that the electoral bias remains as it was previously. That might be risky with the Scottish, UKIP and shakedown of the LD vote all being unprecedented.
Just a reflection on what a total hypocrite Osborne is.
He has just attacked Labour and SNP for not proposing a formal coalition ie exactly what he previously demanded Milliband did. Breathtaking andf totally desperate.
Shows why Milliband should have told them to take a hike when the Tories and their allies originally pressurised them!
He is playing the exquisitely awful (for Lab) Lab/SNP situation 1,000 ways. He in all probability comes off-stage/takes off the mike and has a fit of uncontrollable giggles.
Yes. The arsehole can do that for another 14 days.
One reason why the markets may not be all-knowing this time around is that there are so many different, almost unrelated mini-battles that will impact on the result...it's not just enough to have an informed view on one particular area. As well as the obvious SNP clean sweep question, there's the impact of UKIP on Tory (& Lab) vote, how the Tories do in Lib Dem-held seats, how much the Tory
The so called UKIP 10 Comres poll highlights one thing: how well Labour is polling in the South.
Not so good if they want to win marginals in the north and midlands and you assume their national poll share is correct.
One reason why the markets may not be all-knowing this time around is that there are so many different, almost unrelated mini-battles that will impact on the result...it's not just enough to have an informed view on one particular area. As well as the obvious SNP clean sweep question, there's the impact of UKIP on Tory (& Lab) vote, how the Tories do in Lib Dem-held seats, how much the Tory
The so called UKIP 10 Comres poll highlights one thing: how well Labour is polling in the South.
Not so good if they want to win marginals in the north and midlands and you assume their national poll share is correct.
The Northwest is the most important region of the election.
So the ones that were overstated the most percentage wise were the LDs ..could that be the same now..
I don't think so. Apart from the seats that they are incumbent in the LD vote is already close to joke-party status.
I suspect it was to do with the whole Cleggasm thing too which resulted in a lot of people who watch telly but don't vote, stating LD as their VI in polling
Just a reflection on what a total hypocrite Osborne is.
He has just attacked Labour and SNP for not proposing a formal coalition ie exactly what he previously demanded Milliband did. Breathtaking andf totally desperate.
Shows why Milliband should have told them to take a hike when the Tories and their allies originally pressurised them!
He is playing the exquisitely awful (for Lab) Lab/SNP situation 1,000 ways. He in all probability comes off-stage/takes off the mike and has a fit of uncontrollable giggles.
Yes. The arsehole can do that for another 14 days.
I see his SNP lines are really getting under your skin.
If the Tories are serious about winning they need to trumpet what has been achieved - and not just go on about the SNP. The Scots are entitled to vote for whoever they want and since we still have a Union (just about) we will need to live with and deal with the consequences.
Inflation at zero; record employment; good growth; tax receipts up and those at the bottom end paying less tax. Considering where the economy was in 2010 and where other EU countries now are, this is encouraging.
I simply don't believe that had Labour kept power, we would be in this position now and fear that if Labour were to regain power they would put this at risk. Labour - for all that they go on about budget discipline and the rest - have never in my lifetime appeared to understand that money has to be earned (even if you can borrow at low rates), that it belongs to us and needs to be spent wisely ("Never forget that it is the taxpayers' money" should be tattooed on their foreheads) and that spending money efficiently to achieve the best outcome is far far more important than just spending or spending more than the other lot.
But my fundamental objections to them are not about the economy but about the way they have turned from their Methodist - on the side of the working man roots into a statist, corporatist and authoritarian party whose instincts seem to me to be that people exist for the state's benefit rather than, as I believe, that the state should exist as the servant of the people. And who seem to view people not as individuals but as members of communities either to be talked at through self-appointed leaders or tarred with some broad brush characteristic.
We badly need a good sensible and thoughtful social democratic/left of centre party. Labour have not done the hard thinking required to turn them into that party, unfortunately.
I do have some quite serious reservations about some Tory policies e.g. on IHT and the right to buy for housing associations. I also worry about the pension freedoms. I fear that in a few years that will prove to be the germ of another gigantic mis-selling scandal. I worry about the way it has become easier for the rich to insulate themselves from the fact that most people aren't rich and that this can lead to a certain myopia about what life is and should be like for most of us.
I have to confess that I rather like the fact that the Lib Dems are in government. Sometimes, I feel that I am rather more positive about them than they seem to be themselves! If the coalition continued I would not be disappointed. But, as OGH says, the coalition is not on the ballot paper. A pity.
Still, Rahman being thrown out of politics makes today a good day. And the sun is shining.
I would suggest that getting within a dozen in a very febrile atmosphere means that the betting markets got the Cons about right in the end.
However this was probably more luck than judgement as the two errors cancelled out (assuming more losses to LD and more gains from Lab).
The LD tally was the real disaster (with further knock-on effects to Labour) - practically no-one was expecting a fall in seats on the day qv. Iain Dale and the exit poll.
Mike, I agree entirely. The assumption behind the fallacy is the wisdom of crowds/law of large numbers applies. But for that to apply, all participants would have to be disinterested guessers. In a field like politics, while some bettors might be disinterested and betting purely on expected outcomes, others are not and are betting on desired outcomes which sets up value betting prospects for the like of you. These latter two groups invalidate the law of large numbers assumption.
You don't need everyone to be disinterested - either of these would produce good information: 1) A whole bunch of over-emotional mugs and a couple of non-colluding deep-pocketed sensible people. 2) Nothing but over-emotional people, but with opposite and balancing over-emotions.
Lady Hermon like the Alliance candidate if reelected will presumably follow the LDs into supporting whichever party they enter an understanding with. At one time the LDs and UUP didn't get on at all but maybe they have better relations with the DUP.
So the ones that were overstated the most percentage wise were the LDs ..could that be the same now..
I don't think so. Apart from the seats that they are incumbent in the LD vote is already close to joke-party status.
I suspect it was to do with the whole Cleggasm thing too which resulted in a lot of people who watch telly but don't vote, stating LD as their VI in polling
The fact that the Lib Dem vote went up, but was horribly inefficient did indicate to my mind that there was some Cleggasm effect.
Mostly racking up another thousand votes in Lab-Con battles like Nuneaton tbh.
Lady Hermon like the Alliance candidate if reelected will presumably follow the LDs into supporting whichever party they enter an understanding with. At one time the LDs and UUP didn't get on at all but maybe they have better relations with the DUP.
The LDs and DUP both seem fairly flexible. Both seem to have a similiar view on the SNP
What an odd thing to say in the course of a general election. Is he trying to encourage people in Bradford West to vote for him to save Londoners or against him to blight them?
I read a couple of weeks ago a piece of scuttlebutt that the White House would be releasing a steady drip drip drip of scandalous anti-Clinton tidbits to favoured media in the coming months to damage Clinton's campaign. The allegation was strongly denied by Jarrett, but this constant stream of embarrassing stories for Hillary in erstwhile Dem-friendly publications such as the NYT makes me wonder if there is truth to it. While the germ of this story is in Peter Schweizer's book "Clinton Cash", one wonders if the NYT would normally have so diligently pursued it (when hacks such as MSNBC are rubbishing Schweizer) if they had not received some outside, Democratic encouragement ...
Forget it, the media is trying to pass time until election night.
Hillary will win the 2016 presidential election on a landslide no matter who the GOP candidate is or if any other democrat runs in the primaries or other trivia.
On US presidential politics it's all about who loses to Hillary in 2016 that might tell us who is not going to beat her in 2020.
If Bush, Walker or Rubio lose to Hillary in the 2016 landslide then a conservative will be picked up to beat her in 2020, if it's Paul, Cruz or Huckabee then it will be a moderate in 2020 who beats her.
What an odd thing to say in the course of a general election. Is he trying to encourage people in Bradford West to vote for him to save Londoners or against him to blight them?
It could be fatal for other PPCs chances to come out with this during an election campaign.
But this is Galloway and Bradford West so the normal rules don't apply ن شاء الله
I feel like the polls' understating of Labour last time was a one-off. It took a COLOSSAL effort from Labour canvassers last time to convince many working-class Lab voters to bother, and I think it will be even more difficult this time what with the constant uninspiring talk from the party leadership of "fiscal responsibility". The people on council estates or working themselves into the ground on low pay in a soul-crushing job at Asda are simply not going to go rushing to the polls to vote for more spending cuts.
I notice that Stephen Fisher appears now to be updating his GE seats projections twice weekly. His most recent prognostication being dated Tuesday 21 April in which he shows the Tories winning 288 seats (-3 compared with last Friday), Labour on 263 (+3) and LibDem on 24 (+2). In the previous thread, OGH takes it as being such a foregone conclusion that the Tories will lose all their 26 most vulnerable seats to Labour that he doesn't even bother to list them.
Now here's a funny thing. Starting with the 306 seats the Tories won at the 2010 GE and deducting the said 26 seats, then adjusting for say 8 net gains elasewhere (+12 from LDs, -3 to UKIP, -1 to SNP), one arrives back at the self same total of 288 seats for the Blue Team. Putting it another way, what OGH considers is effectively unachievable for the Tories, Stephen has as his current forecast of their seats tally. Plenty of scope there methinks for egg on face and let's make no mistake, egg will be freely distributed to the appropriate visage once the result has been established.
Betting prices only become accurate predictions with liquidity and lots of accurate public information. Political markets certainly don't have the former, not even close, and you could probably make a case for the latter not being present either.
Mike, I agree entirely. The assumption behind the fallacy is the wisdom of crowds/law of large numbers applies. But for that to apply, all participants would have to be disinterested guessers. In a field like politics, while some bettors might be disinterested and betting purely on expected outcomes, others are not and are betting on desired outcomes which sets up value betting prospects for the like of you. These latter two groups invalidate the law of large numbers assumption.
You don't need everyone to be disinterested - either of these would produce good information: 1) A whole bunch of over-emotional mugs and a couple of non-colluding deep-pocketed sensible people. 2) Nothing but over-emotional people, but with opposite and balancing over-emotions.
Edmund, but it is not just the number of bettors balancing each other out, it is the value of their bets. If one side has more money, the aggregate will be biased towards their over-emotion.
Mike, I agree entirely. The assumption behind the fallacy is the wisdom of crowds/law of large numbers applies. But for that to apply, all participants would have to be disinterested guessers. In a field like politics, while some bettors might be disinterested and betting purely on expected outcomes, others are not and are betting on desired outcomes which sets up value betting prospects for the like of you. These latter two groups invalidate the law of large numbers assumption.
You don't need everyone to be disinterested - either of these would produce good information: 1) A whole bunch of over-emotional mugs and a couple of non-colluding deep-pocketed sensible people. 2) Nothing but over-emotional people, but with opposite and balancing over-emotions.
PS. So for you to be sure it is providing good information, you have to assume certain conditions are being met, but you cannot tell ahead of time if they are, so it has no predictive value.
Betting markets are a good illustration of conventional wisdom. Conventional wisdom can be wildly wrong, of course.
Political betting markets are relatively illiquid and pricing anomalies can abound. We see that at present, where the "most seats" market is hard to reconcile with the individual constituency markets. This is good news for punters, of course.
Galloway to run for London Mayor, if he loses in Bradford.
Talk about splitting the left leaning vote. That could let a tory in...?
Sturgeon, Salmond and Galloway running London?
As someone with a vote in this I am overjoyed Galloway will run... as you say it will surely split the racist vote between him and the Labour candidate if they are Khan or Abbot
A Non white right winger would be the best out come IMO
Betting markets only become accurate with liquidity and lots of accurate public information. Political betting certainly doesn't have the former, not even close, and you could probably make a case for the latter not being present either.
You don't necessarily need a lot of public information. Part of the information benefit of prediction markets is that prices can reflect information that's still only known to small numbers of insiders.
I think the betting can be over-rated as a predictor by some, but to say that "the favourites would always win" doesn't make sense. If the market makes a two horse race a 60:40 shot, then the outsider should win 40% of the time. Not 0%.
Shadsy, is there an 'other' price for the Tower Hamlets rerun?
What an odd thing to say in the course of a general election. Is he trying to encourage people in Bradford West to vote for him to save Londoners or against him to blight them?
It gets him on the news. For an egotist in the modern age what other end is there?
If there was a serious angle to it, then I suppose there is some kudos associated with being seen as a credible candidate for London Mayor, which might be attractive to some voters - but it's a tenuous argument.
In the previous thread, OGH takes it as being such a foregone conclusion that the Tories will lose all their 26 most vulnerable seats to Labour that he doesn't even bother to list them.
The narrowest margin I currently have the Tories holding in my model is Waveney.
What an odd thing to say in the course of a general election. Is he trying to encourage people in Bradford West to vote for him to save Londoners or against him to blight them?
Not even confident to stand as a good mayor of Bradford in a lean year.
In the previous thread, OGH takes it as being such a foregone conclusion that the Tories will lose all their 26 most vulnerable seats to Labour that he doesn't even bother to list them.
The narrowest margin I currently have the Tories holding in my model is Waveney.
One thing is clear - the Tories or whoever is piling on them on Betfair aren't value seeking in the constituency markets.
This may be true, but it's surely also a heck of a lot easier to get, say, several thousand pounds matched on the Betfair most seats market than to get a lumpy bet on constituency markets, given the lack of liquidity on the individual seats on Betfair and the likelihood of the bookmakers running for cover on these markets. That said, I haven't tried putting a significant bet on an constituency market, but I suspect most bookmakers would be even more wary than they usually are.
What an odd thing to say in the course of a general election. Is he trying to encourage people in Bradford West to vote for him to save Londoners or against him to blight them?
It could be fatal for other PPCs chances to come out with this during an election campaign.
But this is Galloway and Bradford West so the normal rules don't apply ن شاء الله
A bit strange that an MP from Bradford, born in Scotland wants to be London Mayor. I know he was MP for BG and Bow for 5 years
Well, if we thought their odds were accurate assessments, there'd be no point in betting. Aside from wrong estimations or punters betting with their hearts rather than their heads, there's also the problem of conscious manipulation in order to boost your party's perception. I was very active on Intrade during the 2012 US presidential election (and thankfully got out before it folded), where Obama was ridiculously undervalued up to the very minute the polls closed, when large orders who'd kept the price down for months suddenly vanished. There's a paper about it written by researchers who could access Intrade's data, and who draw a very strong conclusion that somebody purposefully spent 2 million to prop up Romney. Not saying that something similar is happening with the UK elections, but the problem is there - although these people are almost certainly wasting their money pointlessly.
It happened here last time. The Tory seat spread was OK within reasonable bounds but there was a conscious attempt to manipulate the Labour spread. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of politics could have said 211 was ridiculous.
What a bizarre last couple of sentences. If it was that obvious 211 was low anybody with any knowledge of politics and betting would have made fortunes. Spread bet traders are usually much shrewder than their fixed odds counterparts in my experience.
Just a reflection on what a total hypocrite Osborne is.
He has just attacked Labour and SNP for not proposing a formal coalition ie exactly what he previously demanded Milliband did. Breathtaking andf totally desperate.
Shows why Milliband should have told them to take a hike when the Tories and their allies originally pressurised them!
He is playing the exquisitely awful (for Lab) Lab/SNP situation 1,000 ways. He in all probability comes off-stage/takes off the mike and has a fit of uncontrollable giggles.
Yes. The arsehole can do that for another 14 days.
I see his SNP lines are really getting under your skin.
I love Osborne's SNP line. It is a core vote strategy, hoping some kippers hop along which was always going to happen anyhow- but this SNP scaremongering will almost certainly be countered by LD switchers and Greens t'other way. A score drawer at best.
Bright and breezy positive call me Dave has a much wider appeal on so many fronts- why it is not the focus of a positive campaign is just dumb.
Comments
Mike Smithson"
I agree
Political betting is a very very very weak market, nonsense to draw too much from any moves
I find Corals a decent guide...
As can be seen the markets over-stated the Tories and LDs and over-stated LAB.
Should be:
As can be seen the markets over-stated the Tories and LDs and under-stated LAB.
"Now we are seeing the growth of positive forces acting against integration, of vested interests in the preservation and sharpening of racial and religious differences, with a view to the exercise of actual domination, first over fellow-immigrants and then over the rest of the population. The cloud no bigger than a man's hand, that can so rapidly overcast the sky, has been visible recently in Wolverhampton and has shown signs of spreading quickly
For these dangerous and divisive elements the legislation proposed in the Race Relations Bill is the very pabulum they need to flourish. Here is the means of showing that the immigrant communities can organise to consolidate their members, to agitate and campaign against their fellow citizens, and to overawe and dominate the rest with the legal weapons which the ignorant and the ill-informed have provided. As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see "the River Tiber foaming with much blood"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/3643823/Enoch-Powells-Rivers-of-Blood-speech.html
I read a couple of weeks ago a piece of scuttlebutt that the White House would be releasing a steady drip drip drip of scandalous anti-Clinton tidbits to favoured media in the coming months to damage Clinton's campaign. The allegation was strongly denied by Jarrett, but this constant stream of embarrassing stories for Hillary in erstwhile Dem-friendly publications such as the NYT makes me wonder if there is truth to it. While the germ of this story is in Peter Schweizer's book "Clinton Cash", one wonders if the NYT would normally have so diligently pursued it (when hacks such as MSNBC are rubbishing Schweizer) if they had not received some outside, Democratic encouragement ...
Does anyone fancy betting with me on how many actual votes are cast for the conservative candidate in Welwyn Hatfield?
2010: 27,894
I'll offer any reputable punter evens on it being over 25,000 this time round.
Any takers?
Hillary will win the 2016 presidential election on a landslide no matter who the GOP candidate is or if any other democrat runs in the primaries or other trivia.
On US presidential politics it's all about who loses to Hillary in 2016 that might tell us who is not going to beat her in 2020.
If Bush, Walker or Rubio lose to Hillary in the 2016 landslide then a conservative will be picked up to beat her in 2020, if it's Paul, Cruz or Huckabee then it will be a moderate in 2020 who beats her.
In summary, Hillary 2016, GOP 2020.
.
He has just attacked Labour and SNP for not proposing a formal coalition ie exactly what he previously demanded Milliband did. Breathtaking andf totally desperate.
Shows why Milliband should have told them to take a hike when the Tories and their allies originally pressurised them!
CON 268
LAB 309
LD 11
A little extreme on the LD, LAB seats but the Tory number is in line with the polls.
Actually not bad for Tory seat prediction - an extra 0.5-1.0% ish in vote share would have made this more or less spot on i guess, which a pollster would have claimed as being very accurate. But LDs very overstated and Lab under.
LDs better hope the spreads aren't significantly overstating them this time or we might need a Martin Day memorial post about taxis...
Con majority: 9%
Con+DUP: 6%
Con+LD: 17%
Con+LD+DUP: 14%
Con largest, Con+LD+DUP+UKIP or Lab+SNP+LD maj: 7%
Con largest, but Lab+SNP+LD maj: 11%
Con largest, but Lab+SNP maj: 4%
Lab largest, Lab+SNP maj: 8%
Lab+LD+DUP+SDLP+PC+Grn+Hermon: 7%
Lab+LD+DUP: 7%
Lab+LD: 7%
Lab+DUP: 1%
Lab majority: 0%
United (Northern) Ireland !
I mean it's pretty unlikely, but not 0%, surely?
"the Mayor strongly denies any wrongdoing and had full confidence in the justice system, and so this result has been surprising to say the least."
Man with hand caught in cookie jar denies all knowledge of hand. Police still puzzled that hand was connected to anyone.
What the indexes got wrong, apart from following the pollsters LD scores is that they under estimated the electoral bias between LAB & CON.
If you are assuming the same will happen again, then you are assuming that the electoral bias remains as it was previously. That might be risky with the Scottish, UKIP and shakedown of the LD vote all being unprecedented.
I'd say the chance is nearly hopeless but probably more like 125/1
Followed by the M1 Midlands corridor.
I suspect it was to do with the whole Cleggasm thing too which resulted in a lot of people who watch telly but don't vote, stating LD as their VI in polling
Inflation at zero; record employment; good growth; tax receipts up and those at the bottom end paying less tax. Considering where the economy was in 2010 and where other EU countries now are, this is encouraging.
I simply don't believe that had Labour kept power, we would be in this position now and fear that if Labour were to regain power they would put this at risk. Labour - for all that they go on about budget discipline and the rest - have never in my lifetime appeared to understand that money has to be earned (even if you can borrow at low rates), that it belongs to us and needs to be spent wisely ("Never forget that it is the taxpayers' money" should be tattooed on their foreheads) and that spending money efficiently to achieve the best outcome is far far more important than just spending or spending more than the other lot.
But my fundamental objections to them are not about the economy but about the way they have turned from their Methodist - on the side of the working man roots into a statist, corporatist and authoritarian party whose instincts seem to me to be that people exist for the state's benefit rather than, as I believe, that the state should exist as the servant of the people. And who seem to view people not as individuals but as members of communities either to be talked at through self-appointed leaders or tarred with some broad brush characteristic.
We badly need a good sensible and thoughtful social democratic/left of centre party. Labour have not done the hard thinking required to turn them into that party, unfortunately.
I do have some quite serious reservations about some Tory policies e.g. on IHT and the right to buy for housing associations. I also worry about the pension freedoms. I fear that in a few years that will prove to be the germ of another gigantic mis-selling scandal. I worry about the way it has become easier for the rich to insulate themselves from the fact that most people aren't rich and that this can lead to a certain myopia about what life is and should be like for most of us.
I have to confess that I rather like the fact that the Lib Dems are in government. Sometimes, I feel that I am rather more positive about them than they seem to be themselves! If the coalition continued I would not be disappointed. But, as OGH says, the coalition is not on the ballot paper. A pity.
Still, Rahman being thrown out of politics makes today a good day. And the sun is shining.
However this was probably more luck than judgement as the two errors cancelled out (assuming more losses to LD and more gains from Lab).
The LD tally was the real disaster (with further knock-on effects to Labour) - practically no-one was expecting a fall in seats on the day qv. Iain Dale and the exit poll. How much did you make?
1) A whole bunch of over-emotional mugs and a couple of non-colluding deep-pocketed sensible people.
2) Nothing but over-emotional people, but with opposite and balancing over-emotions.
That was during a time where the govts record was poor and difficult to defend - different to this time around.
Lady Hermon like the Alliance candidate if reelected will presumably follow the LDs into supporting whichever party they enter an understanding with. At one time the LDs and UUP didn't get on at all but maybe they have better relations with the DUP.
http://news.sky.com/story/1470829/galloway-i-will-run-for-mayor-if-mp-bid-fails
Do the tories think they have a squeak there?
Mostly racking up another thousand votes in Lab-Con battles like Nuneaton tbh.
Talk about splitting the left leaning vote. That could let a tory in...?
BBC - Lutfur Rahman found guilty of illegal practices in Tower Hamlets election
An east London election has been declared void and will have to be re-run after the mayor was found guilty of corrupt and illegal practices.
An Election Commissioner concluded Tower Hamlets mayor Lutfur Rahman had breached election rules and would have to vacate his post immediately.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-32428648
But this is Galloway and Bradford West so the normal rules don't apply ن شاء الله
In the previous thread, OGH takes it as being such a foregone conclusion that the Tories will lose all their 26 most vulnerable seats to Labour that he doesn't even bother to list them.
Now here's a funny thing. Starting with the 306 seats the Tories won at the 2010 GE and deducting the said 26 seats, then adjusting for say 8 net gains elasewhere (+12 from LDs, -3 to UKIP, -1 to SNP), one arrives back at the self same total of 288 seats for the Blue Team.
Putting it another way, what OGH considers is effectively unachievable for the Tories, Stephen has as his current forecast of their seats tally.
Plenty of scope there methinks for egg on face and let's make no mistake, egg will be freely distributed to the appropriate visage once the result has been established.
Political betting markets are relatively illiquid and pricing anomalies can abound. We see that at present, where the "most seats" market is hard to reconcile with the individual constituency markets. This is good news for punters, of course.
As someone with a vote in this I am overjoyed Galloway will run... as you say it will surely split the racist vote between him and the Labour candidate if they are Khan or Abbot
A Non white right winger would be the best out come IMO
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p02pl51j/preview-w1a-rebranding-the-bbc
BBC: Big, Biggest, Collossalest.
APOLLO: I curse you to always see the future, yet never be believed.
CASSANDRA: Whatever. *makes killing in prediction markets, buys Troy*
And what you can’t see is about 20 Scottish journalists barking commands at me and instructing me on how to eat the Solero.
If there was a serious angle to it, then I suppose there is some kudos associated with being seen as a credible candidate for London Mayor, which might be attractive to some voters - but it's a tenuous argument.
11/4 looks fair given the UKIP fallback.
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2015/01/waveney/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-32429394
There's no map. I WANT MY MAP.
Thankfully I don't (know people who actually talk like this, that is).
Bright and breezy positive call me Dave has a much wider appeal on so many fronts- why it is not the focus of a positive campaign is just dumb.
They didn't say it was a geographical map.