Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How many of these ten will fail to become MPs next week?

124

Comments

  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,149

    ** CROSSOVER ALERT ** CROSSOVER ALERT **

    Cons now 0.3% ahead in part-ELBOW inc. Ipsos MORI AND all the YouGovs!

    This breaks down to a 0.7% Labour lead when only including YouGov

    and...PB Tories will like this!...

    a 1.4% CON lead in the non-YouGov polls!

    Can we have an ELBOW comparing the phone pollsters vs the online ones.
    Yebbut not all the "Phonesters" poll each week...
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415
    isam said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I have got a little q and a in an upcoming racing post for anyone interested, just 5 questions on the election, think a few other bookies will be taking part too. My best of the election was UKIP over 100 2nd places at 2/1 with Paddies but seems they have completely taken down the market now.

    Farage at Evens has to be the best bet out there at the moment :D
    Coral Ukip over 2.5 at 5/6
    Yep thats a great one too, keeping my UKIP book where it is with a nice hill profile/peak at 3-4 seats tho :)
  • isam said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I have got a little q and a in an upcoming racing post for anyone interested, just 5 questions on the election, think a few other bookies will be taking part too. My best of the election was UKIP over 100 2nd places at 2/1 with Paddies but seems they have completely taken down the market now.

    Farage at Evens has to be the best bet out there at the moment :D
    Coral Ukip over 2.5 at 5/6
    You'd be shocked at the figure we found for UKIP 2nd places, a few of us got on last night but they were pretty quick suspending to be fair. I noticed the market a few weeks ago but didnt really do much research into it, i had a hunch but my far superior colleague looked into it further, i cant say much as we will be doing it for spreads but if you've back it already, well done.

  • PolruanPolruan Posts: 2,083

    RodCrosby said:

    However, Miliband only gets to that stage if Labour and the minor parties combine to vote down Cameron, and the minor parties then don't support Miliband....

    Why the F would they do that?

    Well, the SNP would vote own Cameron because supporting a Tory government would be unpopular in Scotland, then they might vote down Miliband because he wasn't offering the concessions they thought they deserved.

    OK, the latter isn't hugely likely as the SNP would probably want to preserve the parliamentary situation where they had a lot of theoretical leverage, but you never know, especially if abstaining was enough to block Miliband and they didn't actually have to vote against.
    It's definitely plausible that the SNP will say that they will vote against a Tory QS, and then when Ed is asked to open negotiations, say they will abstain. The final move is probably Labour and the Tories looking at a grand coalition which you feel would ultimately fall over due to the inability to agree who PM and Chancellor would be (realistically leaders of the larger and smaller parties respectively, assuming that neither Cameron nor Miliband would be acceptable by that stage - Osborne and Balls is probably the only duo that has even a crumb of plausibility).

    Assuming the grand coalition doesn't happen, it's GE v2. If it produces materially the same maths, then some kind of grand coalition/national unity government becomes inevitable. It would be seen as unacceptable for Labour and Tories to refuse to work together.

    Actually, the Cameron and Blairite factions would probably quite like it.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    Startling findings from the TES. No shock that academics are lefties but the scale is mind-boggling:

    https://twitter.com/timeshighered/status/593698286546092032
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Holy Cow

    Startling findings from the TES. No shock that academics are lefties but the scale is mind-boggling:

    https://twitter.com/timeshighered/status/593698286546092032

  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,149

    ** CROSSOVER ALERT ** CROSSOVER ALERT **

    Cons now 0.3% ahead in part-ELBOW inc. Ipsos MORI AND all the YouGovs!

    This breaks down to a 0.7% Labour lead when only including YouGov

    and...PB Tories will like this!...

    a 1.4% CON lead in the non-YouGov polls!

    Can we have an ELBOW comparing the phone pollsters vs the online ones.
    Which are the "Phonesters"?

    I've got down:

    ICM
    Ipsos MORI
    Ashcroft
    ComRes (Mail, was Independent)
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415

    isam said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I have got a little q and a in an upcoming racing post for anyone interested, just 5 questions on the election, think a few other bookies will be taking part too. My best of the election was UKIP over 100 2nd places at 2/1 with Paddies but seems they have completely taken down the market now.

    Farage at Evens has to be the best bet out there at the moment :D
    Coral Ukip over 2.5 at 5/6
    You'd be shocked at the figure we found for UKIP 2nd places, a few of us got on last night but they were pretty quick suspending to be fair. I noticed the market a few weeks ago but didnt really do much research into it, i had a hunch but my far superior colleague looked into it further, i cant say much as we will be doing it for spreads but if you've back it already, well done.

    Near me UKIP 2nds I'd expect:

    Sheffield Hilsborough & Brightside
    Rother Valley
    Rotherham
    Sheffield Heeley

    Others too...
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    Mr Kitchencabinet

    Excellent post, I pretty much agree with every word.
  • Blue_rogBlue_rog Posts: 2,019
    Polruan said:

    RodCrosby said:

    However, Miliband only gets to that stage if Labour and the minor parties combine to vote down Cameron, and the minor parties then don't support Miliband....

    Why the F would they do that?

    Well, the SNP would vote own Cameron because supporting a Tory government would be unpopular in Scotland, then they might vote down Miliband because he wasn't offering the concessions they thought they deserved.

    OK, the latter isn't hugely likely as the SNP would probably want to preserve the parliamentary situation where they had a lot of theoretical leverage, but you never know, especially if abstaining was enough to block Miliband and they didn't actually have to vote against.
    It's definitely plausible that the SNP will say that they will vote against a Tory QS, and then when Ed is asked to open negotiations, say they will abstain. The final move is probably Labour and the Tories looking at a grand coalition which you feel would ultimately fall over due to the inability to agree who PM and Chancellor would be (realistically leaders of the larger and smaller parties respectively, assuming that neither Cameron nor Miliband would be acceptable by that stage - Osborne and Balls is probably the only duo that has even a crumb of plausibility).

    Assuming the grand coalition doesn't happen, it's GE v2. If it produces materially the same maths, then some kind of grand coalition/national unity government becomes inevitable. It would be seen as unacceptable for Labour and Tories to refuse to work together.

    Actually, the Cameron and Blairite factions would probably quite like it.
    If a grand coalition took place I think it would be extremely limited in scope and probably just include a radical change to the make up and structure of the HoC, HoL, constituency boundaries, and voting method.
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341

    Startling findings from the TES. No shock that academics are lefties but the scale is mind-boggling:

    https://twitter.com/timeshighered/status/593698286546092032

    That explains a lot.
  • peter_from_putneypeter_from_putney Posts: 6,956
    edited April 2015
    "Yes, I'd drink to that, PfP. (OSH, of course.)

    As a matter of fact, I'd been getting a little worried about you recently. I thought I'd detected a slight leftish inclination in some of your betting suggestions. Whilst it is all well and good that The Two Towers do lean in a bit occasionally, one does not want them meeting in the middle.

    A healthy distance is what is required, at all times.

    Atb, and enjoy the election. Will you be at The Finboro? I'm afraid I can't make it."



    Don't worry about me PtP, if someone else hadn't got there first, I'd have taken the name Dyedinthewoolblue on here or something similar. As regards any left-leaning inclinations to which you refer, this would only ever apply to my betting strategies, where we both know that head must rule heart at all times ..... btw let me know what you think of my latest BOTW I've just posted on here.

    Sorry you can't make the GE night bun fight in the Earls Court hostelry. It's only around 2-3 miles from my home, so I might just make the effort, although sadly Mine Host, who I made it my business to interview beforehand, doesn't stock OSH. However a variety of perfectly acceptable alternative brews are on hand.
    Hopefully, nearer the big day, OGH or the aforementioned Jeff Bell (aka "Stonch") will publish a list on here of those expecting to attend.
    I expect you'll be travelling up to wildest Notts to commiserate celebrate with Nick "Huntley &" Palmer. Enjoy the day whatever.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,035
    MattW said:

    MattW said:


    I nag Brooke junior about going out and getting pissed at Uni and waking up with strange women whose names he can't remember - but can I get him to do it ?

    These days that is likely to be termed, or described as, "rape".

    A drunk woman is deemed unable to consent under Harriet Harman law.

    Bloody patronising of her, of you ask me.

    And it is no defence if the drunk man is equally or more drunk to the woman he hooks up with (or in Harmanland rapes).

    Rape is a serious and horrific offence that shouldn't be equated to drunken sex.
    Agree entirely.

    That is most of the problem in Harmanworld.

    Rape rhetoric undermines the seriousness of the crime.

    Try this one, for example. Both drunk, both consented, she is a victim, he is a rapist.

    http://reason.com/blog/2014/06/04/occidental-expels-student-for-rape-under


    The problem with Harmanworld is that they don't seem to understand the difference between a regretful drunken shag and a street ambush and sexual assault.
  • FT for the Tories!!!

  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    As well as The Economist? What's going on??

    FT for the Tories!!!

  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746

    Startling findings from the TES. No shock that academics are lefties but the scale is mind-boggling:

    https://twitter.com/timeshighered/status/593698286546092032

    There was a similar finding in the USA. The suggestion was that group think is enforced in the hiring/publishing process.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/213087/campus-bias-ridhancock
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    Harry Cole ‏@MrHarryCole 5m5 minutes ago
    FT ouchy: Miliband "appears to be fighting his campaign in the style of France’s François Hollande in 2012."
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,780
    chestnut said:

    Startling findings from the TES. No shock that academics are lefties but the scale is mind-boggling:

    https://twitter.com/timeshighered/status/593698286546092032

    That explains a lot.
    Creative arts lol.....
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,546

    Startling findings from the TES. No shock that academics are lefties but the scale is mind-boggling:

    https://twitter.com/timeshighered/status/593698286546092032

    In no discipline does left wing support fall below 60%.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,780

    FT for the Tories!!!

    Wow..thats a big one.. they were always very pro Brown/Blair
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 55,035

    isam said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I have got a little q and a in an upcoming racing post for anyone interested, just 5 questions on the election, think a few other bookies will be taking part too. My best of the election was UKIP over 100 2nd places at 2/1 with Paddies but seems they have completely taken down the market now.

    Farage at Evens has to be the best bet out there at the moment :D
    Coral Ukip over 2.5 at 5/6
    You'd be shocked at the figure we found for UKIP 2nd places, a few of us got on last night but they were pretty quick suspending to be fair. I noticed the market a few weeks ago but didnt really do much research into it, i had a hunch but my far superior colleague looked into it further, i cant say much as we will be doing it for spreads but if you've back it already, well done.
    So over 100 at 2/1 is obviously value in your eyes?
  • FT for the Tories!!!

    Wow..thats a big one.. they were always very pro Brown/Blair

    so much for the Labour line about the EU referendum threat used on them..
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    isam said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I have got a little q and a in an upcoming racing post for anyone interested, just 5 questions on the election, think a few other bookies will be taking part too. My best of the election was UKIP over 100 2nd places at 2/1 with Paddies but seems they have completely taken down the market now.

    Farage at Evens has to be the best bet out there at the moment :D
    Coral Ukip over 2.5 at 5/6
    You'd be shocked at the figure we found for UKIP 2nd places, a few of us got on last night but they were pretty quick suspending to be fair. I noticed the market a few weeks ago but didnt really do much research into it, i had a hunch but my far superior colleague looked into it further, i cant say much as we will be doing it for spreads but if you've back it already, well done.

    I knew they were a buy at the figures quoted on here but never really looked into the exact pricing to be honest... Well done for getting on though.
  • taffys said:

    Mr Kitchencabinet

    Excellent post, I pretty much agree with every word.

    Thanks Taffys...you might even have persuaded me to post another long e-mail...
  • Pulpstar said:

    isam said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I have got a little q and a in an upcoming racing post for anyone interested, just 5 questions on the election, think a few other bookies will be taking part too. My best of the election was UKIP over 100 2nd places at 2/1 with Paddies but seems they have completely taken down the market now.

    Farage at Evens has to be the best bet out there at the moment :D
    Coral Ukip over 2.5 at 5/6
    You'd be shocked at the figure we found for UKIP 2nd places, a few of us got on last night but they were pretty quick suspending to be fair. I noticed the market a few weeks ago but didnt really do much research into it, i had a hunch but my far superior colleague looked into it further, i cant say much as we will be doing it for spreads but if you've back it already, well done.

    Near me UKIP 2nds I'd expect:

    Sheffield Hilsborough & Brightside
    Rother Valley
    Rotherham
    Sheffield Heeley

    Others too...
    Yes, its quite interesting looking at the vastly different areas UKIP are appealing too.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    Plato said:

    As well as The Economist? What's going on??

    FT for the Tories!!!

    Two decent endorsements from some of the only publications whose allegiance was in doubt. Be interested to see what the Indy say.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,149

    Startling findings from the TES. No shock that academics are lefties but the scale is mind-boggling:

    https://twitter.com/timeshighered/status/593698286546092032

    I guess I count as being in the second group in from the left.
  • saddosaddo Posts: 534
    If Cameron as is likely, has the biggest vote and seats, and can get past the Queens Speech hurdle, with a minimum change statement, once the Tories are in office, do they actually need many laws to be changed to govern effectively?

    If a minister says "don't spend more than x" to his department, you can create savings.

    They don't need any legislation to carry on opening free schools or to renew Trident etc.

    It would be pretty manageable, a continuation of what's in place today and will work fine. The impact of policy will be a little more hidden, but as they are the minsters with the Civil Service at hand, they can deliver a lot without changing laws.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    Tabman said:

    JEO said:

    SeanT said:

    AndyJS said:

    SeanT said:

    Anecdotage

    My niece's boyfriend (age 22) is a first time voter.

    She asked him which way he was voting, and he said

    "Well, I quite like the Conservatories"

    The problem with people aged 18-25 these days is they're too sensible. For example they hardly drink at all compared to older age-groups.
    This is absolutely true from my observation. A sober generation arises. Compared to my cohort they are saints.
    Is this a function of growing up in an age of austerity? Are the social mores of Islam spreading to non-Muslims through proximity and friendships?
    It's not just about alcohol. This generation has to be incredibly business-minded about things like education and careers from an early age. It's partially (though by no means completely) tuition fees. Generally there just isn't any feeling you can relax, take a few years to find yourself, make the odd mistake, and still end up on a decent career path with a decent home.

    It's also probably partly a backlash against hippyism in the parents' and grandparents' generation. There's a really strong strain of very naive, extreme libertarianism (especially among the nerdy internet types), which I think is largely motivated by a misguided notion of hardheadedness and rationality.


    Also, the rise in the strange phenomenon (that I don't really know the reason for), kids going home at weekends or several times a term. Makes weekends a lot quieter on campuses.




    At Fen Poly we didn't have time to go home at weekends - 8 week terms and the worry you'd be missing out saw to that.

    It was much more common at the campus University I went to for my postgrad work (25 years ago), the hall I was a warden for was less busy at weekends. A lot more seemed to have pre-existing boy/girlfriends to go home for, and of course there was always the washing to do. Oxbridge students didn't have significant others from school days; they were too busy getting three As (in the days when that was a relatively difficult achievement)
    At The Other Place I frequently arrived 7-10 days before term started, and left a similar time after. Basically 6 weeks a year of debauchery with no work to spoil it. Ahhhhh...
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,870
    Plato said:

    As well as The Economist? What's going on??

    FT for the Tories!!!

    I think Miliband's flirting with Brand-esque politics and his rhetoric about standing up to the USA has got the establishment a bit jittery. Neither of these endorsements surprise me.

  • Fair point

    Harry Cole‏@MrHarryCole·3 mins3 minutes ago
    Sun, Speccie, FT and Economist back Tories in last 24 hours. Labour barely managed the Staggers.
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976

    FT for the Tories!!!

    Well that’s a turn up for the books. I thought it came from the same stable as the Guardian.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    :naughty:

    Fair point

    Harry Cole‏@MrHarryCole·3 mins3 minutes ago
    Sun, Speccie, FT and Economist back Tories in last 24 hours. Labour barely managed the Staggers.

  • BromBrom Posts: 3,760

    Brom said:

    tyson said:

    isam said:

    Panic on the streets of Rotherham, Panic on the streets in Birmingham, I wonder to myself...

    "Child Sexual Exploitation: We force West Midlands Police to release secret report which confirms 'significant similarities' with Rotherham scandal

    Problem profile reveals truth about grooming gangs in region, including 'majority of offenders are typically Asian, of Pakistani origin'"

    http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/child-sexual-exploitation-force-west-9151006


    Isam- I don't think Morrissey would be too annoyed you pinching his lines. The last I read about him he is a borderline kipper.

    From Irish Blood, English Heart

    "I've been dreaming of a time when
    the English are sick to death
    of Labour, and Tories
    and spit upon the name Oliver Cromwell

    I can forgive Morrissey for being a kipper. "Meat is Murder" is sublime, and "How Soon is Now" fed my teenage angst.
    And the Smiths are Cameron's favourite band.
    Morrissey picks and chooses who is allowed to like his music. He need not worry about me.
    Without wishing to sound like I've spent too long at the National Front Disco I'm really surprised UKIP haven't brought the Dolphin Square/Elm House/Rotherham et all grooming gangs to the fore in this election campaign. I think there might be a fair few major party voters who are uncomfortable with the idea of an establishment cover up, and though it might put Farage on dodgy legal ground there could be some traction in bringing these issues to national attention.

    I suppose it's a fine line in terms of sounding a bit conspiracy theorist nutjob and fighting the dark side.
    Their Rotherham candidate made a big point of it. Labour are suing her.

    http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/election-politics/politics-and-election-news/ukip-mep-handed-high-court-papers-as-labour-sues-over-abuse-claims-1-7046534

    ------

    Alison Pearson wrote a good piece tying Mr Miliband's 'islamophobia' law proposal to Rotherham.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11570745/The-price-that-Ed-Miliband-is-prepared-to-pay-to-win-the-Muslim-vote.html
    It does seem that the Labour lawsuit put a muzzle on the whole thing. A far cry from when Farage was in Rotherham earlier this year talking about it and getting harangued by the UAF lot. If I were them I'd have continued banging away about Rotherham, it's a big issue and it would be a shame if nothing really got done about it. Having said that it is not my reputation or money at stake!
  • peter_from_putneypeter_from_putney Posts: 6,956
    edited April 2015

    MikeL said:

    Anecdote alert - friend, voted Con in 2010 - hates Cameron - spent last 2 years telling me she's definitely voting UKIP - I've tried persuading her differently - wouldn't listen to me - last saw her a few weeks ago and "100% definitely" voting UKIP.

    Received a brief email from her within the last hour - she's voting Con. No mention of UKIP in her message.

    I recognise that.
    Thought you would! Might we still win back Sean_F at the 11th hour? .... Probably not, even so one can but hope.
  • Pulpstar said:

    isam said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I have got a little q and a in an upcoming racing post for anyone interested, just 5 questions on the election, think a few other bookies will be taking part too. My best of the election was UKIP over 100 2nd places at 2/1 with Paddies but seems they have completely taken down the market now.

    Farage at Evens has to be the best bet out there at the moment :D
    Coral Ukip over 2.5 at 5/6
    You'd be shocked at the figure we found for UKIP 2nd places, a few of us got on last night but they were pretty quick suspending to be fair. I noticed the market a few weeks ago but didnt really do much research into it, i had a hunch but my far superior colleague looked into it further, i cant say much as we will be doing it for spreads but if you've back it already, well done.

    Near me UKIP 2nds I'd expect:

    Sheffield Hilsborough & Brightside
    Rother Valley
    Rotherham
    Sheffield Heeley

    Others too...
    Yes, its quite interesting looking at the vastly different areas UKIP are appealing too.
    I would have Rotherham and Rother Valley as surprise UKIP wins: I know Labour has been working Rotherham hard but there will be a good number of people telling them they will vote Labour to their face and then will vote UKIP. What happened there is one of those events that people will just not look beyond.
  • PolruanPolruan Posts: 2,083
    Blue_rog said:

    Polruan said:

    RodCrosby said:

    However, Miliband only gets to that stage if Labour and the minor parties combine to vote down Cameron, and the minor parties then don't support Miliband....

    Why the F would they do that?

    Well, the SNP would vote own Cameron because supporting a Tory government would be unpopular in Scotland, then they might vote down Miliband because he wasn't offering the concessions they thought they deserved.

    OK, the latter isn't hugely likely as the SNP would probably want to preserve the parliamentary situation where they had a lot of theoretical leverage, but you never know, especially if abstaining was enough to block Miliband and they didn't actually have to vote against.
    It's definitely plausible that the SNP will say that they will vote against a Tory QS, and then when Ed is asked to open negotiations, say they will abstain. The final move is probably Labour and the Tories looking at a grand coalition which you feel would ultimately fall over due to the inability to agree who PM and Chancellor would be (realistically leaders of the larger and smaller parties respectively, assuming that neither Cameron nor Miliband would be acceptable by that stage - Osborne and Balls is probably the only duo that has even a crumb of plausibility).

    Assuming the grand coalition doesn't happen, it's GE v2. If it produces materially the same maths, then some kind of grand coalition/national unity government becomes inevitable. It would be seen as unacceptable for Labour and Tories to refuse to work together.

    Actually, the Cameron and Blairite factions would probably quite like it.
    If a grand coalition took place I think it would be extremely limited in scope and probably just include a radical change to the make up and structure of the HoC, HoL, constituency boundaries, and voting method.
    That seems incredibly unlikely, given that the GC would be made up of two parties for whom FPTP continues to be relatively beneficial.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415
    edited April 2015

    Pulpstar said:

    isam said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I have got a little q and a in an upcoming racing post for anyone interested, just 5 questions on the election, think a few other bookies will be taking part too. My best of the election was UKIP over 100 2nd places at 2/1 with Paddies but seems they have completely taken down the market now.

    Farage at Evens has to be the best bet out there at the moment :D
    Coral Ukip over 2.5 at 5/6
    You'd be shocked at the figure we found for UKIP 2nd places, a few of us got on last night but they were pretty quick suspending to be fair. I noticed the market a few weeks ago but didnt really do much research into it, i had a hunch but my far superior colleague looked into it further, i cant say much as we will be doing it for spreads but if you've back it already, well done.

    Near me UKIP 2nds I'd expect:

    Sheffield Hilsborough & Brightside
    Rother Valley
    Rotherham
    Sheffield Heeley

    Others too...
    Yes, its quite interesting looking at the vastly different areas UKIP are appealing too.
    I would have Rotherham and Rother Valley as surprise UKIP wins: I know Labour has been working Rotherham hard but there will be a good number of people telling them they will vote Labour to their face and then will vote UKIP. What happened there is one of those events that people will just not look beyond.
    Rother Valley would be nice to come in but I think a decent second is more likely.

    Backed UKIP at 8s here and Labour at 1-6.

    In trouble if the Blues get 450 seats ;)
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737

    RodCrosby said:

    However, Miliband only gets to that stage if Labour and the minor parties combine to vote down Cameron, and the minor parties then don't support Miliband....

    Why the F would they do that?

    Well, the SNP would vote own Cameron because supporting a Tory government would be unpopular in Scotland, then they might vote down Miliband because he wasn't offering the concessions they thought they deserved.

    OK, the latter isn't hugely likely as the SNP would probably want to preserve the parliamentary situation where they had a lot of theoretical leverage, but you never know, especially if abstaining was enough to block Miliband and they didn't actually have to vote against.
    The danger for the SNP is they would be seen to be mere wreckers (even in Scotland) and the outcome of the immediate second election would be highly uncertain. The Scots could return to Labour, or the English could overwhelmingly vote Tory, or both.

    Far more logical would be for the SNP to install a weak Miliband, from whom they can extract their concessions at leisure...
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,932

    FT for the Tories!!!

    Well that’s a turn up for the books. I thought it came from the same stable as the Guardian.
    FT backed Tories in 2010.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_United_Kingdom_general_election,_2010
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143

    FTP Procedural question: Say Cameron doesn't have the votes, but Ed Miliband may be able to cobble together some unholy coalition. Am I right in assuming nobody can vote on Ed Miliband's government until Cameron resigns and suggests to the Queen that she ask him to have a go? At that point does Cameron move out of Downing Street and Miliband become PM, even though nobody knows yet whether he'll be able to pass a Queen's Speech? If so can Miliband move into Number 10 and fire off nuclear weapons at people and do other Prime Ministerish things?

    Yes, this is because everyone sort of pretends that the Queen can choose whoever she wants to be Prime Minister. Thus a PM is appointed by the Sovereign and not by a vote in Parliament. If she reads PB and was impressed by your posts, you too could be appointed PM and gain all that royal prerogative power.

    However, in practice, Monarchs have learnt that appointing a PM who does not have the confidence of Parliament makes them very unpopular, very quickly, and so now they insist that the resigning PM tells them who to appoint - or (before the FTPA) to hold an election if there is no suitable candidate.

    In the event that Miliband does not have a formal agreement of support from the SNP & others the situation is really messy, as he'll only be able to demonstrate that he has the votes by holding a vote in the Commons. This is different to 2010, because the Coalition Agreement between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats meant that everyone could see that Cameron had the votes. I'm not sure that an informal arrangement has the same credibility.

    Therefore, I think that Cameron would be doing Her Majesty a favour if he sat tight in Number Ten if the Tories have more seats than Labour, and forces Miliband to prove that Cameron no longer has the confidence of the House by voting with the SNP against him. This also has the advantage of starting the 14-day countdown in the FTPA, forcing PM Miliband to win his own confidence motion in that time frame.

    Otherwise you could have HMQ appointing Miliband as PM only for him to lose his first vote in the House if the SNP throw a strop, and with 14 days to wait before Parliament can be dissolved for another election. It wouldn't look good for Lizzie to have appointed the leader of the second-largest party and for him not to have the confidence of the House anyway.
  • LennonLennon Posts: 1,782

    MikeL said:

    Anecdote alert - friend, voted Con in 2010 - hates Cameron - spent last 2 years telling me she's definitely voting UKIP - I've tried persuading her differently - wouldn't listen to me - last saw her a few weeks ago and "100% definitely" voting UKIP.

    Received a brief email from her within the last hour - she's voting Con. No mention of UKIP in her message.

    I recognise that.
    Thought you would! Might we still win back Sean_F at the 11th hour? .... Probably not, even so one can but hope.
    In fairness, Sean_F has already said that if he was in a Tory/Lab marginal then he would be voting Blue.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    edited April 2015
    'It does seem that the Labour lawsuit put a muzzle on the whole thing.''

    True, but the downside for labour is they have no idea how many people who say they will vote for them are telling the truth. That must be a problem for pollsters too.


  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,509

    Who will suffer the biggest defeat?
    I think it might be wee Dougie

    Heard the SNP candidate the other day and she was very good , GMS and Labour tried to give her a hard time but she was well fit for them and came across really well, hard to believe still a student.
  • ***** BETTING POST *****

    My penultimate GE Bet of the Week seeks to achieve the near impossible, by identifying a market which might just about appeal to both Bob Sykes as well as JackW (if not quite Mike Smithson also).
    I give you, ta - dah ..... drum roll, Wm. Hills' Conservative 276 - 300 seat band which they have on offer at 2.1 decimal, or 11/10 in old money. This equates to a probability of 47.6%, whereas I make it at least a 60%, shot particularly in the light of those improving polls for the Blues.
    Sidney, their political guru, would only allow me to stake £45 to win £50, but those nice people at Bet365 are offering similar odds of 2.05.
    DYOR.

    Believe it or not, PfP, I'm already on that.

    Are you sure we're not getting too close?
    Oh do be quiet, Sweetie.
  • Pulpstar said:

    isam said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I have got a little q and a in an upcoming racing post for anyone interested, just 5 questions on the election, think a few other bookies will be taking part too. My best of the election was UKIP over 100 2nd places at 2/1 with Paddies but seems they have completely taken down the market now.

    Farage at Evens has to be the best bet out there at the moment :D
    Coral Ukip over 2.5 at 5/6
    You'd be shocked at the figure we found for UKIP 2nd places, a few of us got on last night but they were pretty quick suspending to be fair. I noticed the market a few weeks ago but didnt really do much research into it, i had a hunch but my far superior colleague looked into it further, i cant say much as we will be doing it for spreads but if you've back it already, well done.

    Near me UKIP 2nds I'd expect:

    Sheffield Hilsborough & Brightside
    Rother Valley
    Rotherham
    Sheffield Heeley

    Others too...
    Yes, its quite interesting looking at the vastly different areas UKIP are appealing too.
    I would have Rotherham and Rother Valley as surprise UKIP wins: I know Labour has been working Rotherham hard but there will be a good number of people telling them they will vote Labour to their face and then will vote UKIP. What happened there is one of those events that people will just not look beyond.
    Yes, i know Heywood and Middleton very well-did some teacher training there and in Rochdale which has similar issues to Rotheram, i think the shy kipper theory is definitely valid in the north where the issues are really apart of your everyday life rather than in ukip seats down south.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621

    Startling findings from the TES. No shock that academics are lefties but the scale is mind-boggling:

    https://twitter.com/timeshighered/status/593698286546092032

    30% of "Engineering and Technical" staff intend to vote Green. Mind-boggling. I can understand that in the "Creative Arts", but I though Engineers had a clue.
  • BannedInParisBannedInParis Posts: 2,191
    Anorak said:

    Tabman said:

    JEO said:

    SeanT said:

    AndyJS said:

    SeanT said:

    Anecdotage

    My niece's boyfriend (age 22) is a first time voter.

    She asked him which way he was voting, and he said

    "Well, I quite like the Conservatories"

    The problem with people aged 18-25 these days is they're too sensible. For example they hardly drink at all compared to older age-groups.
    This is absolutely true from my observation. A sober generation arises. Compared to my cohort they are saints.
    Is this a function of growing up in an age of austerity? Are the social mores of Islam spreading to non-Muslims through proximity and friendships?
    It's not just about alcohol. This generation has to be incredibly business-minded about things like education and careers from an early age. It's partially (though by no means completely) tuition fees. Generally there just isn't any feeling you can relax, take a few years to find yourself, make the odd mistake, and still end up on a decent career path with a decent home.

    It's also probably partly a backlash against hippyism in the parents' and grandparents' generation. There's a really strong strain of very naive, extreme libertarianism (especially among the nerdy internet types), which I think is largely motivated by a misguided notion of hardheadedness and rationality.


    Also, the rise in the strange phenomenon (that I don't really know the reason for), kids going home at weekends or several times a term. Makes weekends a lot quieter on campuses.




    At Fen Poly we didn't have time to go home at weekends - 8 week terms and the worry you'd be missing out saw to that.

    It was much more common at the campus University I went to for my postgrad work (25 years ago), the hall I was a warden for was less busy at weekends. A lot more seemed to have pre-existing boy/girlfriends to go home for, and of course there was always the washing to do. Oxbridge students didn't have significant others from school days; they were too busy getting three As (in the days when that was a relatively difficult achievement)
    At The Other Place I frequently arrived 7-10 days before term started, and left a similar time after. Basically 6 weeks a year of debauchery with no work to spoil it. Ahhhhh...
    When term ended, my college opened its doors to an American summer school. They may have been dumb as bricks but my word, it cheered the place up.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,932
    Polruan said:

    Blue_rog said:

    Polruan said:

    RodCrosby said:

    However, Miliband only gets to that stage if Labour and the minor parties combine to vote down Cameron, and the minor parties then don't support Miliband....

    Why the F would they do that?

    Well, the SNP would vote own Cameron because supporting a Tory government would be unpopular in Scotland, then they might vote down Miliband because he wasn't offering the concessions they thought they deserved.

    OK, the latter isn't hugely likely as the SNP would probably want to preserve the parliamentary situation where they had a lot of theoretical leverage, but you never know, especially if abstaining was enough to block Miliband and they didn't actually have to vote against.
    It's definitely plausible that the SNP will say that they will vote against a Tory QS, and then when Ed is asked to open negotiations, say they will abstain. The final move is probably Labour and the Tories looking at a grand coalition which you feel would ultimately fall over due to the inability to agree who PM and Chancellor would be (realistically leaders of the larger and smaller parties respectively, assuming that neither Cameron nor Miliband would be acceptable by that stage - Osborne and Balls is probably the only duo that has even a crumb of plausibility).

    Assuming the grand coalition doesn't happen, it's GE v2. If it produces materially the same maths, then some kind of grand coalition/national unity government becomes inevitable. It would be seen as unacceptable for Labour and Tories to refuse to work together.

    Actually, the Cameron and Blairite factions would probably quite like it.
    If a grand coalition took place I think it would be extremely limited in scope and probably just include a radical change to the make up and structure of the HoC, HoL, constituency boundaries, and voting method.
    That seems incredibly unlikely, given that the GC would be made up of two parties for whom FPTP continues to be relatively beneficial.
    Maybe if we turned up with pitchforks...?
  • TabmanTabman Posts: 1,046
    Sean_F said:

    Startling findings from the TES. No shock that academics are lefties but the scale is mind-boggling:

    https://twitter.com/timeshighered/status/593698286546092032

    In no discipline does left wing support fall below 60%.
    Is this really that surprising?

    (i) don't bite the hand that feeds you
    (ii) right wing types don't go into research; they go off to earn the corporate dollar

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,672
    Both the FT and the Economist backed the Tories at the last election. So it's no huge surprise that they back the continuance of the coalition this time around, is it?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,546
    Lennon said:

    MikeL said:

    Anecdote alert - friend, voted Con in 2010 - hates Cameron - spent last 2 years telling me she's definitely voting UKIP - I've tried persuading her differently - wouldn't listen to me - last saw her a few weeks ago and "100% definitely" voting UKIP.

    Received a brief email from her within the last hour - she's voting Con. No mention of UKIP in her message.

    I recognise that.
    Thought you would! Might we still win back Sean_F at the 11th hour? .... Probably not, even so one can but hope.
    In fairness, Sean_F has already said that if he was in a Tory/Lab marginal then he would be voting Blue.
    Luton South looks safe for Labour. The majority was 1,800 last time, but the Conservatives have written the seat off (according to the Times) and are fighting a nominal campaign, here. If the Conservatives start pushing their lead back up to 7% or so, then I'll reconsider, but for now, I plan to vote UKIP. I'll be voting for both Conservative council candidates in my ward, however.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415

    Pulpstar said:

    isam said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I have got a little q and a in an upcoming racing post for anyone interested, just 5 questions on the election, think a few other bookies will be taking part too. My best of the election was UKIP over 100 2nd places at 2/1 with Paddies but seems they have completely taken down the market now.

    Farage at Evens has to be the best bet out there at the moment :D
    Coral Ukip over 2.5 at 5/6
    You'd be shocked at the figure we found for UKIP 2nd places, a few of us got on last night but they were pretty quick suspending to be fair. I noticed the market a few weeks ago but didnt really do much research into it, i had a hunch but my far superior colleague looked into it further, i cant say much as we will be doing it for spreads but if you've back it already, well done.

    Near me UKIP 2nds I'd expect:

    Sheffield Hilsborough & Brightside
    Rother Valley
    Rotherham
    Sheffield Heeley

    Others too...
    Yes, its quite interesting looking at the vastly different areas UKIP are appealing too.
    I would have Rotherham and Rother Valley as surprise UKIP wins: I know Labour has been working Rotherham hard but there will be a good number of people telling them they will vote Labour to their face and then will vote UKIP. What happened there is one of those events that people will just not look beyond.
    Yes, i know Heywood and Middleton very well-did some teacher training there and in Rochdale which has similar issues to Rotheram, i think the shy kipper theory is definitely valid in the north where the issues are really apart of your everyday life rather than in ukip seats down south.
    Anecdotal - Not a single General Election poster up for Labour or UKIP in my VERY strong Labour/UKIP 2nd ward in NE Derbyshire. Driving through Rother Valley not a peep either.
  • PolruanPolruan Posts: 2,083

    Polruan said:

    Blue_rog said:

    Polruan said:

    RodCrosby said:

    However, Miliband only gets to that stage if Labour and the minor parties combine to vote down Cameron, and the minor parties then don't support Miliband....

    Why the F would they do that?

    Well, the SNP would vote own Cameron because supporting a Tory government would be unpopular in Scotland, then they might vote down Miliband because he wasn't offering the concessions they thought they deserved.

    OK, the latter isn't hugely likely as the SNP would probably want to preserve the parliamentary situation where they had a lot of theoretical leverage, but you never know, especially if abstaining was enough to block Miliband and they didn't actually have to vote against.
    It's definitely plausible that the SNP will say that they will vote against a Tory QS, and then when Ed is asked to open negotiations, say they will abstain. The final move is probably Labour and the Tories looking at a grand coalition which you feel would ultimately fall over due to the inability to agree who PM and Chancellor would be (realistically leaders of the larger and smaller parties respectively, assuming that neither Cameron nor Miliband would be acceptable by that stage - Osborne and Balls is probably the only duo that has even a crumb of plausibility).

    Assuming the grand coalition doesn't happen, it's GE v2. If it produces materially the same maths, then some kind of grand coalition/national unity government becomes inevitable. It would be seen as unacceptable for Labour and Tories to refuse to work together.

    Actually, the Cameron and Blairite factions would probably quite like it.
    If a grand coalition took place I think it would be extremely limited in scope and probably just include a radical change to the make up and structure of the HoC, HoL, constituency boundaries, and voting method.
    That seems incredibly unlikely, given that the GC would be made up of two parties for whom FPTP continues to be relatively beneficial.
    Maybe if we turned up with pitchforks...?
    Works about as well as 2m marching against a war, probably.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621

    FT for the Tories!!!

    Well that’s a turn up for the books. I thought it came from the same stable as the Guardian.
    FT backed Tories in 2010.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_United_Kingdom_general_election,_2010
    Yeah but in 2010 not even the Guardian (FFS!) backed Labour. They were that bad.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,780

    FTP Procedural question: Say Cameron doesn't have the votes, but Ed Miliband may be able to cobble together some unholy coalition. Am I right in assuming nobody can vote on Ed Miliband's government until Cameron resigns and suggests to the Queen that she ask him to have a go? At that point does Cameron move out of Downing Street and Miliband become PM, even though nobody knows yet whether he'll be able to pass a Queen's Speech? If so can Miliband move into Number 10 and fire off nuclear weapons at people and do other Prime Ministerish things?

    Yes, this is because everyone sort of pretends that the Queen can choose whoever she wants to be Prime Minister. Thus a PM is appointed by the Sovereign and not by a vote in Parliament. If she reads PB and was impressed by your posts, you too could be appointed PM and gain all that royal prerogative power.

    However, in practice, Monarchs have learnt that appointing a PM who does not have the confidence of Parliament makes them very unpopular, very quickly, and so now they insist that the resigning PM tells them who to appoint - or (before the FTPA) to hold an election if there is no suitable candidate.

    In the event that Miliband does not have a formal agreement of support from the SNP & others the situation is really messy, as he'll only be able to demonstrate that he has the votes by holding a vote in the Commons. This is different to 2010, because the Coalition Agreement between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats meant that everyone could see that Cameron had the votes. I'm not sure that an informal arrangement has the same credibility.

    Therefore, I think that Cameron would be doing Her Majesty a favour if he sat tight in Number Ten if the Tories have more seats than Labour, and forces Miliband to prove that Cameron no longer has the confidence of the House by voting with the SNP against him. This also has the advantage of starting the 14-day countdown in the FTPA, forcing PM Miliband to win his own confidence motion in that time frame.

    Otherwise you could have HMQ appointing Miliband as PM only for him to lose his first vote in the House if the SNP throw a strop, and with 14 days to wait before Parliament can be dissolved for another election. It wouldn't look good for Lizzie to have appointed the leader of the second-largest party and for him not to have the confidence of the House anyway.
    Exactly, I think that Lizzie would have to ask Cameron to remain as PM (in a quiet way) until Miliband could make some kind of assurance that he could surivie at least one vote as PM.

    Otherwise it would very silly, and very damaging to our constitution that Miliband was asked to be PM without actually being able to be PM.

    all very quietly and behind closed doors of course.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830
    Is it really that surprising that the Tories have been endorsed by FT, The Economist, The Sun, and the Spectator? 3 out 4 of those are fairly centre-right publications anyway, particularly the Spectator, and the FT endorsed the Tories in 2010, too I think. Only the Guardian, the New Statesmen, and Mirrow (maybe the Indy and the I) will endorse Labour. I don't think newspaper endorsements matter much these in terms of influencing the public, like they once did.
  • BromBrom Posts: 3,760

    Pulpstar said:

    isam said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I have got a little q and a in an upcoming racing post for anyone interested, just 5 questions on the election, think a few other bookies will be taking part too. My best of the election was UKIP over 100 2nd places at 2/1 with Paddies but seems they have completely taken down the market now.

    Farage at Evens has to be the best bet out there at the moment :D
    Coral Ukip over 2.5 at 5/6
    You'd be shocked at the figure we found for UKIP 2nd places, a few of us got on last night but they were pretty quick suspending to be fair. I noticed the market a few weeks ago but didnt really do much research into it, i had a hunch but my far superior colleague looked into it further, i cant say much as we will be doing it for spreads but if you've back it already, well done.

    Near me UKIP 2nds I'd expect:

    Sheffield Hilsborough & Brightside
    Rother Valley
    Rotherham
    Sheffield Heeley

    Others too...
    Yes, its quite interesting looking at the vastly different areas UKIP are appealing too.
    I would have Rotherham and Rother Valley as surprise UKIP wins: I know Labour has been working Rotherham hard but there will be a good number of people telling them they will vote Labour to their face and then will vote UKIP. What happened there is one of those events that people will just not look beyond.
    Yes, i know Heywood and Middleton very well-did some teacher training there and in Rochdale which has similar issues to Rotheram, i think the shy kipper theory is definitely valid in the north where the issues are really apart of your everyday life rather than in ukip seats down south.
    I'd like to think so, but it's hard to look beyond the tribalism of voters. Families that have voted Labour for generations. The SNP situation and Heywood by election gives me some optimism but I expect them to fall a few thousand short in both Heywood and Rotherham.

  • TabmanTabman Posts: 1,046
    Anorak said:

    Tabman said:

    JEO said:

    SeanT said:

    AndyJS said:

    SeanT said:

    Anecdotage

    My niece's boyfriend (age 22) is a first time voter.

    She asked him which way he was voting, and he said

    "Well, I quite like the Conservatories"

    The problem with people aged 18-25 these days is they're too sensible. For example they hardly drink at all compared to older age-groups.
    This is absolutely true from my observation. A sober generation arises. Compared to my cohort they are saints.
    Is this a function of growing up in an age of austerity? Are the social mores of Islam spreading to non-Muslims through proximity and friendships?
    It's not just about alcohol. This generation has to be incredibly business-minded about things like education and careers from an early age. It's partially (though by no means completely) tuition fees. Generally there just isn't any feeling you can relax, take a few years to find yourself, make the odd mistake, and still end up on a decent career path with a decent home.

    It's also probably partly a backlash against hippyism in the parents' and grandparents' generation. There's a really strong strain of very naive, extreme libertarianism (especially among the nerdy internet types), which I think is largely motivated by a misguided notion of hardheadedness and rationality.


    Also, the rise in the strange phenomenon (that I don't really know the reason for), kids going home at weekends or several times a term. Makes weekends a lot quieter on campuses.




    At Fen Poly we didn't have time to go home at weekends - 8 week terms and the worry you'd be missing out saw to that.

    It was much more common at the campus University I went to for my postgrad work (25 years ago), the hall I was a warden for was less busy at weekends. A lot more seemed to have pre-existing boy/girlfriends to go home for, and of course there was always the washing to do. Oxbridge students didn't have significant others from school days; they were too busy getting three As (in the days when that was a relatively difficult achievement)
    At The Other Place I frequently arrived 7-10 days before term started, and left a similar time after. Basically 6 weeks a year of debauchery with no work to spoil it. Ahhhhh...
    We had the same gig ... ah, the joys of Kings Bar out of Term.

    Although I did rather pity you DBS in the way your Easter Term had exams intruding on things. Ours ran as follows;

    Exams until the middle Tuesday in June
    May Bumps Wednesday to Saturday (obligatory BCD)
    Suicide Sunday
    May Week
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,780

    Is it really that surprising that the Tories have been endorsed by FT, The Economist, The Sun, and the Spectator? 3 out 4 of those are fairly centre-right publications anyway, particularly the Spectator, and the FT endorsed the Tories in 2010, too I think. Only the Guardian, the New Statesmen, and Mirrow (maybe the Indy and the I) will endorse Labour. I don't think newspaper endorsements matter much these in terms of influencing the public, like they once did.

    the FT is the main one. It was very pro- New labour, and very pro-europe..
  • William_HWilliam_H Posts: 346
    I really can't see the economist's support as a surprise, considering their general coverage of british politics over this parliament.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,509
    Schards said:

    SeanT said:

    AndyJS said:

    SeanT said:

    Anecdotage

    My niece's boyfriend (age 22) is a first time voter.

    She asked him which way he was voting, and he said

    "Well, I quite like the Conservatories"

    The problem with people aged 18-25 these days is they're too sensible. For example they hardly drink at all compared to older age-groups.
    This is absolutely true from my observation. A sober generation arises. Compared to my cohort they are saints.
    Could I ask some advice from the PB masses?

    My eldest son is 23 and left Uni a year ago, he's got a one year contract with an investment bank and they've offered to make it permanent. He's told me he's turning it down as the band he joined at uni are doing well, have been signed up with an agency and are getting so many gigs/tours he will be unlikely to hold the full time job much longer. If he takes full time he has to give 3 months notice.

    His band are good and there is definitely a buzz about them but how many pop musicians make a full time career? 1/1000?

    My gut feeling is I can't deny him following his dream but am worried he won't thank me later if it all peters out.

    So what would you do and what would you advise?

    If mods feel this isn't appropriate for this site, feel free to delete but the only other site I post regularly on (Reading FC) he does too.
    Worth a go at the band, he can always go back to banking and money is not everything. Better to go and enjoy himself rather than regret it.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    That survey of academics et al, wonder if it covered attitudes to profits from spin offs from University 'research'.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    ''Anecdotal - Not a single General Election poster up for Labour or UKIP in my VERY strong Labour/UKIP 2nd ward in NE Derbyshire. Driving through Rother Valley not a peep either. ''

    I have my own reasons for why that may be. But like the voters of the region, I'll keep them to myself.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621
    edited April 2015
    Tabman said:

    Anorak said:

    Tabman said:

    JEO said:

    SeanT said:

    AndyJS said:

    SeanT said:

    Anecdotage

    My niece's boyfriend (age 22) is a first time voter.

    She asked him which way he was voting, and he said

    "Well, I quite like the Conservatories"

    The problem with people aged 18-25 these days is they're too sensible. For example they hardly drink at all compared to older age-groups.
    This is absolutely true from my observation. A sober generation arises. Compared to my cohort they are saints.
    Is this a function of growing up in an age of austerity? Are the social mores of Islam spreading to non-Muslims through proximity and friendships?


    It's also probably partly a backlash against hippyism in the parents' and grandparents' generation. There's a really strong strain of very naive, extreme libertarianism (especially among the nerdy internet types), which I think is largely motivated by a misguided notion of hardheadedness and rationality.


    Also, the rise in the strange phenomenon (that I don't really know the reason for), kids going home at weekends or several times a term. Makes weekends a lot quieter on campuses.




    It was much more common at the campus University I went to for my postgrad work (25 years ago), the hall I was a warden for was less busy at weekends. A lot more seemed to have pre-existing boy/girlfriends to go home for, and of course there was always the washing to do. Oxbridge students didn't have significant others from school days; they were too busy getting three As (in the days when that was a relatively difficult achievement)
    At The Other Place I frequently arrived 7-10 days before term started, and left a similar time after. Basically 6 weeks a year of debauchery with no work to spoil it. Ahhhhh...
    We had the same gig ... ah, the joys of Kings Bar out of Term.

    Although I did rather pity you DBS in the way your Easter Term had exams intruding on things. Ours ran as follows;

    Exams until the middle Tuesday in June
    May Bumps Wednesday to Saturday (obligatory BCD)
    Suicide Sunday
    May Week
    I'm unfamiliar with Suicide Sunday. Sounds like a blast :mrgreen:
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415
    taffys said:

    ''Anecdotal - Not a single General Election poster up for Labour or UKIP in my VERY strong Labour/UKIP 2nd ward in NE Derbyshire. Driving through Rother Valley not a peep either. ''

    I have my own reasons for why that may be. But like the voters of the region, I'll keep them to myself.

    We'll see on polling day what the truth is !

    Remember UKIP got massively understated in H&M by Ashcroft. So I certainly wouldn't go putting the house on a naked Rother Valley Labour bet.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,509
    franklyn said:

    franklyn said:

    Do people on this site really believe that the SNP will produce a clean sweep in the 59 Scottish seats? would anyone like to have a charity bet (i.e they believe they will, I believe they won't). Loser to pay £50 to the charity of the winner's choice. Must be a UK wide charity (not a Scottish only or English only one) and not a religious charity.

    First person to accept publicly on PB is on (one bet only). My nominated charity (should I win) is the Cure Parkinsons Trust, which supports research done into Parkinsons disease. Anyone who wants to support the charity but not take the bet can go onto www.justgiving.com/Anna-Monk1

    Please accept this post in the sporting spirit in which it was intended, even if you have disagreed with previous posts that I have made, and please consider a donation to this worthy charity even if you don't want to bet.

    Most amusing...none of you cybernats are willing to back up all your shouting by risking your own money! You only want to spend money if it's someone else's, I presume
    What a pompous to%%er you are. Your pathetic attempt is not risk it ii just a guaranteed donation whilst you feel all smug and keep your own money in your pocket. How about the same bet but I take SNP to get at least 45 , anything above that you donate. Let us see how smug you are on that.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,830

    Is it really that surprising that the Tories have been endorsed by FT, The Economist, The Sun, and the Spectator? 3 out 4 of those are fairly centre-right publications anyway, particularly the Spectator, and the FT endorsed the Tories in 2010, too I think. Only the Guardian, the New Statesmen, and The Mirror (maybe the Indy and the I) will endorse Labour. I don't think newspaper endorsements matter much these in terms of influencing the public, like they once did.

    the FT is the main one. It was very pro- New labour, and very pro-europe..
    Given Cameron's ideology is not far off Blairism, I'm not too surprised by that. But I don't really see the FT's endorsement as surprise, or that significant tbh - they were never going to support Miliband.
  • TabmanTabman Posts: 1,046
    Anorak said:

    Tabman said:

    Anorak said:

    Tabman said:

    JEO said:

    SeanT said:

    AndyJS said:

    SeanT said:

    Anecdotage

    My niece's boyfriend (age 22) is a first time voter.

    She asked him which way he was voting, and he said

    "Well, I quite like the Conservatories"

    The problem with people aged 18-25 these days is they're too sensible. For example they hardly drink at all compared to older age-groups.
    This is absolutely true from my observation. A sober generation arises. Compared to my cohort they are saints.
    Is this a function of growing up in an age of austerity? Are the social mores of Islam spreading to non-Muslims through proximity and friendships?


    It's also probably partly a backlash against hippyism in the parents' and grandparents' generation. There's a really strong strain of very naive, extreme libertarianism (especially among the nerdy internet types), which I think is largely motivated by a misguided notion of hardheadedness and rationality.


    Also, the rise in the strange phenomenon (that I don't really know the reason for), kids going home at weekends or several times a term. Makes weekends a lot quieter on campuses.




    It was much more common at the campus University I went to for my postgrad work (25 years ago), the hall I was a warden for was less busy at weekends. A lot more seemed to have pre-existing boy/girlfriends to go home for, and of course there was always the washing to do. Oxbridge students didn't have significant others from school days; they were too busy getting three As (in the days when that was a relatively difficult achievement)
    At The Other Place I frequently arrived 7-10 days before term started, and left a similar time after. Basically 6 weeks a year of debauchery with no work to spoil it. Ahhhhh...
    We had the same gig ... ah, the joys of Kings Bar out of Term.

    Although I did rather pity you DBS in the way your Easter Term had exams intruding on things. Ours ran as follows;

    Exams until the middle Tuesday in June
    May Bumps Wednesday to Saturday (obligatory BCD)
    Suicide Sunday
    May Week
    I'm unfamiliar with Suicide Sunday. Sounds like a blast :mrgreen:
    "If you can remember it, you weren't there ;)"
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976

    Is it really that surprising that the Tories have been endorsed by FT, The Economist, The Sun, and the Spectator? 3 out 4 of those are fairly centre-right publications anyway, particularly the Spectator, and the FT endorsed the Tories in 2010, too I think. Only the Guardian, the New Statesmen, and Mirrow (maybe the Indy and the I) will endorse Labour. I don't think newspaper endorsements matter much these in terms of influencing the public, like they once did.

    the FT is the main one. It was very pro- New labour, and very pro-europe..
    Don't know much about former, but it was certainly the FT's very pro EU stance over the past few years that made me question who'd they eventually end up supporting.
  • BannedInParisBannedInParis Posts: 2,191
    Tabman said:

    Sean_F said:

    Startling findings from the TES. No shock that academics are lefties but the scale is mind-boggling:

    https://twitter.com/timeshighered/status/593698286546092032

    In no discipline does left wing support fall below 60%.
    Is this really that surprising?

    (i) don't bite the hand that feeds you
    (ii) right wing types don't go into research; they go off to earn the corporate dollar

    Looks in mirror. Looks at bank balance. Sighs.
  • Is it really that surprising that the Tories have been endorsed by FT, The Economist, The Sun, and the Spectator? 3 out 4 of those are fairly centre-right publications anyway, particularly the Spectator, and the FT endorsed the Tories in 2010, too I think. Only the Guardian, the New Statesmen, and The Mirror (maybe the Indy and the I) will endorse Labour. I don't think newspaper endorsements matter much these in terms of influencing the public, like they once did.

    the FT is the main one. It was very pro- New labour, and very pro-europe..
    Given Cameron's ideology is not far off Blairism, I'm not too surprised by that. But I don't really see the FT's endorsement as surprise, or that significant tbh - they were never going to support Miliband.
    They supported Kinnock over Major though.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,509
    Carnyx said:

    Pulpstar said:

    franklyn said:

    franklyn said:

    Do people on this site really believe that the SNP will produce a clean sweep in the 59 Scottish seats? would anyone like to have a charity bet (i.e they believe they will, I believe they won't). Loser to pay £50 to the charity of the winner's choice. Must be a UK wide charity (not a Scottish only or English only one) and not a religious charity.

    First person to accept publicly on PB is on (one bet only). My nominated charity (should I win) is the Cure Parkinsons Trust, which supports research done into Parkinsons disease. Anyone who wants to support the charity but not take the bet can go onto www.justgiving.com/Anna-Monk1

    Please accept this post in the sporting spirit in which it was intended, even if you have disagreed with previous posts that I have made, and please consider a donation to this worthy charity even if you don't want to bet.

    Most amusing...none of you cybernats are willing to back up all your shouting by risking your own money! You only want to spend money if it's someone else's, I presume
    Sorry but why would anyone take this bet when the SNP are still 9-2 in Orkney and Shetland ?
    Indeed. In the runup for the indyref one of the unionist posters managed to get a similar bet with one of the pro-indy folk but then crowed about being able to offset his bet with the better odds available at a betting company for the same thing.

    Yes Mr Shouty , only way he took the bet otherwise he would have pee**d his pants.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    edited April 2015

    Yes, this is because everyone sort of pretends that the Queen can choose whoever she wants to be Prime Minister. Thus a PM is appointed by the Sovereign and not by a vote in Parliament. If she reads PB and was impressed by your posts, you too could be appointed PM and gain all that royal prerogative power.

    However, in practice, Monarchs have learnt that appointing a PM who does not have the confidence of Parliament makes them very unpopular, very quickly, and so now they insist that the resigning PM tells them who to appoint - or (before the FTPA) to hold an election if there is no suitable candidate.

    In the event that Miliband does not have a formal agreement of support from the SNP & others the situation is really messy, as he'll only be able to demonstrate that he has the votes by holding a vote in the Commons. This is different to 2010, because the Coalition Agreement between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats meant that everyone could see that Cameron had the votes. I'm not sure that an informal arrangement has the same credibility.

    Therefore, I think that Cameron would be doing Her Majesty a favour if he sat tight in Number Ten if the Tories have more seats than Labour, and forces Miliband to prove that Cameron no longer has the confidence of the House by voting with the SNP against him. This also has the advantage of starting the 14-day countdown in the FTPA, forcing PM Miliband to win his own confidence motion in that time frame.

    Otherwise you could have HMQ appointing Miliband as PM only for him to lose his first vote in the House if the SNP throw a strop, and with 14 days to wait before Parliament can be dissolved for another election. It wouldn't look good for Lizzie to have appointed the leader of the second-largest party and for him not to have the confidence of the House anyway.

    The outgoing PM is under no duty to recommend to the Queen his successor. In fact they usually only do so when there is no possibility of them being wrong, e.g. fait accompli situations like Wilson-Callaghan 1976, or a majority election result.

    In 1924, the scenario most close to the one envisaged today, Baldwin specifically did not advise George V, and the Labour party, with less than a third of the seats in Parliament had publicly said they would go it alone.

    'The National Executive Committee resolved on 12 December 1923 that the “Parliamentary Party should at once accept full responsibility for the Government of the country without compromising itself with any form of coalition”': The Times: 14 December 1923.

    When Baldwin lost an amendment against the Address the following month, the King sent for MacDonald, even though everyone knew his government would probably not last long.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,045

    Tabman said:

    Sean_F said:

    Startling findings from the TES. No shock that academics are lefties but the scale is mind-boggling:

    https://twitter.com/timeshighered/status/593698286546092032

    In no discipline does left wing support fall below 60%.
    Is this really that surprising?

    (i) don't bite the hand that feeds you
    (ii) right wing types don't go into research; they go off to earn the corporate dollar

    Looks in mirror. Looks at bank balance. Sighs.
    I feel you....
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @PickardJE: Focus group: Miliband is “berk” “geek” “weak” “puppet” & worse than brother. “Imagine him going into crisis talks?!" http://t.co/8uEwTGmDH1
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,952

    ***** BETTING POST *****

    My penultimate GE Bet of the Week seeks to achieve the near impossible, by identifying a market which might just about appeal to both Bob Sykes as well as JackW (if not quite Mike Smithson also).
    I give you, ta - dah ..... drum roll, Wm. Hills' Conservative 276 - 300 seat band which they have on offer at 2.1 decimal, or 11/10 in old money. This equates to a probability of 47.6%, whereas I make it at least a 60%, shot particularly in the light of those improving polls for the Blues.
    Sidney, their political guru, would only allow me to stake £45 to win £50, but those nice people at Bet365 are offering similar odds of 2.05.
    DYOR.

    Tory MPs have an end-of-term sweep-stake on how many seats they will get at the election. I shall spare his blushes, but the same MP has won this the last two elections.

    His bet this time? 294...
  • PolruanPolruan Posts: 2,083

    Is it really that surprising that the Tories have been endorsed by FT, The Economist, The Sun, and the Spectator? 3 out 4 of those are fairly centre-right publications anyway, particularly the Spectator, and the FT endorsed the Tories in 2010, too I think. Only the Guardian, the New Statesmen, and Mirrow (maybe the Indy and the I) will endorse Labour. I don't think newspaper endorsements matter much these in terms of influencing the public, like they once did.

    Actually, the FT has been pretty critical of the Tories throughout the last couple of weeks' editorials, and made some noises in favour of more interventionist economic policies as espoused by Ed (compulsory purchase and land value taxation in particular). So that one wasn't a slam-dunk - never going to be pro-Labour, but could have been more neutral.
  • KentRisingKentRising Posts: 2,917
    edited April 2015
    File this under 'Questions to which the answer is no"?

    "Has the Tory crossover in the polls finally arrived?"
    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/sebastian-payne/2015/04/has-the-tory-crossover-in-the-polls-finally-arrived/
  • noisywinternoisywinter Posts: 249
    Apparently the title of PM doesnt really exist

    http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/prime-minister/
  • Flightpath1Flightpath1 Posts: 207

    Apparently the title of PM doesnt really exist

    http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/prime-minister/

    Neither does OGH but he runs the website...
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,533
    edited April 2015
    Scott_P said:

    @PickardJE: Focus group: Miliband is “berk” “geek” “weak” “puppet” & worse than brother. “Imagine him going into crisis talks?!" http://t.co/8uEwTGmDH1

    Shall we put you guys down as a maybe then....hell yeah...at least I tried...
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    RodCrosby said:

    Yes, this is because everyone sort of pretends that the Queen can choose whoever she wants to be Prime Minister. Thus a PM is appointed by the Sovereign and not by a vote in Parliament. If she reads PB and was impressed by your posts, you too could be appointed PM and gain all that royal prerogative power.

    However, in practice, Monarchs have learnt that appointing a PM who does not have the confidence of Parliament makes them very unpopular, very quickly, and so now they insist that the resigning PM tells them who to appoint - or (before the FTPA) to hold an election if there is no suitable candidate.

    In the event that Miliband does not have a formal agreement of support from the SNP & others the situation is really messy, as he'll only be able to demonstrate that he has the votes by holding a vote in the Commons. This is different to 2010, because the Coalition Agreement between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats meant that everyone could see that Cameron had the votes. I'm not sure that an informal arrangement has the same credibility.

    Therefore, I think that Cameron would be doing Her Majesty a favour if he sat tight in Number Ten if the Tories have more seats than Labour, and forces Miliband to prove that Cameron no longer has the confidence of the House by voting with the SNP against him. This also has the advantage of starting the 14-day countdown in the FTPA, forcing PM Miliband to win his own confidence motion in that time frame.

    Otherwise you could have HMQ appointing Miliband as PM only for him to lose his first vote in the House if the SNP throw a strop, and with 14 days to wait before Parliament can be dissolved for another election. It wouldn't look good for Lizzie to have appointed the leader of the second-largest party and for him not to have the confidence of the House anyway.

    The outgoing PM is under no duty to recommend to the Queen his successor. In fact they usually only do so when there is no possibility of them being wrong, e.g. fait accompli situations like Wilson-Callaghan 1976, or a majority election result.

    In 1924, the scenario most close to the one envisaged today, Baldwin specifically did not advise George V, and the Labour party, with less than a third of the seats in Parliament had publicly said they would go it alone.

    'The National Executive Committee resolved on 12 December 1923 that the “Parliamentary Party should at once accept full responsibility for the Government of the country without compromising itself with any form of coalition”': The Times: 14 December 1923.

    When Baldwin lost an amendment against the Address the following month, the King sent for MacDonald, even though everyone knew his government would probably not last long.
    Times have changed since 1924.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,415

    Apparently the title of PM doesnt really exist

    http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/prime-minister/

    Did you manage to get out of the Lab seats market with your shirt intact ^^; Or still in ?
  • MillsyMillsy Posts: 900

    File this under 'Questions to which the answer is no"?

    "Has the Tory crossover in the polls finally arrived?"
    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/sebastian-payne/2015/04/has-the-tory-crossover-in-the-polls-finally-arrived/

    If you have faith in the phone polls then "yes"
  • peter_from_putneypeter_from_putney Posts: 6,956
    edited April 2015
    William_H said:

    I really can't see the economist's support as a surprise, considering their general coverage of british politics over this parliament.

    When, if ever, did the Economist not support or at least tacitly endorse the Tories? I would guess that 1997 must have been a close call for them.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453


    Shall we put you guys down as a maybe then....hell yeah...at least I tried...

    @jameschappers: .@FT focus group: 'A clip of Miliband being interviewed by Russell Brand did not go down well... [one] watched with hands over her face'
  • RazedabodeRazedabode Posts: 3,033

    Apparently the title of PM doesnt really exist

    http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/prime-minister/

    Neither does OGH but he runs the website...
    Ah, that reminds me, can someone tell me what "OGH" stands for? Its been bugging me!
  • noisywinternoisywinter Posts: 249
    Pulpstar said:

    Apparently the title of PM doesnt really exist

    http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/prime-minister/

    Did you manage to get out of the Lab seats market with your shirt intact ^^; Or still in ?
    Shirt well and truly destroyed! About 3.3k down on Tories most seats.

    Still I estimate the difference in my equities portfolio value should pretty much compensate if we have a Tory government...
  • Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    isam said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I have got a little q and a in an upcoming racing post for anyone interested, just 5 questions on the election, think a few other bookies will be taking part too. My best of the election was UKIP over 100 2nd places at 2/1 with Paddies but seems they have completely taken down the market now.

    Farage at Evens has to be the best bet out there at the moment :D
    Coral Ukip over 2.5 at 5/6
    You'd be shocked at the figure we found for UKIP 2nd places, a few of us got on last night but they were pretty quick suspending to be fair. I noticed the market a few weeks ago but didnt really do much research into it, i had a hunch but my far superior colleague looked into it further, i cant say much as we will be doing it for spreads but if you've back it already, well done.

    Near me UKIP 2nds I'd expect:

    Sheffield Hilsborough & Brightside
    Rother Valley
    Rotherham
    Sheffield Heeley

    Others too...
    Yes, its quite interesting looking at the vastly different areas UKIP are appealing too.
    I would have Rotherham and Rother Valley as surprise UKIP wins: I know Labour has been working Rotherham hard but there will be a good number of people telling them they will vote Labour to their face and then will vote UKIP. What happened there is one of those events that people will just not look beyond.
    Rother Valley would be nice to come in but I think a decent second is more likely.

    Backed UKIP at 8s here and Labour at 1-6.

    In trouble if the Blues get 450 seats ;)
    Good luck Pulpstar!
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,533
    edited April 2015
    Scott_P said:


    Shall we put you guys down as a maybe then....hell yeah...at least I tried...

    @jameschappers: .@FT focus group: 'A clip of Miliband being interviewed by Russell Brand did not go down well... [one] watched with hands over her face'
    What do you mean...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggA0vSzwRYo
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    edited April 2015

    Apparently the title of PM doesnt really exist

    http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/prime-minister/

    Neither does OGH but he runs the website...
    Ah, that reminds me, can someone tell me what "OGH" stands for? Its been bugging me!
    Our Genial Host, a phrase coined many years ago by I believe 'innocent abroad' of this parish.

    [edit] OGH is Mike Smithson.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737

    Times have changed since 1924.

    Indeed, but Constitutional principles and practice have not.
  • William_HWilliam_H Posts: 346

    William_H said:

    I really can't see the economist's support as a surprise, considering their general coverage of british politics over this parliament.

    When, if ever, did the Economist not support or at least tacitly endorse the Tories? I would guess that 1997 must have been a close call for them.
    1964, 2001 and 2005 are the occasions they've backed Labour
  • Blue_rogBlue_rog Posts: 2,019
    Test :-) :mrgreen:
  • Blue_rogBlue_rog Posts: 2,019
    Blue_rog said:

    Test :-) :mrgreen:

    OK how do you get the traditional smilie?

    :grin:

  • Blue_rogBlue_rog Posts: 2,019
    Blue_rog said:

    Blue_rog said:

    Test :-) :mrgreen:

    OK how do you get the traditional smilie?

    :grin:

    :shok:
  • Pulpstar said:

    Apparently the title of PM doesnt really exist

    http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/prime-minister/

    Did you manage to get out of the Lab seats market with your shirt intact ^^; Or still in ?
    Shirt well and truly destroyed! About 3.3k down on Tories most seats.

    Still I estimate the difference in my equities portfolio value should pretty much compensate if we have a Tory government...
    I wouldn't bet on it ....LOL! Expect to see the market down 5% - 10% if Labour wins well, at least that much if there is a real mess of a result. And a mild 2% - 4% down in relief should the Tories win well enough +/- the LibDems in coalition.
    In any event I expect the FTSE to be appreciably lower by the year end than it is currently, but good luck anyway.
  • Apologies, second post-holiday thoughts on a slightly dated topic.

    I know Dave has been getting some stick on his campaign but I actually thought it is going according to plan. Essentially, he is playing a variation of Blair's 1997 campaign: encourage your own supporters to get out (by talking up the threat of what Miliband would do) while not giving Labour voters anything that would motivate to come out en masse (one thing that gets missed about Blair is that his biggest success in 1997 was persuading Conservatives that he was safe enough that it was safe not to vote). Thus, talk up the threat of Miliband but give enough carrots to lower-and middle-income potential Labour voters where they think "oh, it is not too bad if Cameron does get re-elected". You do not need to be inspiring; you just need to motivate your own side and de-motivate the others.

    He has undoubtedly got lucky with the SNP issue but, as they say, you make your own luck.

    However - and this is where karma has well and truly kicked in - the big problem for Labour is not so much the SNP threat per se, but the public perception that someone who knifes his brother for the Labour leadership cannot be trusted when it comes to doing what it takes to become PM. If that perception was not so strong, the SNP issue would not be a problem - as others have said, Ed could merely dare the SNP to vote against him. But, because people see him as a combination of weak AND untrustworthy, he is in trouble.

This discussion has been closed.