Regarding Bercow, a Speaker is supposed to have the support of the whole house. A speaker that only has the support of one side of the house should resign and if Bercow had any self respect or respect for his own office he'd realise that was lost and resign.
Otherwise if it's acceptable to have a Speaker that only one side respects what is to prevent every majority government installing a ridiculously biased pro-government speaker and keeping them there on 51% of the vote?
Some say that Bercow is more popular with Conservative backbenchers than its frontbenchers would have you believe.
The proxy confidence vote in him got nearly 50%. If it had been the opposition 45% trying to remove him then I think most would say he's failed to command confidence in the whole house. It's very dangerous to have a Speaker that a very significant proportion don't have confidence in. There's a reason a Speaker is supposed to be neutral and be seen to be neutral, in many countries the Speaker is a partisan pro government member and Bercow staying without the confidence of the whole House leads us down a slope for that being the future.
I'm no great fan of Bercow's but he would be the second successive speaker to have been ousted, which is not necessarily a good thing, and is surely more likely to lead to a pro-government speaker.
Or it'd make the next Speaker be more likely to try and be an impartial chair respected by both sides of the House and not be the news himself.
Sorry but the speaker is supposed to stand up to the government in the name of parliament. If we have a government that can't accept that then it's the government that's the problem not the speaker. Isn't it funny that out of all the people who follow parliament closely only tribal Tories seem to dislike him as a speaker.
No, the Opposition are supposed to stand up to the government. The Speaker is supposed to be neutral.
We have a very good Speaker. If he is removed by the majority party which has a 12 seat majority - then that is fine.
It will set a precedent !
The fact you think he's a very good speaker rather than a neutral one kind of proves the point.
Sandpit Complete crap, Labour has its base of ethnic minority and public sector workers which would only increase under an Umunna leadership, post a close EU referendum it is the Tories who will worry about losing voters to UKIP. But as I said the white working class is in relative decline, there is no future in being UKIP lite for Labour, they will not beat the real thing, to win they have to win back the educated, relatively prosperous suburban middle class who backed Blair and Obama in the US
Die Grune have been a regular presence in German governments over the years but it hasn't harmed the economy. Having a strong Green presence tends towards smart government. They aren't morons much as they are portrayed as such in the UK.
The best thing about coalition PR governments is they form a consensus as opposed to adversarial system. The core problem with UK politics is that Labour and the Tories despise each other and make up ever more ridiculous reasons why certain policies of the other side are ridiculous (which rub off on society).
Consensus politics results in less change, less swing, a more stable system and a lot of different voices being found in government. It's by far the best system and FTPT has failed on every measure except ONE - it keeps the Tories and Labour in power no matter how damaging that is to the UK.
Perhaps you would care to reflect on the Italian experience post WW2 and perhaps that of Israel. PR is not of itself a guarantor of anything good in the governement line.
No, I do understand, there are splintering problems with PR and pure PR gets worse as it lowers the threshold (which weirdly Israel keep's doing and I can't work out why unless its coalition requirements to avoid future wipe outs - and if so the LDs should have paid attention).
I understand that a government is a reasonable idea and I also understand it should reflect the votes cast. AMS really does do this. You CAN get a majority but only if you approach 50%. IN reality, when you exclude votes below the cut off on the List you pretty much get over 50% for a Majority every time.
It also reflects any reasonably widespread opinion and encourages votes for what you believe in. It is not perfect but it works pretty well in Scotland, Germany, New Zealand (I'm sure elsewhere but those are the ones I know well).
FPTP works terribly. It allows 37% Vote Share to impose a tyranny. It ignores alternative views. It is a broken, outdated, failed system which destroys the idea of a democratic vote. You vote AGAINST something. Not for something.
I think it's a tad presumptous to assume that because he's very londony he'll get elected - Miliband fitted that profile too, and didn't win over the parliamentary party (who voted for David) or Labour members (who I think also voted for David). I think Cooper probably has more of a chance than Umunna, tbh.
One thing that puzzles me is that none of the parties seemed to expect the exit poll result at 10pm on polling day. Wouldn't they usually have information by then re. what had happened during the previous 15 hours of polling? I thought that was what the tellers outside polling stations are doing.
SeanF Chameleon Wrong on both counts, there are more middle class ABC1 voters in the country now than working class C2DEs and ABC1s make up an even higher percentage of those who vote. Obama did quite well with middle class white suburban voters in the US and extremely well with urban and ethnic voters, he did not do so well with the white working class relatively speaking, but who cares, he still won 2 elections
Regarding Bercow, a Speaker is supposed to have the support of the whole house. A speaker that only has the support of one side of the house should resign and if Bercow had any self respect or respect for his own office he'd realise that was lost and resign.
Otherwise if it's acceptable to have a Speaker that only one side respects what is to prevent every majority government installing a ridiculously biased pro-government speaker and keeping them there on 51% of the vote?
Some say that Bercow is more popular with Conservative backbenchers than its frontbenchers would have you believe.
The proxy confidence vote in him got nearly 50%. If it had been the opposition 45% trying to remove him then I think most would say he's failed to command confidence in the whole house. It's very dangerous to have a Speaker that a very significant proportion don't have confidence in. There's a reason a Speaker is supposed to be neutral and be seen to be neutral, in many countries the Speaker is a partisan pro government member and Bercow staying without the confidence of the whole House leads us down a slope for that being the future.
I'm no great fan of Bercow's but he would be the second successive speaker to have been ousted, which is not necessarily a good thing, and is surely more likely to lead to a pro-government speaker.
Or it'd make the next Speaker be more likely to try and be an impartial chair respected by both sides of the House and not be the news himself.
Sorry but the speaker is supposed to stand up to the government in the name of parliament. If we have a government that can't accept that then it's the government that's the problem not the speaker. Isn't it funny that out of all the people who follow parliament closely only tribal Tories seem to dislike him as a speaker.
No, the Opposition are supposed to stand up to the government. The Speaker is supposed to be neutral.
We have a very good Speaker. If he is removed by the majority party which has a 12 seat majority - then that is fine.
It will set a precedent !
The fact you think he's a very good speaker rather than a neutral one kind of proves the point.
A good speaker by definition is a neutral speaker.
I think it's a tad presumptous to assume that because he's very londony he'll get elected - Miliband fitted that profile too, and didn't win over the parliamentary party (who voted for David) or Labour members (who I think also voted for David). I think Cooper probably has more of a chance than Umunna, tbh.
Who do the Unions want to annoint as leader? Surely this is the question.
One thing that puzzles me is that none of the parties seemed to expect the exit poll result at 10pm on polling day. Wouldn't they usually have information by then re. what had happened during the previous 15 hours of polling? I thought that was what the tellers outside polling stations are doing.
There was a tweet that people inside CCHQ were predicting Con 306 (IIRC).
One thing that puzzles me is that none of the parties seemed to expect the exit poll result at 10pm on polling day. Wouldn't they usually have information by then re. what had happened during the previous 15 hours of polling? I thought that was what the tellers outside polling stations are doing.
No tellers outside my station in Ilford North round about 7pm - they seemed to be out and about GOTV'ing in neighbouring streets!
One thing that puzzles me is that none of the parties seemed to expect the exit poll result at 10pm on polling day. Wouldn't they usually have information by then re. what had happened during the previous 15 hours of polling? I thought that was what the tellers outside polling stations are doing.
I thought tellers just noted who voted, so that the active voters can be canvassed next time. I think any feeling of voting intention is impressions rather than systemic.
ISAM Blue Labour will not win Labour seats like Finchley or Worcester or Brighton Kemptown which are the key marginals they now need to win after Thursday
This is the English boundary commission; there are similar ones for Wales, Scotland and NI.
On current legislation it will be working off the electoral registers as at December 2015 (ie independent registration in full) with a final report in 2018.
And it's one of the reasons why there won't be quite so many Tory dissidents as some people are predicting....EU referendum first, selection committees afterwards!
I think it's a tad presumptous to assume that because he's very londony he'll get elected - Miliband fitted that profile too, and didn't win over the parliamentary party (who voted for David) or Labour members (who I think also voted for David). I think Cooper probably has more of a chance than Umunna, tbh.
Who do the Unions want to annoint as leader? Surely this is the question.
Union influence has been minimised with one member one vote, but I thought it'd still be there to a degree (which was why I posted my suspicions the unions wouldn't be so keen on Umunna). And for all the talk of Labour membership being in London = Umunna, it doesn't mean those members won't understand the need to appeal outside of London after this electoral defeat.
Sandpit Complete crap, Labour has its base of ethnic minority and public sector workers which would only increase under an Umunna leadership, post a close EU referendum it is the Tories who will worry about losing voters to UKIP. But as I said the white working class is in relative decline, there is no future in being UKIP lite for Labour, they will not beat the real thing, to win they have to win back the educated, relatively prosperous suburban middle class who backed Blair and Obama in the US
I don't think Labour would win one single extra vote from Ethnic Minorities if Umunna was the leader. A few Liberals , who still voted Liberal, might come over. But that's about it.
We need a leader from Middle Britain. Why can't we have another Harold Wilson ? Much criticised while leader even by members of the Labour party, yet won 4 elections.
One thing that puzzles me is that none of the parties seemed to expect the exit poll result at 10pm on polling day. Wouldn't they usually have information by then re. what had happened during the previous 15 hours of polling? I thought that was what the tellers outside polling stations are doing.
Messina was predicting over 300 on the morning and 315 by mid afternoon . But was kept to the inner circle.
Something for the people demonstrating in Whitehall to consider:
In Great Britain the combined Conservative and UKIP share was 50.66%, 15,188,670 votes out of a total of 29,980,107.
One thing that hasn't been discussed much in the media is that turnout only increased by 1%. It looks like a lot of potential Labour voters didn't bother to vote.
Given the changes to registration, as well as the increase north of the border, a 1% increase probably masks a real decrease. Does anyone have the raw figures yet?
Which raw figures are you talking about? The total electorate this time was 46,425,386:
Suggestion for this site: how about a regular page saying which political betting markets have the most liquidity and the biggest amounts staked at a given time? Maybe the top 10? It makes sense on a betting site for people to be encouraged to discuss those markets most.
I say this full of bitter regret that I didn't put a lot more on a Tory majority on Thursday, and eager to put more money where my mouth and brain are next time.
I regret not using my knowledge and the PB information often enough. Last week I could easily have turned £5000 into £10000 with even-money bets on safe Tory marginals but I wasn't "professional" enough to put in the minimal effort required. Still, I did make a few quid, especially from betting on things like Con most seats and Cameron PM. EICIPM was never going to happen, was it.
Isam There is nothing racist about it, but as well as being of mixed race who would be the first non-white president/PMs of their countries, they are also metropolitan lawyers. In 2008 Hillary and McCain supporters both made exactly the same arguments against Obama that he was too liberal, too elitist and too metropolitan etc he still won regardless
In England the Con + UKIP figure was 55%. Still 51% with Scotland and Wales as I said earlier.
People keep repeating this to give the 37% Government some legitimacy. I don't think it is remotely true. Kippers took as many (if not more) from Labour as from Tory and I don't think there were any significant number of Kippers voting for UKIP to get continued Austerity.
It's a completely bogus argument.
The problem is left-wingers kept saying the Thatcher government wasn't legitimate because you could add together the Labour and Alliance shares to get more than 50%. The "progressive majority" as it was called.
Even more funny given that people like Dair were saying UKIP were a right wing party before the election and now that they don't like the percentages they are trying to claim they are not right wing after all.
HYUFD, White voters are 88% of the total. 70% of those are working class, making 62% of voters White working class. This section of the electorate is essential for victory.
Isam There is nothing racist about it, but as well as being of mixed race who would be the first non-white president/PMs of their countries, they are also metropolitan lawyers. In 2008 Hillary and McCain supporters both made exactly the same arguments against Obama that he was too liberal, too elitist and too metropolitan etc he still won regardless
A politician who is a lawyer. Wow that's never happened before what an amazing coincidence.
ISAM Blue Labour will not win Labour seats like Finchley or Worcester or Brighton Kemptown which are the key marginals they now need to win after Thursday
Well neither is the current version of labour!
But it would stop them losing seats like Morley and outwood, Thurrock, s Thanet etc
Carshalton & Wallington looks very very lonely there.
I think the reason the LDs held it is probably because white-working class voters on the St Helier estate defected from the LDs to UKIP rather than the Tories. That's the most likely explanation.
Suggestion for this site: how about a regular page saying which political betting markets have the most liquidity and the biggest amounts staked at a given time? Maybe the top 10? It makes sense on a betting site for people to be encouraged to discuss those markets most.
I say this full of bitter regret that I didn't put a lot more on a Tory majority on Thursday, and eager to put more money where my mouth and brain are next time.
I regret not using my knowledge and the PB information often enough. Last week I could easily have turned £5000 into £10000 with even-money bets on safe Tory marginals but I wasn't "professional" enough to put in the minimal effort required. Still, I did make a few quid, especially from betting on things like Con most seats and Cameron PM. EICIPM was never going to happen, was it.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, we could have all put more on our winners and less on our losers. It's what we did that matters
One thing that puzzles me is that none of the parties seemed to expect the exit poll result at 10pm on polling day. Wouldn't they usually have information by then re. what had happened during the previous 15 hours of polling? I thought that was what the tellers outside polling stations are doing.
No one did, whatever they say now. In 1992, some change was detected late.
Remember, there was still a small swing to Labour in England & Wales [ 0.9% ]. However, it was very regionalised and in Middle Britain, it went against Labour.
The coin dropped on the Tory side in very close results. The actual swings would give about 320. So the Tory "luck" factor was about 12. Probably happens in every election.
Surbiton Umunna would certainly get out black Britons and other ethnic voters too excited at the prospect of the UK's first ethnic minority PM. Wilson won at a time when the majority of the electorate was white working class, the majority of the electorate is now middle class and with a rising ethnic population, Umunna is more suited to the times. Wilson was a good leader for his time, and someone like Alan Johnson would have been far better for Labour in 2010 than Miliband, but Umunna could build a new coalition as Obama did
Regarding Bercow, a Speaker is supposed to have the support of the whole house. A speaker that only has the support of one side of the house should resign and if Bercow had any self respect or respect for his own office he'd realise that was lost and resign.
Otherwise if it's acceptable to have a Speaker that only one side respects what is to prevent every majority government installing a ridiculously biased pro-government speaker and keeping them there on 51% of the vote?
Some say that Bercow is more popular with Conservative backbenchers than its frontbenchers would have you believe.
The rent failed attempt to ambush Parliament to set up a Bercow defeat would seem to confirm that.
One thing that puzzles me is that none of the parties seemed to expect the exit poll result at 10pm on polling day. Wouldn't they usually have information by then re. what had happened during the previous 15 hours of polling? I thought that was what the tellers outside polling stations are doing.
Messina was predicting over 300 on the morning and 315 by mid afternoon . But was kept to the inner circle.
The Mail has a story about Ed writing a victory speech at 10pm as the exit poll came out, and then shouting at the TV screen. But I don't really believe he hadn't received any information by then about what was going to happen.
No, I do understand, there are splintering problems with PR and pure PR gets worse as it lowers the threshold (which weirdly Israel keep's doing and I can't work out why unless its coalition requirements to avoid future wipe outs - and if so the LDs should have paid attention).
I understand that a government is a reasonable idea and I also understand it should reflect the votes cast. AMS really does do this. You CAN get a majority but only if you approach 50%. IN reality, when you exclude votes below the cut off on the List you pretty much get over 50% for a Majority every time.
It also reflects any reasonably widespread opinion and encourages votes for what you believe in. It is not perfect but it works pretty well in Scotland, Germany, New Zealand (I'm sure elsewhere but those are the ones I know well).
FPTP works terribly. It allows 37% Vote Share to impose a tyranny. It ignores alternative views. It is a broken, outdated, failed system which destroys the idea of a democratic vote. You vote AGAINST something. Not for something.
All good points but in Italy there was consensus and stability in as much as the same people and parties stayed in power for a long time. It led to corruption on a massive scale and piss poor governance. Israel shows in sharp relief the problem of coalition governments made up of many parties where the power is actually wielded by people representing very small sections of the electorate. A coalition that on paper may have a collective 50+% electoral support but the policies that are enacted most probably will not.
Don't get me wrong, I am not a particular fan of FPTP. I just point out that PR and coalitions are not in themselves guarantor's of either good government or policies that can command the support of the majority of the electorate (leaving aside for the moment the fact that the two things are often mutually exclusive anyway).
Isam There is nothing racist about it, but as well as being of mixed race who would be the first non-white president/PMs of their countries, they are also metropolitan lawyers. In 2008 Hillary and McCain supporters both made exactly the same arguments against Obama that he was too liberal, too elitist and too metropolitan etc he still won regardless
A politician who is a lawyer. Wow that's never happened before what an amazing coincidence.
I can't think what prompted his 'office' to make the comparison on Wikipedia then.
Isam There is nothing racist about it, but as well as being of mixed race who would be the first non-white president/PMs of their countries, they are also metropolitan lawyers. In 2008 Hillary and McCain supporters both made exactly the same arguments against Obama that he was too liberal, too elitist and too metropolitan etc he still won regardless
Oh right that's why he is known as the British Obama... They're both lawyers
Patrick O'Flynn (@oflynnmep) 09/05/2015 22:48 Rioting Lefties - remember Ukip explicitly endorsed Treasury deficit reduction schedule. So on that front you can add our 13% to their 37%.
It is none of our business who Mrs Bercow is screwing. These stories in a newspaper just bring closer a privacy bill. Also, the sympathy he gets may make it more difficult to oust John Bercow.
Could it make her a blackmail target perhaps? Maybe? Or not?.
ISAM Thanet S is gone for Labour now, they are 15% behind the Tories and behind UKIP too, and they do not need to win it for a small majority now anyway. Seats like Worcester, Tory lead 11%, Brighton Kemptown, Tory lead 1.5%, however are seats Labour does need to target
Isam There is nothing racist about it, but as well as being of mixed race who would be the first non-white president/PMs of their countries, they are also metropolitan lawyers. In 2008 Hillary and McCain supporters both made exactly the same arguments against Obama that he was too liberal, too elitist and too metropolitan etc he still won regardless
Oh right that's why he is known as the British Obama... They're both lawyers
Don't forget that Obama is a serious liar - he was named 'Liar of the Year' by the Washington Post. Does this guy tell porkies on TV too?
One thing that puzzles me is that none of the parties seemed to expect the exit poll result at 10pm on polling day. Wouldn't they usually have information by then re. what had happened during the previous 15 hours of polling? I thought that was what the tellers outside polling stations are doing.
Messina was predicting over 300 on the morning and 315 by mid afternoon . But was kept to the inner circle.
Tellers are not allowed to ask how the elector voted, only the polling card number. Parties will have an idea who supports them and if a probable supporter hasn't been checked off the party can call him/her to remind them to vote.
PT There is rather a difference between a mixed race urban lawyer who practised in New York Chicago or London as Obama and Umunna did or a lawyer who practises in the provinces
Dair At Holyrood it will be SNP v Tory v Labour v LD, Tory voters are far more likely to vote tactically Labour and LD at Holyrood where the contest is Labour v SNP than at Westminster where the contest is Labour v Tory
Err, Holyrood elections are conducted under a from of PR - there isn't a tactical vote.
Something for the people demonstrating in Whitehall to consider:
In Great Britain the combined Conservative and UKIP share was 50.66%, 15,188,670 votes out of a total of 29,980,107.
One thing that hasn't been discussed much in the media is that turnout only increased by 1%. It looks like a lot of potential Labour voters didn't bother to vote.
Given the changes to registration, as well as the increase north of the border, a 1% increase probably masks a real decrease. Does anyone have the raw figures yet?
Which raw figures are you talking about? The total electorate this time was 46,425,386:
It is none of our business who Mrs Bercow is screwing. These stories in a newspaper just bring closer a privacy bill. Also, the sympathy he gets may make it more difficult to oust John Bercow.
Could it make her a blackmail target perhaps? Maybe? Or not?.
In England the Con + UKIP figure was 55%. Still 51% with Scotland and Wales as I said earlier.
People keep repeating this to give the 37% Government some legitimacy. I don't think it is remotely true. Kippers took as many (if not more) from Labour as from Tory and I don't think there were any significant number of Kippers voting for UKIP to get continued Austerity.
It's a completely bogus argument.
The problem is left-wingers kept saying the Thatcher government wasn't legitimate because you could add together the Labour and Alliance shares to get more than 50%. The "progressive majority" as it was called.
Even more funny given that people like Dair were saying UKIP were a right wing party before the election and now that they don't like the percentages they are trying to claim they are not right wing after all.
They are a right wing race hate party. Unsurprisingly that means they get at least half their vote from previous Labour voters. Race Hate trumps left vs right.
Something for the people demonstrating in Whitehall to consider:
In Great Britain the combined Conservative and UKIP share was 50.66%, 15,188,670 votes out of a total of 29,980,107.
One thing that hasn't been discussed much in the media is that turnout only increased by 1%. It looks like a lot of potential Labour voters didn't bother to vote.
Given the changes to registration, as well as the increase north of the border, a 1% increase probably masks a real decrease. Does anyone have the raw figures yet?
Which raw figures are you talking about? The total electorate this time was 46,425,386:
AndyJS Indeed, according to a 2013 study the traditional working class make up only 14% of the population, a majority, 61%, is made up of groups like the 'technical middle class', 'emergent service workers' and 'new affluent workers' http://www.economist.com/blogs/blighty/2014/06/labours-electorate
Something for the people demonstrating in Whitehall to consider:
In Great Britain the combined Conservative and UKIP share was 50.66%, 15,188,670 votes out of a total of 29,980,107.
One thing that hasn't been discussed much in the media is that turnout only increased by 1%. It looks like a lot of potential Labour voters didn't bother to vote.
Given the changes to registration, as well as the increase north of the border, a 1% increase probably masks a real decrease. Does anyone have the raw figures yet?
Which raw figures are you talking about? The total electorate this time was 46,425,386:
Dair At Holyrood it will be SNP v Tory v Labour v LD, Tory voters are far more likely to vote tactically Labour and LD at Holyrood where the contest is Labour v SNP than at Westminster where the contest is Labour v Tory
Err, Holyrood elections are conducted under a from of PR - there isn't a tactical vote.
There are lots of tactical votes in Holyrood, because the system at Holyrood is with a PR list to act as a top-up to FPTP constituencies with separate votes, which makes it particularly prone to manipulation.
Surbiton Umunna would certainly get out black Britons and other ethnic voters too excited at the prospect of the UK's first ethnic minority PM. Wilson won at a time when the majority of the electorate was white working class, the majority of the electorate is now middle class and with a rising ethnic population, Umunna is more suited to the times. Wilson was a good leader for his time, and someone like Alan Johnson would have been far better for Labour in 2010 than Miliband, but Umunna could build a new coalition as Obama did
There is a huge difference between the US and the UK. Yes, it is true large numbers of Black British do not vote citing the well known phrase, "no government does anything for us".
However, their numbers would only add about 1-2% of the total vote.
British Asians do vote. So there will be no change.
I was just looking at the Birmingham figures. As good as London.
I load up the thread to read and it takes a while with the number of pages. Start going through the posts and around every 10 minutes I get sporting index site appearing on the same tab. I then have to load up all the thread again for the same thing to happen minutes later. I don't touch anything it just changes
Why is this happening. It's hard enough to read site off an iPad anyway without this as well?????
If you click on your own avatar then on discussions it is possible to read on Vanilla.
Patrick O'Flynn (@oflynnmep) 09/05/2015 22:48 Rioting Lefties - remember Ukip explicitly endorsed Treasury deficit reduction schedule. So on that front you can add our 13% to their 37%.
LDs endorsed it too, albeit with more tax rises than cuts , so add another 9% too.
Surbiton Umunna would certainly get out black Britons and other ethnic voters too excited at the prospect of the UK's first ethnic minority PM. Wilson won at a time when the majority of the electorate was white working class, the majority of the electorate is now middle class and with a rising ethnic population, Umunna is more suited to the times. Wilson was a good leader for his time, and someone like Alan Johnson would have been far better for Labour in 2010 than Miliband, but Umunna could build a new coalition as Obama did
There is a huge difference between the US and the UK. Yes, it is true large numbers of Black British do not vote citing the well known phrase, "no government does anything for us".
However, their numbers would only add about 1-2% of the total vote.
British Asians do vote. So there will be no change.
I was just looking at the Birmingham figures. As good as London.
The problem Labour faces is in Middle Britain.
Liz Kendall represents middle Britain. Just sayin...
Suggestion for this site: how about a regular page saying which political betting markets have the most liquidity and the biggest amounts staked at a given time? Maybe the top 10? It makes sense on a betting site for people to be encouraged to discuss those markets most.
I say this full of bitter regret that I didn't put a lot more on a Tory majority on Thursday, and eager to put more money where my mouth and brain are next time.
I regret not using my knowledge and the PB information often enough. Last week I could easily have turned £5000 into £10000 with even-money bets on safe Tory marginals but I wasn't "professional" enough to put in the minimal effort required. Still, I did make a few quid, especially from betting on things like Con most seats and Cameron PM. EICIPM was never going to happen, was it.
Hindsight bias
Those "safe tory marginals" were likely labour gains according to the pre-election polls. I was backing EICIPM at anything over evens - and I don't actually regret it. It was definitely a value bet as the polls stood.
On may the 6th, I wrote this;
"If I had to put %ages on it, I'd guess there is a... 90% chance the result will be within +-5% of the poll average for all the parties. 50% chance the result will be within +-3% of the poll average for all the parties."
The final result vs. poll averages;
CON 36.9 vs 33.3 LAB 30.4 vs 33.4 UKIP 12.6 vs 13 LD 7.9 vs 8.9 SNP 4.7 vs (>5%) GRN 3.8 vs 5.1
My level of confidence in the opinion polls was actually pretty reasonable.
With a betting bank of just over£12k, I made £5.7k net profit. That profit was after losing, in total, £2.5k in bets on EICIPM.
Like it or not, EICIPM was a value bet at the time - I'll be backing a similar bet in 2020, should we have the same polling/next PM odds mismatch again.
I see that Farron is claiming a sudden post-election surge in LibDem membership (althogh I notice he's calling them the Liberals now). I wonder whether that's a load of Labour/Tory supporters piling in to vote for the new leader. I wondered the same about votes for Miliband at the time he was elected.....
It is none of our business who Mrs Bercow is screwing. These stories in a newspaper just bring closer a privacy bill. Also, the sympathy he gets may make it more difficult to oust John Bercow.
Could it make her a blackmail target perhaps? Maybe? Or not?.
Not if it's already in the papers....
Yes but that's my point. It was stated previously up thread what public interest would be served by putting it in a paper. Well one is she cannot be blackmailed not that I am saying she ever would but security does seek out these potential risks.
In England the Con + UKIP figure was 55%. Still 51% with Scotland and Wales as I said earlier.
People keep repeating this to give the 37% Government some legitimacy. I don't think it is remotely true. Kippers took as many (if not more) from Labour as from Tory and I don't think there were any significant number of Kippers voting for UKIP to get continued Austerity.
It's a completely bogus argument.
The problem is left-wingers kept saying the Thatcher government wasn't legitimate because you could add together the Labour and Alliance shares to get more than 50%. The "progressive majority" as it was called.
Even more funny given that people like Dair were saying UKIP were a right wing party before the election and now that they don't like the percentages they are trying to claim they are not right wing after all.
They are a right wing race hate party. Unsurprisingly that means they get at least half their vote from previous Labour voters. Race Hate trumps left vs right.
Dair I have seen you spew more bigoted hatred on here than any UKIP poster. You also seem to revel in your own ignorance so I would suggest you take a long hard look at yourself before accusing others of the traits you show in such excess.
It is none of our business who Mrs Bercow is screwing. These stories in a newspaper just bring closer a privacy bill. Also, the sympathy he gets may make it more difficult to oust John Bercow.
Could it make her a blackmail target perhaps? Maybe? Or not?.
"Get Thursday's Order Paper or we'll reveal all"? Pshaw.
Sandpit Complete crap, Labour has its base of ethnic minority and public sector workers which would only increase under an Umunna leadership, post a close EU referendum it is the Tories who will worry about losing voters to UKIP. But as I said the white working class is in relative decline, there is no future in being UKIP lite for Labour, they will not beat the real thing, to win they have to win back the educated, relatively prosperous suburban middle class who backed Blair and Obama in the US
I don't think Labour would win one single extra vote from Ethnic Minorities if Umunna was the leader. A few Liberals , who still voted Liberal, might come over. But that's about it.
We need a leader from Middle Britain. Why can't we have another Harold Wilson ? Much criticised while leader even by members of the Labour party, yet won 4 elections.
Why can't you have another Harold Wilson? Well first you need to find someone with... wait for it... Brains. he was an Oxford Don at 21. Wilson studied PPE by the way...
It is none of our business who Mrs Bercow is screwing. These stories in a newspaper just bring closer a privacy bill. Also, the sympathy he gets may make it more difficult to oust John Bercow.
Could it make her a blackmail target perhaps? Maybe? Or not?.
"Get Thursday's Order Paper or we'll reveal all"? Pshaw.
Come on Nick you know how it works it's not always the order paper ...... Though it would start small. It just is a compromised position for someone who should know better than to place themselves even potentially in such a position.
Sandpit Complete crap, Labour has its base of ethnic minority and public sector workers which would only increase under an Umunna leadership, post a close EU referendum it is the Tories who will worry about losing voters to UKIP. But as I said the white working class is in relative decline, there is no future in being UKIP lite for Labour, they will not beat the real thing, to win they have to win back the educated, relatively prosperous suburban middle class who backed Blair and Obama in the US
I don't think Labour would win one single extra vote from Ethnic Minorities if Umunna was the leader. A few Liberals , who still voted Liberal, might come over. But that's about it.
We need a leader from Middle Britain. Why can't we have another Harold Wilson ? Much criticised while leader even by members of the Labour party, yet won 4 elections.
Why can't you have another Harold Wilson? Well first you need to find someone with... wait for it... Brains. he was an Oxford Don at 21. Wilson studied PPE by the way...
Problem for Labour now is how the hell do they win from here?
Back of the envelope says they need something like a 7% swing for a majority, historically unlikely.
But anything less is a hung parliament, with the spectre of the Nats at the table, just like last week. The South and Midlands, as we saw, just won't wear that.
Labour's best hope must be for an independent Scotland, with them taken out of the equation completely...
Something for the people demonstrating in Whitehall to consider:
In Great Britain the combined Conservative and UKIP share was 50.66%, 15,188,670 votes out of a total of 29,980,107.
One thing that hasn't been discussed much in the media is that turnout only increased by 1%. It looks like a lot of potential Labour voters didn't bother to vote.
Given the changes to registration, as well as the increase north of the border, a 1% increase probably masks a real decrease. Does anyone have the raw figures yet?
Which raw figures are you talking about? The total electorate this time was 46,425,386:
2) How well did Labour do in Cornwall in terms of increase in share of the vote
Ta
UK
Party % CON 36.9 LAB 30.4 UKIP 12.6 LD 7.9 SNP 4.7 GRN 3.8
(from BBC and UK only and looks like not NI - more decimal places probably available elsewhere...)
Cornwall
2015: % for Labour and change on 2010
St Ives: 9.34 (+1.17) Cam and Red: 24.96 (+8.61) Truro & Fal: 15.16 (+5.53) St Aust & Newq: 10.23 (+3.06) N Corn: 5.43 (+0.08) SE Corn: 9.29 (+2.22)
Mixed bag, all low but decently up?
My Cornish sources tell me that Cornish LAB are finished. This is about as good as it gets for them. They will never return. Camborne and Redruth is an ex mining constituency, FFS - and still they can only get a quarter of the vote, even as the Lib Dems collapse.
They have zero ground game, just 6 councillors (the same as UKIP), they are done, stick a bloody fork in them.
UKIP may emerge as the main opposition to the Cornish Tories, or some kind of revived LDs, or even Mebyon Kernow/Greens.
Something for the people demonstrating in Whitehall to consider:
In Great Britain the combined Conservative and UKIP share was 50.66%, 15,188,670 votes out of a total of 29,980,107.
One thing that hasn't been discussed much in the media is that turnout only increased by 1%. It looks like a lot of potential Labour voters didn't bother to vote.
Given the changes to registration, as well as the increase north of the border, a 1% increase probably masks a real decrease. Does anyone have the raw figures yet?
Which raw figures are you talking about? The total electorate this time was 46,425,386:
If the boundary changes go ahead, could the Lib Dems lose all their seats except perhaps Westmorland ? (Orkney on a knife edge)
They might anyway.
It will be interesting to see how seriously they are treated by the media after receiving nearly one and a half million votes less than UKIP. It's not like the DUP normally get much media time with their 8 MPs, and I'd be surprised if their leader went back to having a guaranteed set of questions at PMQs as the Lib Dems used to get prior to 2010.
One presumes that the SNP are going to get a lot of time in the London media, and the Lib Dems will be well down the pecking order.
Problem for Labour now is how the hell do they win from here?
Back of the envelope says they need something like a 7% swing for a majority, historically unlikely.
But anything less is a hung parliament, with the spectre of the Nats at the table, just like last week. The South and Midlands, as we saw, just won't wear that.
Labour's best hope must be for an independent Scotland, with them taken out of the equation completely...
But that takes 50 or so seats out the equation that will never vote for a Tory QS. Labour has long term problems in Wales. And England is a HUGE ask for Labour.
If the boundaries are based on those registered to vote at the election, the seat distribution will be as follows: England: 502 (-31) Wales: 29 (-11) Scotland: 53 (-6) Northern Ireland: 16 (-2) Given the massive reduction in seats in Wales and Isle of Wight fix (para 6(1) of schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986), the changes are still likely to benefit the Conservatives.
Comments
I understand that a government is a reasonable idea and I also understand it should reflect the votes cast. AMS really does do this. You CAN get a majority but only if you approach 50%. IN reality, when you exclude votes below the cut off on the List you pretty much get over 50% for a Majority every time.
It also reflects any reasonably widespread opinion and encourages votes for what you believe in. It is not perfect but it works pretty well in Scotland, Germany, New Zealand (I'm sure elsewhere but those are the ones I know well).
FPTP works terribly. It allows 37% Vote Share to impose a tyranny. It ignores alternative views. It is a broken, outdated, failed system which destroys the idea of a democratic vote. You vote AGAINST something. Not for something.
I think it's a tad presumptous to assume that because he's very londony he'll get elected - Miliband fitted that profile too, and didn't win over the parliamentary party (who voted for David) or Labour members (who I think also voted for David). I think Cooper probably has more of a chance than Umunna, tbh.
https://twitter.com/IDS_MP/status/596782907471036416
Miliband in the lead - by miles.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11594804/The-fight-is-on-for-the-soul-of-the-Labour-Party.html
We need a leader from Middle Britain. Why can't we have another Harold Wilson ? Much criticised while leader even by members of the Labour party, yet won 4 elections.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results
Just when you thought there could be no more bigger surprises in this week!
Con 278
Lab 267
SNP 53
LD 27
http://www.electionforecast.co.uk/2015/index.html
But it would stop them losing seats like Morley and outwood, Thurrock, s Thanet etc
Remember, there was still a small swing to Labour in England & Wales [ 0.9% ]. However, it was very regionalised and in Middle Britain, it went against Labour.
The coin dropped on the Tory side in very close results. The actual swings would give about 320. So the Tory "luck" factor was about 12. Probably happens in every election.
http://www.viewtoahill.com/?p=211
Don't get me wrong, I am not a particular fan of FPTP. I just point out that PR and coalitions are not in themselves guarantor's of either good government or policies that can command the support of the majority of the electorate (leaving aside for the moment the fact that the two things are often mutually exclusive anyway).
Its even better than that.
The coalition Parties are polling 46% compared to the opposition 36%. 10% lead.
:-)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/chuka-umunnas-british-obama-wikipedia-entry-came-from-his-former-office-8569083.html
09/05/2015 22:48
Rioting Lefties - remember Ukip explicitly endorsed Treasury deficit reduction schedule. So on that front you can add our 13% to their 37%.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3074934/Radio-1-host-bet-Cameron-1-000-not-win-hasn-t-paid-up.html
www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2fyBc7g8no
http://www.economist.com/blogs/blighty/2014/06/labours-electorate
Just laid him on Betfair at 20s anyway.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/blighty/2014/06/labours-electorate
However, their numbers would only add about 1-2% of the total vote.
British Asians do vote. So there will be no change.
I was just looking at the Birmingham figures. As good as London.
The problem Labour faces is in Middle Britain.
https://twitter.com/IsabelHardman/status/597093924243648512
Those "safe tory marginals" were likely labour gains according to the pre-election polls. I was backing EICIPM at anything over evens - and I don't actually regret it. It was definitely a value bet as the polls stood.
On may the 6th, I wrote this;
"If I had to put %ages on it, I'd guess there is a...
90% chance the result will be within +-5% of the poll average for all the parties.
50% chance the result will be within +-3% of the poll average for all the parties."
The final result vs. poll averages;
CON 36.9 vs 33.3
LAB 30.4 vs 33.4
UKIP 12.6 vs 13
LD 7.9 vs 8.9
SNP 4.7 vs (>5%)
GRN 3.8 vs 5.1
My level of confidence in the opinion polls was actually pretty reasonable.
With a betting bank of just over£12k, I made £5.7k net profit. That profit was after losing, in total, £2.5k in bets on EICIPM.
Like it or not, EICIPM was a value bet at the time - I'll be backing a similar bet in 2020, should we have the same polling/next PM odds mismatch again.
Well first you need to find someone with... wait for it... Brains. he was an Oxford Don at 21.
Wilson studied PPE by the way...
Back of the envelope says they need something like a 7% swing for a majority, historically unlikely.
But anything less is a hung parliament, with the spectre of the Nats at the table, just like last week. The South and Midlands, as we saw, just won't wear that.
Labour's best hope must be for an independent Scotland, with them taken out of the equation completely...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=up5IwGXFKtg
It will be interesting to see how seriously they are treated by the media after receiving nearly one and a half million votes less than UKIP. It's not like the DUP normally get much media time with their 8 MPs, and I'd be surprised if their leader went back to having a guaranteed set of questions at PMQs as the Lib Dems used to get prior to 2010.
One presumes that the SNP are going to get a lot of time in the London media, and the Lib Dems will be well down the pecking order.
They are screwed.
England: 502 (-31)
Wales: 29 (-11)
Scotland: 53 (-6)
Northern Ireland: 16 (-2)
Given the massive reduction in seats in Wales and Isle of Wight fix (para 6(1) of schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986), the changes are still likely to benefit the Conservatives.