Pinnacle, at one time the world largest sports betting site, pulled out of the UK at the end of the last year. They have since been sold and talk of them returning to take bets from UK citizens, but nothing as of yet.
Indeed, same with SBO and some of the maxbet providers. Agents make it easy to get around that though (ibc/maxbet an agent was already basically needed anyway)
Pinnacle will certainly be back though, just a matter of time - they're already setting it up legally. Their new owner also owns Sporting Index, btw.
I knew all the rest (as I am heavily involved in that world), but I didn't know it was Sporting Index had been bought by the same private investors. As far as I know, the identity of the people buying up the likes of Pinnacle is still unknown and shrouded in mystery.
EdM going to Warks North was a massive red flag that was humpfed away as some *personal favour* to the candidate - yeah, right. Pfft.
Ditto Cameron hitting every LD seat in Surrey, Sussex and the SW.
I seem to recall that that was proof that DC isn't very good at politics, or indeed maths. Every seat they lost to Labour counted double so goodness only knows what he was doing in Twickenham!
On topic. How much did the Tories trust their internal data that suggested they were winning? It seems senior Tories expected to. Lower down the food chain there didn't seem to be the same optimism, and perhaps that's why it didn't show up on the markets. Did Tory high command not feed all the good news down - on a "keep 'em guessing, keep 'em keen" basis perhaps?
On the flip side it seems a lot of senior Labour people thought the data showed they were going to win. So it would be wise not to treat your internal data as infallible.
EdM going to Warks North was a massive red flag that was humpfed away as some *personal favour* to the candidate - yeah, right. Pfft.
Ditto Cameron hitting every LD seat in Surrey, Sussex and the SW.
I seem to recall that that was proof that DC isn't very good at politics, or indeed maths. Every seat they lost to Labour counted double so goodness only knows what he was doing in Twickenham!
I suggested that instead of going there, Dave should have spent the final day campaigning in East Ham, Bootle and Banff & Buchan.
That would have confused everybody.
In hindsight, the worst thing that happened to the Lib Dems in the last parliament was the following
i) Winning the Eastleigh by election
ii) The Lord Ashcroft constituency polling
It gave the Lib Dems and others the perception of being bullet proof.
'Twas bad news for my betting that Clegg would be gone by the election. Seemed obvious in June 2010.
EdM going to Warks North was a massive red flag that was humpfed away as some *personal favour* to the candidate - yeah, right. Pfft.
Ditto Cameron hitting every LD seat in Surrey, Sussex and the SW.
I seem to recall that that was proof that DC isn't very good at politics, or indeed maths. Every seat they lost to Labour counted double so goodness only knows what he was doing in Twickenham!
I suggested that instead of going there, Dave should have spent the final day campaigning in East Ham, Bootle and Banff & Buchan.
That would have confused everybody.
In hindsight, the worst thing that happened to the Lib Dems in the last parliament was the following
i) Winning the Eastleigh by election
ii) The Lord Ashcroft constituency polling
It gave the Lib Dems and others the perception of being bullet proof.
'Twas bad news for my betting that Clegg would be gone by the election. Seemed obvious in June 2010.
We should have listened for Frau Merkel when she told Dave about coalitions
On topic. How much did the Tories trust their internal data that suggested they were winning? It seems senior Tories expected to. Lower down the food chain there didn't seem to be the same optimism, and perhaps that's why it didn't show up on the markets. Did Tory high command not feed all the good news down - on a "keep 'em guessing, keep 'em keen" basis perhaps?
On the flip side it seems a lot of senior Labour people thought the data showed they were going to win. So it would be wise not to treat your internal data as infallible.
Some said EMWNBPM, early, often and without wavering.
On topic. How much did the Tories trust their internal data that suggested they were winning? It seems senior Tories expected to. Lower down the food chain there didn't seem to be the same optimism, and perhaps that's why it didn't show up on the markets. Did Tory high command not feed all the good news down - on a "keep 'em guessing, keep 'em keen" basis perhaps?
The main thing which I noticed was the massive amount of effort being put into the LibDem-held seats. Here in Wealden (a very safe seat) we were getting lots of requests to help in nearby Eastbourne and in Lewes, none in Labour-target Crawley. I correctly concluded (and posted some indications here) that that only made sense if the Conservatives thought they were well ahead against Labour and were within reach of a majority - otherwise the effort made no sense, and in fact would have been counter-productive.
As for the mood in those target LibDem-held seats, I think there was a good degree of optimism that they might be within reach, but I was expecting quite a few near-misses rather than such a clean sweep of nearly all the targets. Of course, low-down in the food-chain you don't get to see the picture as a whole.
It was a pleasant surprise when the results came through!
There were very many people betting on a Tory majority in the last couple of weeks. Not shrewides or insiders, just punters. Most of whom had very little history of betting on politics or being very accurate on any other events. 62% of bets placed on our "majority market" (where NOM was hot favourite) were actually on a Conservative Majority.
Those of us who thought that the range of possible results had to be pretty narrow (because of the huge volume of polling data plus the detailed analysis of that data and the forecasting models) were pretty relaxed about taking on the "gut trusters". We got burnt.
If you can imagine a terrible, bleak world where there were no polls, I doubt the result would have come as a surprise. Improving economy, perceived disparity in leadership competence - simple, right? The people who didn't care about polling or political science models overwhelmingly went for a Tory win.
In that sense the betting markets got it much more right than most other predictive tools. I'd said beforehand that it would be a enormous fail for the proponents of betting as a forecasting method if the Tories failed to win most seats. I think it's only fair to say that, given it went so far the other way, that this election has provided some evidence in their favour.
On topic. How much did the Tories trust their internal data that suggested they were winning? It seems senior Tories expected to. Lower down the food chain there didn't seem to be the same optimism, and perhaps that's why it didn't show up on the markets. Did Tory high command not feed all the good news down - on a "keep 'em guessing, keep 'em keen" basis perhaps?
The main thing which I noticed was the massive amount of effort being put into the LibDem-held seats. Here in Wealden (a very safe seat) we were getting lots of requests to help in nearby Eastbourne and in Lewes, none in Labour-target Crawley. I correctly concluded (and posted some indications here) that that only made sense if the Conservatives thought they were well ahead against Labour and were within reach of a majority - otherwise the effort made no sense, and in fact would have been counter-productive.
As for the mood in those target LibDem-held seats, I think there was a good degree of optimism that they might be within reach, but I was expecting quite a few near-misses rather than such a clean sweep of nearly all the targets.
It was a pleasant surprise when the results came through!
The other thing, the Tories didn't just win their Lib Dem target seats, they marmalised them.
For example in Yeovil, they turned a 13k deficit into a 5k majority, Chippenham now a Tory maj of 10k
EdM going to Warks North was a massive red flag that was humpfed away as some *personal favour* to the candidate - yeah, right. Pfft.
Ditto Cameron hitting every LD seat in Surrey, Sussex and the SW.
I seem to recall that that was proof that DC isn't very good at politics, or indeed maths. Every seat they lost to Labour counted double so goodness only knows what he was doing in Twickenham!
The signs of desperation in Twickenham were there when OGH felt he needed to vote swap to give Uncle Vince a helping hand....
The other thing, the Tories didn't just win their Lib Dem target seats, they marmalised them.
For example in Yeovil, they turned a 13k deficit into a 5k majority, Chippenham now a Tory maj of 10k
Not all, though. Eastbourne was a majority of just 733, and only a 4% swing (and the LibDems actually gained seats in the locals). It was more dramatic in the SW.
Still, I think lots of those seats are going to be very tough for the LibDems to win back.
@NCPoliticsUK: Lab lead over Con only 4pts among under 30s, only 3pts among public sector workers. Con won all education levels and all incomes excl <£20k
EdM going to Warks North was a massive red flag that was humpfed away as some *personal favour* to the candidate - yeah, right. Pfft.
Ditto Cameron hitting every LD seat in Surrey, Sussex and the SW.
I seem to recall that that was proof that DC isn't very good at politics, or indeed maths. Every seat they lost to Labour counted double so goodness only knows what he was doing in Twickenham!
The signs of desperation in Twickenham were there when OGH felt he needed to vote swap to give Uncle Vince a helping hand....
Yes that was a bit of a tell that all was not well in SW London...
EdM going to Warks North was a massive red flag that was humpfed away as some *personal favour* to the candidate - yeah, right. Pfft.
Ditto Cameron hitting every LD seat in Surrey, Sussex and the SW.
I seem to recall that that was proof that DC isn't very good at politics, or indeed maths. Every seat they lost to Labour counted double so goodness only knows what he was doing in Twickenham!
The signs of desperation in Twickenham were there when OGH felt he needed to vote swap to give Uncle Vince a helping hand....
Yes that was a bit of a tell that all was not well in SW London...
But - in common with other pro-Tory anecdata, such as the Labour concerns in Hampstead & Kilburn - it was explained away as being specifically a mansion tax thing.
In that sense the betting markets got it much more right than most other predictive tools. I'd said beforehand that it would be a enormous fail for the proponents of betting as a forecasting method if the Tories failed to win most seats. I think it's only fair to say that, given it went so far the other way, that this election has provided some evidence in their favour.
Interesting point by Shadsy. Of course, one can argue for the purposes of provocation that actually the polls got it "right" (in terms of what the country was thinking) because they sampled everyone, whereas the election "merely" sampled the people who actually, um, voted. If the entire explanation for the result is differential turnout, that's literally true, though not helpful. I'm pretty sure that there were some genuine mind-changes in the final week, though, so it's not the whole story by any means.
@NCPoliticsUK: Lab lead over Con only 4pts among under 30s, only 3pts among public sector workers. Con won all education levels and all incomes excl <£20k</p>
The meme that everyone in the public sector votes Labour and everyone in the private sector votes Conservative has always seemed absurd.
Of course, one can argue for the purposes of provocation that actually the polls got it "right" (in terms of what the country was thinking) because they sampled everyone, whereas the election "merely" sampled the people who actually, um, voted.
t was a pleasant surprise when the results came through!
I haven;t seen anybody get to the bottom of why the lib dems did so very badly in lib dem/tory battles.
Given the increase in Tory vote here in the SW, I believe, not just LD collapse, I can only assume that in addition to protest votes and anti-Tory votes that went to UKIP or Labour, a lot of Blue Liberals, as they shall now be known, found they quite liked a Tory PM who seemed comfortable working with the LDs, with many people saying it was more preferable to him than working with his nuttier back benchers. So in thos LD/Tory battles the LD vote was hit not just by the loss of the angry and betrayed perhaps, but also people liking Cameroon Tories quite a bit and switching, as I find a lot of the LDs and even some Labour people here in the SW are tinged with blue - in that the right Tory leader might be a good fit for them - where they are not the anti-Tory at all costs ones that is.
@shadsy: - “If you can imagine a terrible, bleak world where there were no polls, I doubt the result would have come as a surprise. Improving economy, perceived disparity in leadership competence - simple, right? The people who didn't care about polling or political science models overwhelmingly went for a Tory win.”
Well quite. All the traditional past indicators of who 'should' win the election where there for all to see, and pointed out many, many times. However, all assertions on PB to that effect were soon quashed or brushed aside as the polling simply did not reflect what turned out to be the reality.
@shadsy: - “If you can imagine a terrible, bleak world where there were no polls, I doubt the result would have come as a surprise. Improving economy, perceived disparity in leadership competence - simple, right? The people who didn't care about polling or political science models overwhelmingly went for a Tory win.”
Well quite. All the traditional past indicators of who 'should' win the election where there for all to see, and pointed out many, many times. However, all assertions on PB to that effect were soon quashed or brushed aside as the polling simply did not reflect what turned out to be the reality.
I wish I could use that excuse, but unlike many, it wasn't that my gut was telling me that things should favour the Tories and the polls had me rethinking that - indeed, it was the polls not being as good for Labour as I had expected that forced me to abandon my Lab majority prediction only around February 2015! My gut said Labour win, and my head found rationalisations for that.
So unlike many, it wasn't that I overthought things - I was just an idiot.
P.S Still made money though! Such small sums, but a single decent bet on UKIP MP chances overrid the losses elsewhere.
Eastbourne was knee deep in LDs pumping out Focus leaflets and on the day.
I have to give them credit for a supreme effort throughout - they did there best here. I said about 4 weeks before that I thought it was too close to call - and that 733 was a very welcome surprise TBH.
The other thing, the Tories didn't just win their Lib Dem target seats, they marmalised them.
For example in Yeovil, they turned a 13k deficit into a 5k majority, Chippenham now a Tory maj of 10k
Not all, though. Eastbourne was a majority of just 733, and only a 4% swing (and the LibDems actually gained seats in the locals). It was more dramatic in the SW.
Still, I think lots of those seats are going to be very tough for the LibDems to win back.
@NCPoliticsUK: Lab lead over Con only 4pts among under 30s, only 3pts among public sector workers. Con won all education levels and all incomes excl <£20k</p>
@NCPoliticsUK: Lab lead over Con only 4pts among under 30s, only 3pts among public sector workers. Con won all education levels and all incomes excl <£20k</p>
The meme that everyone in the public sector votes Labour and everyone in the private sector votes Conservative has always seemed absurd.
Yes - but like so much else - we were slapped down on here for suggesting that not all teachers would vote Labour. Apparently they all hated Gove so much....or some such rubbish.
HARRIS, Kathleen Margaret Labour Party 614 HEATH, Alan David Green Party 82 HOGSTON, Sally Anne UK Independence Party (UKIP) 370 JELLEY, Ian Frederick Conservative Party Candidate 771 JONES, Malcolm Edward Labour Party 623 JONES, Stephen Christopher Green Party 119 MILLS, Alan John Labour Party 951 Elected REEVES, Robert James Green Party 89 SUMPTER, Karl David Conservative Party Candidate 853 Elected TALBOT, Margaret Elizabeth Conservative Party Candidate 777 Elected
I wonder if some of the 3 seat swing from Tory +25 to Tory +19 was simply people who'd backed Tories cashing out before the results came in rather than significantly betting against.
Though the polling in the final 24 hours was horrific for the Tories. YouGov was no shock but ICM and other phone pollsters swinging from a 3-6 point Tory lead to a 1 point lead/tie was concerning.
Relevant perhaps to this & the previous thread I have this simple thought:
For me and many others it is very nearly enough that the Labour are not the Tories. But it wouldn't do to campaign purely on a such a negative line.
Although ordinary workers, and their unions, do still form a considerable underpinning for Labour, things are moving, socially. For instance, we do have what I understand is a growing "under class", sad to say.
But, anyway, one way to underline that Labour is anti-Tory (so to say) they might consider changing their name. I would favour the name "Social Democrat". The "Social" would, I feel, emphasize a non-Tory egoism and the "Democrat" would underline a non-revolutionary approach, and maybe slightly resonate in sympathy with the Democratic party (say) in the USA.
t was a pleasant surprise when the results came through!
I haven;t seen anybody get to the bottom of why the lib dems did so very badly in lib dem/tory battles.
Given the increase in Tory vote here in the SW, I believe, not just LD collapse, I can only assume that in addition to protest votes and anti-Tory votes that went to UKIP or Labour, a lot of Blue Liberals, as they shall now be known, found they quite liked a Tory PM who seemed comfortable working with the LDs, with many people saying it was more preferable to him than working with his nuttier back benchers. So in thos LD/Tory battles the LD vote was hit not just by the loss of the angry and betrayed perhaps, but also people liking Cameroon Tories quite a bit and switching, as I find a lot of the LDs and even some Labour people here in the SW are tinged with blue - in that the right Tory leader might be a good fit for them - where they are not the anti-Tory at all costs ones that is.
On topic. How much did the Tories trust their internal data that suggested they were winning? It seems senior Tories expected to. Lower down the food chain there didn't seem to be the same optimism, and perhaps that's why it didn't show up on the markets. Did Tory high command not feed all the good news down - on a "keep 'em guessing, keep 'em keen" basis perhaps?
The main thing which I noticed was the massive amount of effort being put into the LibDem-held seats. Here in Wealden (a very safe seat) we were getting lots of requests to help in nearby Eastbourne and in Lewes, none in Labour-target Crawley. I correctly concluded (and posted some indications here) that that only made sense if the Conservatives thought they were well ahead against Labour and were within reach of a majority - otherwise the effort made no sense, and in fact would have been counter-productive.
As for the mood in those target LibDem-held seats, I think there was a good degree of optimism that they might be within reach, but I was expecting quite a few near-misses rather than such a clean sweep of nearly all the targets.
It was a pleasant surprise when the results came through!
The other thing, the Tories didn't just win their Lib Dem target seats, they marmalised them.
For example in Yeovil, they turned a 13k deficit into a 5k majority, Chippenham now a Tory maj of 10k
But, anyway, one way to underline that Labour is anti-Tory (so to say) they might consider changing their name. I would favour the name "Social Democrat".
Labour MPs splitting off and forming something called the Social Democratic Party.
Words cannot express how brilliant an idea that is
@NCPoliticsUK: Lab lead over Con only 4pts among under 30s, only 3pts among public sector workers. Con won all education levels and all incomes excl <£20k</p>
The meme that everyone in the public sector votes Labour and everyone in the private sector votes Conservative has always seemed absurd.
Yes - but like so much else - we were slapped down on here for suggesting that not all teachers would vote Labour. Apparently they all hated Gove so much....or some such rubbish.
It is worth remembering that the largest teaching union - the NUT - is one of a small number of prominent unions that are effectively controlled by far left splinter groups.
In the case of the NUT there has been huge SWP influence since the 1970s.
Of the others, the PCS And Fire Brigades Union have similar influencers. There is a reason why these Unions gaveblined up to support various varieties of student demo.
But, anyway, one way to underline that Labour is anti-Tory (so to say) they might consider changing their name. I would favour the name "Social Democrat".
Labour MPs splitting off and forming something called the Social Democratic Party.
Words cannot express how brilliant an idea that is
@shadsy: - “If you can imagine a terrible, bleak world where there were no polls, I doubt the result would have come as a surprise. Improving economy, perceived disparity in leadership competence - simple, right? The people who didn't care about polling or political science models overwhelmingly went for a Tory win.”
Well quite. All the traditional past indicators of who 'should' win the election where there for all to see, and pointed out many, many times. However, all assertions on PB to that effect were soon quashed or brushed aside as the polling simply did not reflect what turned out to be the reality.
[snip for space.]
So unlike many, it wasn't that I overthought things - I was just an idiot.
P.S Still made money though! Such small sums, but a single decent bet on UKIP MP chances overrid the losses elsewhere.
Arf - and very glad to hear you turned a profit on the night
In that sense the betting markets got it much more right than most other predictive tools. I'd said beforehand that it would be a enormous fail for the proponents of betting as a forecasting method if the Tories failed to win most seats. I think it's only fair to say that, given it went so far the other way, that this election has provided some evidence in their favour.
Interesting point by Shadsy. Of course, one can argue for the purposes of provocation that actually the polls got it "right" (in terms of what the country was thinking) because they sampled everyone, whereas the election "merely" sampled the people who actually, um, voted. If the entire explanation for the result is differential turnout, that's literally true, though not helpful. I'm pretty sure that there were some genuine mind-changes in the final week, though, so it's not the whole story by any means.
On topic. How much did the Tories trust their internal data that suggested they were winning? It seems senior Tories expected to. Lower down the food chain there didn't seem to be the same optimism, and perhaps that's why it didn't show up on the markets. Did Tory high command not feed all the good news down - on a "keep 'em guessing, keep 'em keen" basis perhaps?
The main thing which I noticed was the massive amount of effort being put into the LibDem-held seats. Here in Wealden (a very safe seat) we were getting lots of requests to help in nearby Eastbourne and in Lewes, none in Labour-target Crawley. I correctly concluded (and posted some indications here) that that only made sense if the Conservatives thought they were well ahead against Labour and were within reach of a majority - otherwise the effort made no sense, and in fact would have been counter-productive.
As for the mood in those target LibDem-held seats, I think there was a good degree of optimism that they might be within reach, but I was expecting quite a few near-misses rather than such a clean sweep of nearly all the targets.
It was a pleasant surprise when the results came through!
The other thing, the Tories didn't just win their Lib Dem target seats, they marmalised them.
For example in Yeovil, they turned a 13k deficit into a 5k majority, Chippenham now a Tory maj of 10k
On topic. How much did the Tories trust their internal data that suggested they were winning? It seems senior Tories expected to. Lower down the food chain there didn't seem to be the same optimism, and perhaps that's why it didn't show up on the markets. Did Tory high command not feed all the good news down - on a "keep 'em guessing, keep 'em keen" basis perhaps?
The main thing which I noticed was the massive amount of effort being put into the LibDem-held seats. Here in Wealden (a very safe seat) we were getting lots of requests to help in nearby Eastbourne and in Lewes, none in Labour-target Crawley. I correctly concluded (and posted some indications here) that that only made sense if the Conservatives thought they were well ahead against Labour and were within reach of a majority - otherwise the effort made no sense, and in fact would have been counter-productive.
As for the mood in those target LibDem-held seats, I think there was a good degree of optimism that they might be within reach, but I was expecting quite a few near-misses rather than such a clean sweep of nearly all the targets.
It was a pleasant surprise when the results came through!
The other thing, the Tories didn't just win their Lib Dem target seats, they marmalised them.
For example in Yeovil, they turned a 13k deficit into a 5k majority, Chippenham now a Tory maj of 10k
@NCPoliticsUK: Lab lead over Con only 4pts among under 30s, only 3pts among public sector workers. Con won all education levels and all incomes excl <£20k</p>
The meme that everyone in the public sector votes Labour and everyone in the private sector votes Conservative has always seemed absurd.
Yes - but like so much else - we were slapped down on here for suggesting that not all teachers would vote Labour. Apparently they all hated Gove so much....or some such rubbish.
It is worth remembering that the largest teaching union - the NUT - is one of a small number of prominent unions that are effectively controlled by far left splinter groups.
In the case of the NUT there has been huge SWP influence since the 1970s.
Of the others, the PCS And Fire Brigades Union have similar influencers. There is a reason why these Unions gaveblined up to support various varieties of student demo.
@NCPoliticsUK: Lab lead over Con only 4pts among under 30s, only 3pts among public sector workers. Con won all education levels and all incomes excl <£20k</p>
The meme that everyone in the public sector votes Labour and everyone in the private sector votes Conservative has always seemed absurd.
Yes - but like so much else - we were slapped down on here for suggesting that not all teachers would vote Labour. Apparently they all hated Gove so much....or some such rubbish.
It is worth remembering that the largest teaching union - the NUT - is one of a small number of prominent unions that are effectively controlled by far left splinter groups.
In the case of the NUT there has been huge SWP influence since the 1970s.
Of the others, the PCS And Fire Brigades Union have similar influencers. There is a reason why these Unions gaveblined up to support various varieties of student demo.
My guess he changed 'gave' to 'lined up' and the 'gave' did not delete but somehow added a 'b'
But, anyway, one way to underline that Labour is anti-Tory (so to say) they might consider changing their name. I would favour the name "Social Democrat".
Labour MPs splitting off and forming something called the Social Democratic Party.
Words cannot express how brilliant an idea that is
Careful, they might then form an alliance with the Liberals.
But, anyway, one way to underline that Labour is anti-Tory (so to say) they might consider changing their name. I would favour the name "Social Democrat".
Labour MPs splitting off and forming something called the Social Democratic Party.
Words cannot express how brilliant an idea that is
Careful, they might then form an alliance with the Liberals.
It was just thrown down like a wet cod onto a marble slab as a theoretical notion. The name "Social Republican" party would suit my views better.
@NCPoliticsUK: Lab lead over Con only 4pts among under 30s, only 3pts among public sector workers. Con won all education levels and all incomes excl <£20k</p>
The meme that everyone in the public sector votes Labour and everyone in the private sector votes Conservative has always seemed absurd.
Yes - but like so much else - we were slapped down on here for suggesting that not all teachers would vote Labour. Apparently they all hated Gove so much....or some such rubbish.
It is worth remembering that the largest teaching union - the NUT - is one of a small number of prominent unions that are effectively controlled by far left splinter groups.
In the case of the NUT there has been huge SWP influence since the 1970s.
Of the others, the PCS And Fire Brigades Union have similar influencers. There is a reason why these Unions gaveblined up to support various varieties of student demo.
gaveblinev. To pointlessly pontificate on a subject which is not relevant to your membership
On topic. How much did the Tories trust their internal data that suggested they were winning? It seems senior Tories expected to. Lower down the food chain there didn't seem to be the same optimism, and perhaps that's why it didn't show up on the markets. Did Tory high command not feed all the good news down - on a "keep 'em guessing, keep 'em keen" basis perhaps?
The main thing which I noticed was the massive amount of effort being put into the LibDem-held seats. Here in Wealden (a very safe seat) we were getting lots of requests to help in nearby Eastbourne and in Lewes, none in Labour-target Crawley. I correctly concluded (and posted some indications here) that that only made sense if the Conservatives thought they were well ahead against Labour and were within reach of a majority - otherwise the effort made no sense, and in fact would have been counter-productive.
As for the mood in those target LibDem-held seats, I think there was a good degree of optimism that they might be within reach, but I was expecting quite a few near-misses rather than such a clean sweep of nearly all the targets.
It was a pleasant surprise when the results came through!
The other thing, the Tories didn't just win their Lib Dem target seats, they marmalised them.
For example in Yeovil, they turned a 13k deficit into a 5k majority, Chippenham now a Tory maj of 10k
As far as I know, the identity of the people buying up the likes of Pinnacle is still unknown and shrouded in mystery.
Company called Touchbet, based in Malta. They do a lot of behind the scenes stuff for other betting companies, live odds and the like.
Thanks for the info. I somehow missed the "big reveal", even though it made the likes of Sky News. Very interesting move. My presumption was a big player looking to leverage the likes of Pinnacle, but instead it is somebody who specalises in not dealing with punters who has bought up the two brands.
"Nowadays, women are more likely than men to vote Labour. It used to be the other way round. For most of the post-1945 era, women tended to be more Tory than men. Detailed analysis from our post-election survey shows that something else is going on. Labour’s advantage is specifically among women under 50. Labour enjoyed a six-point lead among them—while the Tories led by five points among men under 50. Among people over 50, the Tories have a clear lead among both men (by 12 points) and women (by 15 points). In essence, among people born before the mid-1960s, the traditional gender gap persists, while among women born since then, the new gender gap takes over."
@NCPoliticsUK: Lab lead over Con only 4pts among under 30s, only 3pts among public sector workers. Con won all education levels and all incomes excl <£20k</p>
The meme that everyone in the public sector votes Labour and everyone in the private sector votes Conservative has always seemed absurd.
Yes - but like so much else - we were slapped down on here for suggesting that not all teachers would vote Labour. Apparently they all hated Gove so much....or some such rubbish.
It is worth remembering that the largest teaching union - the NUT - is one of a small number of prominent unions that are effectively controlled by far left splinter groups.
In the case of the NUT there has been huge SWP influence since the 1970s.
Of the others, the PCS And Fire Brigades Union have similar influencers. There is a reason why these Unions gaveblined up to support various varieties of student demo.
Oh I know that very well - as a former teacher - tis a pity some of those in charge here were not more clued up about the difference between public sector unions and the public sector workforce. Maybe they'll remember next time.
@NCPoliticsUK: Lab lead over Con only 4pts among under 30s, only 3pts among public sector workers. Con won all education levels and all incomes excl <£20k</p>
The meme that everyone in the public sector votes Labour and everyone in the private sector votes Conservative has always seemed absurd.
Yes - but like so much else - we were slapped down on here for suggesting that not all teachers would vote Labour. Apparently they all hated Gove so much....or some such rubbish.
It is worth remembering that the largest teaching union - the NUT - is one of a small number of prominent unions that are effectively controlled by far left splinter groups.
In the case of the NUT there has been huge SWP influence since the 1970s.
Of the others, the PCS And Fire Brigades Union have similar influencers. There is a reason why these Unions gaveblined up to support various varieties of student demo.
gaveblinev. To pointlessly pontificate on a subject which is not relevant to your membership
A betting market is like any other market. There are sometimes bubbles in asset markets, but there seem to be people trying to call bubbles, from both sides.
The other thing is that using the previous election has a flaw. It doesn't allow for the randomness of the result. An election is dynamic in everything from who actually managed to vote as expected, down to the randomness of media coverage. The last electioncampaign focussed a lot on Clegg, and Cameron and Brown were probably less scrutinised. My assumption would be that this benefited Brown and I think anecdotally Labour held more seats last time than they expected.
Anyway this dynamism does not appear to be allowed for in the polling, and that polling then influences predicted ranges in betting markets.
@NCPoliticsUK: Lab lead over Con only 4pts among under 30s, only 3pts among public sector workers. Con won all education levels and all incomes excl <£20k</p>
The meme that everyone in the public sector votes Labour and everyone in the private sector votes Conservative has always seemed absurd.
Yes - but like so much else - we were slapped down on here for suggesting that not all teachers would vote Labour. Apparently they all hated Gove so much....or some such rubbish.
It is worth remembering that the largest teaching union - the NUT - is one of a small number of prominent unions that are effectively controlled by far left splinter groups.
In the case of the NUT there has been huge SWP influence since the 1970s.
Of the others, the PCS And Fire Brigades Union have similar influencers. There is a reason why these Unions gaveblined up to support various varieties of student demo.
gaveblinev. To pointlessly pontificate on a subject which is not relevant to your membership
Learn something new every day. Way did you find this? I looked in six different dictionaries, including OED, Cambridge and Websters, but none of them list it.
Or did you make up a definition in the spot? If so, bravo. Very convincing.
@NCPoliticsUK: Lab lead over Con only 4pts among under 30s, only 3pts among public sector workers. Con won all education levels and all incomes excl <£20k</p>
The meme that everyone in the public sector votes Labour and everyone in the private sector votes Conservative has always seemed absurd.
Yes - but like so much else - we were slapped down on here for suggesting that not all teachers would vote Labour. Apparently they all hated Gove so much....or some such rubbish.
It is worth remembering that the largest teaching union - the NUT - is one of a small number of prominent unions that are effectively controlled by far left splinter groups.
In the case of the NUT there has been huge SWP influence since the 1970s.
Of the others, the PCS And Fire Brigades Union have similar influencers. There is a reason why these Unions gaveblined up to support various varieties of student demo.
That 'gaveblined' most likely should be 'have lined', so ;;a reason why these unions have lined up to support ....'
Die Zeit now claims that the country's government sent Saudi Arabia a shipment of arms to persuade them to support 2006 World Cup bid. The then Chancellor Gerhard Schroder allegedly authorised shipment of rocket-propelled grenades a week before the vote back in the year 2000.
I guess it struck me at about 1pm on polling day, when PB linked the Number cruncher article about the correlation with council polls amongst other things which I bought into wholesale. The scales fell and I did a comically futile Facebook post along the lines of "Aaaargh, Tory majority, vooote!" (rather than getting to the bookies! - well I'm only an occasional casual punter, the fact I was on a betting site didn't occur at that moment).
I guess what I'm saying is why isn't there a regular, publicised flow of prediction data based on council by-election numbers in particular? If the first dozen or so parliamentary seats declared can usually predict the swing to within 1%, why not the last 100 or so council by-elections on a rolling basis. I'm sure it would be useful for a polling company to take in actual results data, and apply its proprietary weightings to those and then to give equal billing to what results are saying and to polling. Might also help determine what adjustments need to be made to the polling.
IIRC we used to do something similar on PB - we certainly spent a lot of time looking at local election data before 2010 and we also looked at Market Towns which were great pointers.
Why we didn't do that again, maybe TSE or OGH can help out here.
I guess it struck me at about 1pm on polling day, when PB linked the Number cruncher article about the correlation with council polls amongst other things which I bought into wholesale. The scales fell and I did a comically futile Facebook post along the lines of "Aaaargh, Tory majority, vooote!" (rather than getting to the bookies! - well I'm only an occasional casual punter, the fact I was on a betting site didn't occur at that moment).
I guess what I'm saying is why isn't there a regular, publicised flow of prediction data based on council by-election numbers in particular? If the first dozen or so parliamentary seats declared can usually predict the swing to within 1%, why not the last 100 or so council by-elections on a rolling basis. I'm sure it would be useful for a polling company to take in actual results data, and apply its proprietary weightings to those and then to give equal billing to what results are saying and to polling. Might also help determine what adjustments need to be made to the polling.
What you can't see is that it goes for a hundred meters in the other direction - they need that much room for all the FIFA members.
Heard that Blatter got a 10 minute standing ovation from the FIFA staff when he went back into the building after he had announced his retirement. Whole damned FIFA edifice needs to come crashing down.
Given the Tories won by 8% nationally these statistics perhaps not too surprising, Labour still lead with young voters, the public sector and low income voters, though a closer gap. Perhaps surprising to see many public sector voters or voters on welfare voting Tory at all, Turkeys voting for Christmas?
I must have quoted that 50 times on here. But even then I saw "smashed" as high teens at worst.
I still think Clexit might have helped...
Even Robert, who was the most pessimistic PBer on Lib Dem chances saw them in the teens.
To think he lost his Lib Dems 11-20 bet on the DOWNSIDE
I think every comment I made in the two weeks before the elections was "4-1 on LibDems 11-20 BARGAIN OF THE YEAR FILL YOUR BOOTS." Fortunately I had a small bet on 10 or fewer at 16-1.
Still, I was gutted they didn't get three more seats.
I also posted that their seats would ultimately be a function of their national vote share, and I had 7 seats at 7%, and 11 seats at 8%. So, I was three too optimistic on their seats (given their vote share).
My biggest error was that I assumed there would be more Con->LD tactical voting in LD-Labour marginals. The Conservatives getting 16% in Cambridge was a real shocker, for example: I expected them to be on 12% or so, with lots of tactical voting for Huppert. Likewise, I thought that he Tories would be struggling to hold their deposit in Southwark and Old Bermondsey.
The movement of women from centre right to centre left and men the reverse is true across the western world. In the US for example, Clinton won white women in 1996 but white men have not voted Democrat since LBJ in 1964. It is a product of deindustrialisation and the decline of Labour unions and more women graduates having children later, men by contrast are more attracted to the social conservatism many rightwing parties have pushed which has moved more wwc voters to the right
This is all so blindingly obvious - and PB Tories keep telling 'em, and most simply reject it as some evil deception. It's not. It's common sense.
First, we need to be really careful not to overthink the general election result. By its very decisiveness there is a profound clarity to what the British public told us. Put simply, every general election since the second world war has been won by the party that has taken the centre-ground and offered the most compelling vision to the British people. We did not do so in either 2010 or 2015.
We did not lose because we were not left wing enough.
It is an obvious truth that when the Labour party loses general elections it does so to a party of the right, not of further to the left. This is so simple but too few people in our party seem to truly grasp this.
When Labour won most handsomely, in 1997, and then again in 2001 and 2005, we had built a coalition of supporters, across classes and across the country.
Since 2007 the party has taken almost every possible step to turn away from what made us unprecedentedly successful under New Labour.
As I have said, every election since 1945 has been won by the party that most clearly dominated the centre-ground. However many times the Labour party tries to re-arrange this formula, however much we think it is the public and not us who must change the outcome will be the same – we will lose.
What you can't see is that it goes for a hundred meters in the other direction - they need that much room for all the FIFA members.
Heard that Blatter got a 10 minute standing ovation from the FIFA staff when he went back into the building after he had announced his retirement. Whole damned FIFA edifice needs to come crashing down.
Many of the African FA officials are also still banging on about what a great man Blatter is. The problem is a lot bigger than just Blatter.
Die Zeit now claims that the country's government sent Saudi Arabia a shipment of arms to persuade them to support 2006 World Cup bid. The then Chancellor Gerhard Schroder allegedly authorised shipment of rocket-propelled grenades a week before the vote back in the year 2000.
I must have quoted that 50 times on here. But even then I saw "smashed" as high teens at worst.
I still think Clexit might have helped...
Even Robert, who was the most pessimistic PBer on Lib Dem chances saw them in the teens.
To think he lost his Lib Dems 11-20 bet on the DOWNSIDE
I think every comment I made in the two weeks before the elections was "4-1 on LibDems 11-20 BARGAIN OF THE YEAR FILL YOUR BOOTS." Fortunately I had a small bet on 10 or fewer at 16-1.
Still, I was gutted they didn't get three more seats.
I also posted that their seats would ultimately be a function of their national vote share, and I had 7 seats at 7%, and 11 seats at 8%. So, I was 3% too optimistic on their seats (given their vote share).
My biggest error was that I assumed there would be more Con->LD tactical voting in LD-Labour marginals. The Conservatives getting 16% in Cambridge was a real shocker, for example: I expected them to be on 12% or so, with lots of tactical voting for Huppert. Likewise, I thought that he Tories would be struggling to hold their deposit in Southwark and Old Bermondsey.
"Nowadays, women are more likely than men to vote Labour. It used to be the other way round. For most of the post-1945 era, women tended to be more Tory than men. Detailed analysis from our post-election survey shows that something else is going on. Labour’s advantage is specifically among women under 50. Labour enjoyed a six-point lead among them—while the Tories led by five points among men under 50. Among people over 50, the Tories have a clear lead among both men (by 12 points) and women (by 15 points). In essence, among people born before the mid-1960s, the traditional gender gap persists, while among women born since then, the new gender gap takes over."
RE Bribes..some years ago I was trying to have a movie produced in a Middle Eastern country.In order to obtain the permissions needed I was told to drive to a certain Government Ministers house..in a brand new Mercedes..and take a taxi home. The script is still in a drawer in my desk.
RE Bribes..some years ago I was trying to have a movie produced in a Middle Eastern country.In order to obtain the permissions needed I was told to drive to a certain Government Ministers house..in a brand new Mercedes..and take a taxi home. The script is still in a drawer in my desk.
My other half was involved in a serious bit of bribery with the Chinese gov. The US firm bidding against his [Swiss] team won the war.
He was later told by the lead US negotiator that he'd made a fundamental mistake, he'd only bribed for information to make his bid more attractive, they'd bribed for the result.
Doh, it seemed so obvious in retrospect!
EDIT Just got all 3 vols of Alan Whicker to watch this weekend - and it includes the Sultan of Brunei, I'll think of you amongst the solid gold taps.
RE Bribes..some years ago I was trying to have a movie produced in a Middle Eastern country.In order to obtain the permissions needed I was told to drive to a certain Government Ministers house..in a brand new Mercedes..and take a taxi home. The script is still in a drawer in my desk.
Comments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiH3L3XpJHY
On topic. How much did the Tories trust their internal data that suggested they were winning? It seems senior Tories expected to. Lower down the food chain there didn't seem to be the same optimism, and perhaps that's why it didn't show up on the markets. Did Tory high command not feed all the good news down - on a "keep 'em guessing, keep 'em keen" basis perhaps?
On the flip side it seems a lot of senior Labour people thought the data showed they were going to win. So it would be wise not to treat your internal data as infallible.
"The little party always gets smashed!"
I still think Clexit might have helped...
What did Jack W know, and how did he know it?
As for the mood in those target LibDem-held seats, I think there was a good degree of optimism that they might be within reach, but I was expecting quite a few near-misses rather than such a clean sweep of nearly all the targets. Of course, low-down in the food-chain you don't get to see the picture as a whole.
It was a pleasant surprise when the results came through!
To think he lost his Lib Dems 11-20 bet on the DOWNSIDE
There were very many people betting on a Tory majority in the last couple of weeks. Not shrewides or insiders, just punters. Most of whom had very little history of betting on politics or being very accurate on any other events. 62% of bets placed on our "majority market" (where NOM was hot favourite) were actually on a Conservative Majority.
Those of us who thought that the range of possible results had to be pretty narrow (because of the huge volume of polling data plus the detailed analysis of that data and the forecasting models) were pretty relaxed about taking on the "gut trusters". We got burnt.
If you can imagine a terrible, bleak world where there were no polls, I doubt the result would have come as a surprise. Improving economy, perceived disparity in leadership competence - simple, right? The people who didn't care about polling or political science models overwhelmingly went for a Tory win.
In that sense the betting markets got it much more right than most other predictive tools. I'd said beforehand that it would be a enormous fail for the proponents of betting as a forecasting method if the Tories failed to win most seats. I think it's only fair to say that, given it went so far the other way, that this election has provided some evidence in their favour.
I haven;t seen anybody get to the bottom of why the lib dems did so very badly in lib dem/tory battles.
For example in Yeovil, they turned a 13k deficit into a 5k majority, Chippenham now a Tory maj of 10k
The NOTA went to UKIP/Greens
The Red Liberals went Labour
And we misunderestimated how many blue Liberals there were, and one nation David Cameron was more appealing to them than any other candidate.
Still, I think lots of those seats are going to be very tough for the LibDems to win back.
@NCPoliticsUK: Lab lead over Con only 4pts among under 30s, only 3pts among public sector workers. Con won all education levels and all incomes excl <£20k
Well quite. All the traditional past indicators of who 'should' win the election where there for all to see, and pointed out many, many times. However, all assertions on PB to that effect were soon quashed or brushed aside as the polling simply did not reflect what turned out to be the reality.
So unlike many, it wasn't that I overthought things - I was just an idiot.
P.S Still made money though! Such small sums, but a single decent bet on UKIP MP chances overrid the losses elsewhere.
I have to give them credit for a supreme effort throughout - they did there best here. I said about 4 weeks before that I thought it was too close to call - and that 733 was a very welcome surprise TBH.
Lab 951 Con 873 Con 777 Con 771 Lab 623 Lab 614 UKIP 370 Green 119 Green 89 Green 82
2 Con and 1 Lab elected. No change compared to 2011 (actually there's a change as one of the Tory incumbents finished 4th and the newcomer second)
This is one politicians should definitely pay alot of attention to !
How those with a household income of between £40-69K voted in #GE2015 (YouGov megapoll):
CON - 42%
LAB - 29%
UKIP - 10%
LDEM - 9%
GRN - 4%
HEATH, Alan David Green Party 82
HOGSTON, Sally Anne UK Independence Party (UKIP) 370
JELLEY, Ian Frederick Conservative Party Candidate 771
JONES, Malcolm Edward Labour Party 623
JONES, Stephen Christopher Green Party 119
MILLS, Alan John Labour Party 951 Elected
REEVES, Robert James Green Party 89
SUMPTER, Karl David Conservative Party Candidate 853 Elected
TALBOT, Margaret Elizabeth Conservative Party Candidate 777 Elected
Though the polling in the final 24 hours was horrific for the Tories. YouGov was no shock but ICM and other phone pollsters swinging from a 3-6 point Tory lead to a 1 point lead/tie was concerning.
For me and many others it is very nearly enough that the Labour are not the Tories. But it wouldn't do to campaign purely on a such a negative line.
Although ordinary workers, and their unions, do still form a considerable underpinning for Labour, things are moving, socially. For instance, we do have what I understand is a growing "under class", sad to say.
But, anyway, one way to underline that Labour is anti-Tory (so to say) they might consider changing their name. I would favour the name "Social Democrat". The "Social" would, I feel, emphasize a non-Tory egoism and the "Democrat" would underline a non-revolutionary approach, and maybe slightly resonate in sympathy with the Democratic party (say) in the USA.
I always wondered about the composition of the lib dem vote when 40% of them regularly showed up as 'eurosceptic' in surveys between 2010 and 2015!!!
I was gobsmacked. They seemed very relaxed about it.
Con 41.8%
Lab 29.7%
UKIP 15.1%
LD 8.3%
Greens 4.1%
Others 1.0%
(See bottom of sheet):
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11QE57smiTTefgOGeWIbnipZRmTPOkwpaKNHV_Cyx4T0/edit#gid=0
Words cannot express how brilliant an idea that is
In the case of the NUT there has been huge SWP influence since the 1970s.
Of the others, the PCS And Fire Brigades Union have similar influencers. There is a reason why these Unions gaveblined up to support various varieties of student demo.
http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w_articles_wsite3_1_05/06/2015_550732
"Nowadays, women are more likely than men to vote Labour. It used to be the other way round. For most of the post-1945 era, women tended to be more Tory than men. Detailed analysis from our post-election survey shows that something else is going on. Labour’s advantage is specifically among women under 50. Labour enjoyed a six-point lead among them—while the Tories led by five points among men under 50. Among people over 50, the Tories have a clear lead among both men (by 12 points) and women (by 15 points). In essence, among people born before the mid-1960s, the traditional gender gap persists, while among women born since then, the new gender gap takes over."
The other thing is that using the previous election has a flaw. It doesn't allow for the randomness of the result. An election is dynamic in everything from who actually managed to vote as expected, down to the randomness of media coverage. The last electioncampaign focussed a lot on Clegg, and Cameron and Brown were probably less scrutinised. My assumption would be that this benefited Brown and I think anecdotally Labour held more seats last time than they expected.
Anyway this dynamism does not appear to be allowed for in the polling, and that polling then influences predicted ranges in betting markets.
Or did you make up a definition in the spot? If so, bravo. Very convincing.
@MrHarryCole: Happy Friday. http://t.co/f8HHhBAQcN
I guess what I'm saying is why isn't there a regular, publicised flow of prediction data based on council by-election numbers in particular? If the first dozen or so parliamentary seats declared can usually predict the swing to within 1%, why not the last 100 or so council by-elections on a rolling basis. I'm sure it would be useful for a polling company to take in actual results data, and apply its proprietary weightings to those and then to give equal billing to what results are saying and to polling. Might also help determine what adjustments need to be made to the polling.
Why we didn't do that again, maybe TSE or OGH can help out here.
Heard that Blatter got a 10 minute standing ovation from the FIFA staff when he went back into the building after he had announced his retirement. Whole damned FIFA edifice needs to come crashing down.
Still, I was gutted they didn't get three more seats.
I also posted that their seats would ultimately be a function of their national vote share, and I had 7 seats at 7%, and 11 seats at 8%. So, I was three too optimistic on their seats (given their vote share).
My biggest error was that I assumed there would be more Con->LD tactical voting in LD-Labour marginals. The Conservatives getting 16% in Cambridge was a real shocker, for example: I expected them to be on 12% or so, with lots of tactical voting for Huppert. Likewise, I thought that he Tories would be struggling to hold their deposit in Southwark and Old Bermondsey.
Can I net off the 20 points that I scored on JosiasJessop's version?
* I only gave myself 10 points on the wine test (for a '45 port) but wasn't sure if I should have got extra points for each other vintage...
Can I net off the 20 points that I scored on JosiasJessop's version?
* I only gave myself 10 points on the wine test (for a '45 port) but wasn't sure if I should have got extra points for each other vintage...
Can I net off the 20 points that I scored on JosiasJessop's version?
* I only gave myself 10 points on the wine test (for a '45 port) but wasn't sure if I should have got extra points for each other vintage...
"I told you Cameron had a women problem..."
The script is still in a drawer in my desk.
He was later told by the lead US negotiator that he'd made a fundamental mistake, he'd only bribed for information to make his bid more attractive, they'd bribed for the result.
Doh, it seemed so obvious in retrospect!
EDIT Just got all 3 vols of Alan Whicker to watch this weekend - and it includes the Sultan of Brunei, I'll think of you amongst the solid gold taps.