Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Another PB betting tip comes good
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Another PB betting tip comes good
Last Thursday I urged everybody to get on 3/1 that Ladbrokes was offering that George Osborne would be called Jeffrey in the Commons before the end of the year.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
EDIT: You did highlight this Mr Smithson but I wasn't sure about who it was.
FPT: But it hasn't ameliorated the problem - life expectancy has got relatively worse under devolution.
That you don't understand the popularity of Devolution even with the limited powers it has (and the clear public desire in scotland for more powers that recognises and underlines the limited nature of them) is only to be expected.
Of course what we do know from you is nothing is ever the fault of the SNP. Life will be utopian under the SNP.
"On Saturday, however, at that gathering of the cream of the ultra-Left that was the People’s Assembly Against Austerity, calls for a new conflict to purify the soul of the nation were everywhere. Of course being self-styled progressives, they weren’t actually demanding a war as such. No, what they were after was the industrial equivalent – a General Strike.
Speaker after speaker rose to demand it. What did they want? A General Strike. When did they want one? Yesterday.
In fact, it became such a ritual it was a bit like attending a meeting of General Strikers Anonymous. “Hi, I’m Mark Serwotka, and I’m a striker. I haven’t had a General Strike since 1926.” “Hi, Mark.”
Of course those that had assembled weren’t trying to confront their demons, but release them. They’d fallen off the General Strike wagon, and had absolutely no intention of clambering back on..."
Link?
Don't need one, its there for everyone to see in pretty much everything you post.
Do we think Mr Sarwar had a few quid on it being mentioned?
In other words you haven't got one. Moving on...
Obesity, alcoholism, smoking etc aren't caused by London. They're caused by individuals themselves.
Our own behaviour has tremendous impact on our own lives.
Like is very much utopian under the SNP. Dislike is somewhat less fun.
I've got to hand it to you guys, you're good value. We don't even have to set traps for you!
You think London causes high levels of smoking, obesity, alcoholism etc rather than the individuals responsible themselves? Or do you think people are responsible for their own actions?
http://static.westminster-abbey.org/assets/thumbnail/0019/23068/Cosmati-floor-detail-coloured-star-pattern-72-Westminster-Abbey-copyright.jpg
It was "you guys" actually, but let's not quibble. I certainly wasn't suggesting you are a politician - I was suggesting you are a PB Tory. I'll leave you to judge whether that's better or worse.
So let's hear your theory as to why so many people who make "bad decisions" just happen to be concentrated in one particular geographical area. Genes? Weather? Or is it all just a TOTAL MYSTERY?
I'm going to go with friends, family and peer pressure etc ... you?
Between 1979 and 1997? Hmmm. Try again.
By "city on the other side of our island" I presume you mean "the government"? Yes, I think it's likely to be the government.
I'd like to see the proof of that
They might have taken £4k at 6/4 meaning a payout of £10k, but no way would they lay to lose £10k. Mike got £33@3/1
I expect he'll be first in the queue for this. The ultra Blairites have a talent at self-promotion only eclipsed by the promotion of their hero.
Predominantly returning leftists to government would be more accurate.
as a general rule, the longer a leftist has been returned, the bigger a khazi the constituency is, basically (see the BBC's article on Blaenau Gwent today). Fortunes thrown at it since the mines closed, and yet its still a shrinking broken down toilet of a place.
When constituencies grow and become prosperous, they tend to vote tory.
So it really is in labour's interest to keep as many constituencies as poor as possible for as long as possible.
They might have taken £4k at 6/4 meaning a payout of £10k, but no way would they lay to lose £10k. Mike got £33@3/1
You'd best tell everyone else who's running with it because it certainly isn't just Waugh.
Perhaps instead of a conspiracy it may just be that they aren't infallible and this was a pretty strange bet considering how likely it was that someone would have a pop at 'Jeffrey'.
But WHY are people more likely to over-drink, smoke and under-exercise in Scotland than elsewhere in the UK? Do you have a plausible explanation that doesn't involve the way that Scotland has been misruled by the UK government?
And the explanation for the gap always widening between rich and poor under the Tories is...?
The UK government is responsible for the UK as a whole, unless you can identify actions the UK government has taken against Scotland but not the rest of the UK the variable is the people.
Explain why the Scottish people act differently to people elsewhere in the UK, Philip.
Bill Walker MSP for Dunfermline elected as SNP since expelled was in court today facing 24 charges of assaulting 4 women over a 28 year period . Trial hearing was set for July 8th .
Result in 2011 SNP 11010 Lab 10420 Lib Dem 5776 Con 2093 SNP gain from notional Lib Dem 2007 seat with a majority over Labour of 77 .
Not good enough. WHY is 'family, friend, peer pressure etc' different in Scotland to the rest of the UK?
Ugly for who? the police?
Salmond is too much of a roll model.
Perhaps instead of a conspiracy it may just be that they aren't infallible and this was a pretty strange bet considering how likely it was that someone would have a pop at 'Jeffrey'.
Bookmakers always pretend they've taken more than they really have, it's the oldest PR trick in the book. Waugh is just quoting Ladbrokes press release.
They let Mike have £33.33 to win £99.99 then moved it to 6/4. if they laid it to lose £9.9k after that they need their heads examining.
The word payout means they gave given back £10k including the original stake, so it could be they had laid £4500@6/5 but even that is unlikely
Nothing inevitable, but as that's what's happened we should probably draw the obvious conclusion.
They let Mike have £33.33 to win £99.99 then moved it to 6/4. if they laid it to lose £9.9k after that they need their heads examining.
The word payout means they gave given back £10k including the original stake, so it could be they had laid £4500@6/5 but even that is unlikely
Yes, they have their swung their PR machine into action but it was still a fairly bizarre bet that some punters would have took advantage of and I doubt they will be complaining too much.
What I am saying is I doubt Ladbrokes would risk losing ten grand on a market like this. They might have taken a few hundred quid.
Bookmakers always pretend they have been beaten up by the punters because it is the best publicity possible.
mike and tim were both on, they are obviously shrewd political bettors... Mike got £33 on, maybe tim could let us know what he got?
that they are fat,lazy, drunkards, who really dont give a toss, pass the fags mate..where's the clicker?
Hmmm. I don't think I'm the only one who will have spotted that that's a rather unconvincing answer to the question that you mysteriously omitted from your quote -
"as a matter of interest, what would you attribute the worse Scottish life expectancy figures since the 1950s to? It can't be devolution, because that didn't start until 1999, and yet we all know it can't possibly be London's fault. Heaven forbid. Maybe it's something to do with the Church of Scotland?"
Feel free to try again. It seems self-evident that if your claim to truly believe that you have somehow "won this argument" is genuine, you must have an answer to that question.
And that 'culture etc' spontaneously emerged under the union? Why? How? In what way was the union not implicated in that phenomenon?
You can also both now use this as a cautionary for the next novelty political bet.
After getting on as fast as you can to take advantage of it of course.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benedictbrogan/100223407/for-some-meps-the-right-to-sign-on-and-sod-off-is-worth-fighting-for/
"f you haven't caught up with it, here's the video published by OpenEurope of MEPs signing in for their 300euros, sodding off… and thumping the journalist who dares to ask them about it (the intrepid Tom Staal of Geenstijl)."
It's day 2. But Carlotta is indeed a gem. She thinks that all she has to do to win an argument is say "I've won an argument, didn't you notice, you silly boy?"
Ladbrokes are talking utter nonsense of course. If they make more that around GBP200k per year on politics I'd be surprised and they are hardly going to throw away 5% of that.
Huzzah for Laura Robson's victory!
"The UK average is 78.1 years for males and 82.1 years for females and the gap between UK and Scottish life expectancy is now wider than in 1997-1999, by 0.2 years for males and by 0.3 years for females.""
So the gap has widened since Devolution......
Which evil Unionist mouthpiece posted this heresy?
The Scottish government:
http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/files2/stats/annual-review-2011/j21285206.htm
So why has relative life expectancy declined under Devolution - and why would independence reverse that?
New balls required for James.
Why has relative life expectancy declined under Devolution?
Arguing about whether it is day 2 or day 3 is about as productive as the main discussion.
You've yet to actually put up any evidence to support your claim.
Once again, congratulations on correcting that factual howler you made on the previous thread. But don't worry, I'm sure no-one noticed that you claimed that life expectancy itself had declined under devolution.
The answer to your question is contained in the blogpost I have already linked to -
http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/yet-another-problem-that-london-rule.html
Now, Carlotta. Third time of asking. What is the explanation for why Scottish life expectancy declined relative to the rest of the United Kingdom starting in the 1950s, more than four decades prior to devolution? Do you actually have an answer? I have to warn you that if you fail to address the question yet again, people are going to be reasonably conclude that you don't.
If it hadn't been for the fixed term parliament act we'd be talking about possible early elections.
This site is at its worst when there's nothing to be bet on something that's going to be resolved within a short time.
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/britain-early-discussion.html
Arguing about whether it is day 2 or day 3 is about as productive as the main discussion."
Don't beat yourself up, Charles. From what I can gather, the "silly claim that you responded to" was something you had mistaken as a "joke".
"You've yet to actually put up any evidence to support your claim."
The life expectancy figures are a matter of record, Charles. You can huff and you can puff but they are there in black and white. This has happened on London's watch.
No it's not! And I'm right on that!
Scotland certainly had its full share of heavy industry, mining and ship building with added asbestos but did it really have more than, say, Newcastle? Glasgow is a depressing place but it is still at least as nice as Liverpool.
Scots drink a lot more than the UK average. Have we simply not shared the English obsession with house buying and spent too much on the drink?
For a good chunk of my life there has been something of an obsession amongst Scots about not being better than you are, not forgetting where you come from, discouraging aspirational sorts in a way that 19th century Scots would have found bewildering as they helped to build an empire. The reasons behind this are complex but it clearly does not help.
Charles, as we've already seen on this thread you're capable of starting an argument about whether this is Tuesday or not.
It could be the case that life expectancy would have been worse if Scotland had not been part of the union. No one can know, so what is the point of this argument?
Your claim was that this is *because of the Union*. Not because of policies implemented, not because of the decline of heavy industry, not because of anything else, but *because of the political system*.
That's a big claim - that political systems directly affect outcomes - that it would be interesting to debate. But you don't. You just dismiss any of the reasonable (but possibly wrong) points made by other posters without making a counter-argument.
Given that it started at a time when Westminster was in sole control, it's almost impossible to see how that can NOT be a factor.
New balls required for PB tories.
I make that day 3 - but not 3x 24 hours.
You can't even win an argument with yourself!
Charles, for your own sake, I strongly advise you to stop flogging this dead horse. Policies implemented are only implemented because of the union. We would not have had the Thatcher government, or the Cameron government, or the Heath government (or even the Macmillan government after 1959) without the union. That is a fact.
I was going to start this post by accusing you of 'hair-splitting', but it's not even that - the distinction you're attempting to draw just doesn't make any sense whatsoever. The fact that an intelligent man like you can't seem to see that is extraordinary.
Surely it's just a statement of the bleeding obvious?
So for example if central heating (say) was adopted on average 1 year later in Scotland then you'd see an effect such as that. It would (of course) correct itself as the general adoption became more widespread. However if every year there's a new factor arriving then you'd see a growing divergence.
Seemingly innocuous factors are far more likely to be driving such anomalies rather than anything politicians do (or may do).
"You can't even win an argument with yourself!"
But luckily I've got you to argue with instead. You've ignored my question for a third time, ergo you don't have an answer.
"But they had already been in sole control for 250 years."
I think you may have just put your finger on why Scottish nationalism surged from the 1960s onwards. The union used to work for Scotland. It stopped working.