Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » It’s The Start of The New Football Season
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » It’s The Start of The New Football Season
The goal of Crowdscores is to crowdsource sports data. So, instead of buying offical data from Opta, we get fans at the game (or watching TV) to tell us what the score is, who scored etc. We’re getting a lot of traction with this model: more than 10,000 people use our app each week, and it is rated more than four out of five.
0
Comments
2 nil with Okazaki and Huth scoring for the foxes is my forecast.
https://twitter.com/piersmorgan/status/606146754963062784
Decision to show KP the exit is vindicated.
STEM - horrid American acronym - can, and therefore should, pay for itself.
University faculties that help us understand HUMANS, but that aren't in heavy demand by the private sector, like sociology and art, should be subsidised by the government.
Apologies for my bleeding-heart arugula-chewing sneering-Islington dinner-party attitude, which I was convinced to adopt by the advocacy of Milton Friedman in "Capitalism and Freedom".
I guess this means Kevin Pietersen's hopes of getting back into the England team are pretty much finished.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-32402945
Never has the difference between club and country seemed so big.
Mr Herdson's comments about labours left leaning constituency association selecting hundreds of candidates for 2020 are well made. Labour's problems do not end with Corbyn not being elected leader.
The guy from the tennis association was saying that courtsiding should be criminialised (it's just a breach of T&Cs at the moment.
The motive: they want to keep ownership of the data themselves and sell it.
I wonder (IANAL) if they are in breach of anti-trust regulation by restricting access to publicly available information to enforce monopolistic pricing?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-33819675
The guy from the tennis association was saying that courtsiding should be criminialised (it's just a breach of T&Cs at the moment.
The motive: they want to keep ownership of the data themselves and sell it.
I wonder (IANAL) if they are in breach of anti-trust regulation by restricting access to publicly available information to enforce monopolistic pricing?
The concept of "ownership" of data of public events is an interesting one that I confess I don't know as much about as I probably should.
Whether that was entirely his fault for not campaigning there in person, instead spending time helping others, or his reputation as a nasty piece of work, or a mighty cock-up by Labour HQ, who under Tom Watson's guidance stripped it of campaign resources in a futile tilt at Sheffield Hallam, or a gentle suburban drift in the seat, or all four together, I don't know, but what does it say if the most formidable intellect, feared campaigner and in effect if not name deputy leader of the Labour party cannot hold his own seat?
Just think - we could be first to know the PCC results next May.
Re Margaret Beaufort: I apologise. My question to you was an attempt at gently pulling your leg. I never meant you to take it seriously, at least so seriously that you would spend your time writing a serious reply. My fault, I am sorry.
Ed Balls's vote stayed as was, so I doubt it is because he repelled many people who had previously voted for him. The Conservatives won a couple of thousand extra votes this time as the Lib Dems collapsed and thereby won the seat.
With a majority of 1,000, the reason he didn't hold his own seat is because he didn't have a safe seat. For example, David Cameron has never lost his seat because it's in a part of the world with few Labour voters, not particularly because he is unusually virtuous or well-regarded.
However, my heart sank at the thought of football already. I really believe that it should operate from September 1 to April 30 and only have those two months where there is overlap with cricket. So, I suppose that SKY and their ilk can make more money and so gain a further stranglehold on PTV UK national sport.
I have never been to Morley and Outwood, and I don't know what it's like. But it seems to me something a bit odd happened there, and Balls would appear to be the joker in the pack.
But I stand by the general rule.
The state of the economy is something far too serious to make jokes about continuously as it affects too many people's hopes and lives.
Of course, it is doubted whether the state of the economy affected Ed & Yvette, especially after all the money made with their years of residence flipping.
In-Play is what is also driving a lot of the corruption we have been seeing in cricket and it is happening in tennis. No longer do you have try and throw the match, you can just score slowly for the odd over or throw away the odd game in tennis.
There was also an incident of a ref in the NBA deliberately giving fouls (or ignoring them) in order to affect the scoring rate of teams. Any game there were are lots of "points" are prime targets for this kind of corruption.
2. A huge Tory ground campaign which Labour only got round to matching in April (and even then, without Balls to spearhead it).
Clearly, there were national issues at play as well but that should have been the baseline swing. Similarly, there was a lot of local candidate churn, as you mention, but I'm not sure that had a great deal of effect on the notionals for the revised line-up; it just brought a lot of votes into play (it should be noted that UKIP had been doing very well in the locals in M&O in 2013-4, so it wasn't unforeseeable).
The contrast with Michael Howard in 2005 is marked, when the Lib Dems tried to take his Folkestone seat, and Howard would return to campaign in his constituency most days after he'd finished with his national campaigning.
ydoethur said:
'
On topic, thank you Mr Herdson for a thought-provoking and alarming article. It should be emailed to every Labour member who is thinking of voting Corbyn so they can feel good about themselves for three years before getting someone who can win elections in.
What is really worrying is the stage we are at in the electoral cycle. At this point, having just been brutally hammered in an election by an unpopular government for being too left-wing, Labour should have worked out that moving further left would be pure self-indulgence and instead be looking to return to power in at least the medium term by electing somebody voters will listen to. Given that they have the recent example of Iain Duncan Smith to ponder, they have no excuse to be moving left, yet on these very threads we have seen people who are demonstrably sane and decent talking about doing just that.
The damage they are doing to Labour's political credibility is immense. Is there any sign of hope for Labour that anyone can see?'
What was so left-wing about Labour's 2015 manifesto? There was nothing there about renationalising large swathes of British industry - or bringing back the National Enterprise Board. No commitment to bring in compulsory Planning Agreements either. There was a commitment to restore the Top Rate of Income Tax to 50% - but that is hardly left-wing given that Thatcher had a rate of 60% for 9 years of her Government. A more accurate statement is surely that Labour was less right-wing than the Tories - but that certainly did not make them left-wing.
As for the scale of defeat, I think you rather exaggerate - it was surprising rather than brutal.An overall majority of 12 is very small and likely to be eroded in due course. Moreover, in terms of % vote share Labour trailed the Tories by just 6.6% - less than in 2010 and less too than any of Thatcher's victories or Major's 1992 win.Had Scotland not gone 'tits up' for Labour the Tory lead for GB as a whole would have been circa 5% - still decisive , but far from overwhelming. Looking at England alone , Labour did better than in 2010- 1992-1987-1983 and 1959.
Because if Balls was the only one who couldn't improve his position - again, we come back to the question of why, especially as he had the highest profile of all of them after Miliband.
Obviously, I am not going to say he would have lost if he had stood in the Rhondda (because he wouldn't have). And if the egregious Mary Creagh could win Wakefield, presumably he could have done as well. But I'm still surprised he couldn't hold Morley.
Mind you, I was surprised Labour didn't retake Cannock Chase and Stroud. It was a surprising result!
As for the scale of the defeat, Labour had a net loss of 27 seats. 40 lost to the SNP, 8 to the Conservatives, offset by 10 gains from the Liberal Democrats and 11 from the Conservatives (I would be willing to be corrected on the Conservative figures - I seem to remember 8 and 12, but that may include Corby). They got 232 seats and scored 30% of the vote - almost exactly what Neil Kinnock got in 1987.
True, Labour have done worse in other elections. But all the others you cite with the exception of 1959 and 1983 are when either Labour has been in power or it has improved on its position from the election before. Moreover, they were all accompanied by a move back to the centre. Now, Corbyn proposes a sharp turn to the left, and as @david_herdson noted, if he wins he has the tools at his command to reshape the party further left as well.
So there is no reason to be optimistic about Labour's prospects at the moment.
Losing to a team which hasn't managed a shot on target 'all' season.
This is before the context of being the only main opposition for the majority of the party, standing against a party that had publicly cut spending (and seemed to enjoy it), and one of the coalition parties imploding so completely that it might be decades before they recover even a fraction of their former support.
In the future, we will look back to this May and wonder how they managed to contrive such a result.
These pics are well worth a look - also link to more
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3190266/A-drone-s-eye-view-awe-inspiring-waterfalls-astonishing-cities-incredible-aerial-pictures-worlds-greatest-sights.html
come on, you know this is a terrible argument.
In all the debate over Labour reform, it is foolish for their position on immigration to not be looked at when its the biggest issue to voters.
With regard to policy I don't accept the argument that rejection of a set of policies at a particular election necessarily requires that the defeated party has to change what if offers to the electorate at future elections. There is also the real possibility that the electorate might move towards a position that it had rejected earlier. I remain firmly of the view,for example,that had Labour fought the 1997 election on its 1992 manifesto it would still have won pretty comfortably - in the intervening five years the electorate had shifted its view. A much more extreme example would relate to the SNP - whose policy of Independence was rejected repeatedly at elections over a period of many decades. Eventually,however, the SNP's persistence did produce a reward!
I am not a supporter of Corbyn - I will vote for Cooper having paid my £3- but I don't share the assumption that his leadership will inevitably prove a disaster. If in the next few years the economy again goes 'tits up' - another recession for example - Osborne could still reap a bitter harvest, with the electorate much more receptive than in 2015 to the view that austerity - and its associated sacrifices - was for nothing
So the visible aspect of their policy here is front and centre in everyday life, unlike something abstract like the deficit.
no one likes to see a dirty game (tho from the BBC)
Man Utd 1-0 Tottenham
Posted at 85 mins
"Sergio..Romero" sing the United fans. De Gea who??
Juan Mata is down at the moment, it looks like crap.
the table doesn't lie.
They did perhaps lose in part because they were not seen as economically credible, which was reinforced by the lukewarmness of their support for austerity, but that's not inherently a right/left issue. One can be "austere" and left wing, if you're prepared to raise taxes.
Labour also made the rather odd strategy of effectively portraying themselves as more left wing than their actual major policies merited, by picking fights with business with little substance being them, and by making symbolic tax rises. A really smart Labour politician would be doing the opposite, but that's perhaps awkward to pull off with the way the balance of the party is - the left wing substance would alienate influential factions in the leadership of the party, while centrist appearances would make it hard to win over the grass routes.
Mr. Ears, cheers for that video. Dry stone walls are great things, much better than boring fencing and barbed wire (few years ago now some plank put up barbed wire too near a path and a little dog ran into it and ended up blind in one eye).
Mr. Rentool, the wiffle stick of righteousness pulverised Balls.
And there was much rejoicing.
Edited extra bit: the app sounds cunning. As I don't watch sport in-person and have no smartphone, it doesn't really apply to me, though.
1. Labour went backwards, relative to the Tories, in marginal seats. Labour put votes on in London and core cities, wiping out the Lib Dems in the process. But, there's not much left to win in such places.
2. Labour can't blame a split left wing vote for a Conservative victory. Corbyn or whoever wins, can unite the left and still lose. 51% voted for right wing parties in the UK, and 55% in England. Labour has to win some of these people over.
3. Voting Labour is inconceivable now to a lot of Southern and Midlands voters. A lot of places haven't returned Labour councillors since the 1990s. Tory-free zones are much rarer in England.
http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-tory-who-voted-yes/#more-74200
I agree with much of what this chap has to say, those of us with a business background would've relished the opportunity to take the Scottish economy forward, in the short term there would have been challenges but in the medium term I'm sure Scotland's economy would have prospered. I remember watching Martin Sorrell being interviewed on Bloomberg in the run up to Indyref, although a staunch Unionist, he indicated an iScotland had the potential to become the Singapore of Europe.
The bizarre irony of Osbo and Cameron now talking about turning Manchester into a Northern Powerhouse, to help rebalance the North South divide after years of underinvestment, is not lost on many of us Scots:
http://news.sky.com/story/1526967/singapore-cash-to-pay-for-northern-powerhouse
Having lived in London through the 1980s and 1990s when there was massive spending on the re-gentrification of London, I saw at first hand what can be achieved with proper investment. That said, there were many white elephant projects - I sometimes wonder whether the Channel Tunnel was the biggest !!
Reopen the coal mines, close the coal-fired power stations, jobs for all, electricity for no-one
It ignores the fact that most Scots are voting for socialism heavy. You won't get Singapore style growth when you keep electing people who view Jeremy Corbyn as a LibDem.
Oh.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33833433
Not so much 'missed a trick' as 'dropped a ravenous honey badger down their codpiece'.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/football/event?id=27468367
Re -point 2. I believe that the Tory overall majority can be blamed on a split left-wing vote. There are 7 constituencies which I am convinced the Tories would not have won had there been no Green candidate on the ballot paper - Gower - Derby North - Croydon Central - Bury North - Morley & Outwood -Plymouth Devonport & Sutton - and Brighton Kemptown.Without them we would be on the cusp of a minority Tory Govt (courtesy of Sinn Fein).
Re - point 3. I live in a Tory - free zone in Norwich in respect of councillors. Of course, this is also true of the big cities of Liverpool - Manchester - Sheffield - Newcastle upon Tyne - so there are plenty of Tory deserts to point to.
You can't just cherrypick. You could just as easily say without the UKIP candidate the Conservatives would have a 5,000 vote majority.
Our back line isn't up to it.
Wouldn't be surprised to see more goals.
The only small problem being of course that they tended to help Labour add votes, but gave the Tories seats. If the Tories can keep winning seats on a split vote like that, it's unlikely they will be reduced to a position of such weakness as they were in 1997 whoever the Labour leader is.
And it also makes the task of assembling an election-winning coalition harder for Labour. Now 35% won't do, 42-43% is more like it. If somebody would show me where a left-wing Labour party can put together 43% of the national vote based on England and the South Wales Valleys alone, I'd be impressed.
South Africansbatsmen back in the hutch. And there's still a day and a bit to go...http://sluggerotoole.com/2015/08/06/danske-poll-majority-of-people-in-northern-ireland-want-to-stay-in-eu/