Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » It’s now now neck and neck on Betfair between a LAB majorit

SystemSystem Posts: 12,179
edited July 2013 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » It’s now now neck and neck on Betfair between a LAB majority at GE2015 and a hung parliament

The percentages are calculated by taking data from the Betfair site and expressing them as a percentage simply because more people understand them that way.

Read the full story here


«1

Comments

  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    Send for Yvette!
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,877
    I think that's a fair reflection. Lynton Crosby will squeeze UKIP on the right as you mentioned int he previous article, but I think it will also push more disaffected Lib Dems into the arms of Labour. I think the other factor to take into account is that a lot of people seem very disaffected at the moment, especially on the left, so many might just not bother voting or vote Green or some other type of protest vote since the Lib Dems are seen to be in bed with the Tories.

    What I think we can all agree on is that Labour's poll lead seems very soft at the moment, and the last thing Ed needs is accusations of impropriety with regards to Labour's union relationship as it will seem very grubby.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    Hung Parliament will move to substantially odds-on in the coming months...
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    tim said:

    6/4-6/4-4/1 looks about right.

    Arent the blues 7/2 tho with betfair which is the thread subject?
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,674
    edited July 2013
    O/T:

    I agree that Andy Murray should probably get a knighthood — but when he's a bit older, not when he's only 26!
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    FPT - RobC said:


    "I thought knighthoods used only to be handed out to great sportsmen on their retirement. I'd find it embarrassing to be saddled with one while still competing and no doubt motivating your opponents to try even harder. Andy should decline if offered."
    ......................................................................

    Not so. Even recently Sir Wiggo, Sir Hoyo and Sir Ainslo all competed or will compete whilst dubbed.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Andy_JS said:

    O/T:

    I agree that Andy Murray should probably get a knighthood — but when he's a bit older, not when he's only 26!

    Age shouldn't come into. If the achievement is worthy of the honour it should be awarded.

  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    FPT Rogère

    Cameron "Can't think of anyone who deserves a knighthood more than Andy Murray...."

    Wouldn't it be wonderful if he turned it down. I thought yesterday when he didn't bow to the Royal that the signs were good....


    You must have been in Villeneuve-sur-mer in June 2003.

    Take note of the following Telegraph contemporaneous article:

    The long-standing tradition of Wimbledon's Centre Court players bowing or curtseying to the Royal Box has been scrapped.

    The order, which comes into immediate effect, was issued yesterday by the Duke of Kent, President of the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club since 1969, who has deemed it an anachronism in modern times.

    The only exception would be if the Queen or the Prince of Wales attended, which is about as likely as a British player winning a Wimbledon singles championship.


    The only change to have been introduced since is that Gentlemen Players are now permitted to bow when Pippa Middleton departs from the Royal Box.
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    Aargh, curse of the new thread strikes again. FPT:

    Royal baby news... Apparently it is to have the official title 'Prince/Princess of Cambridge'

    Which is nice.

    But I care much more about making money out of this hapless sprog.

    So far, betting wise, over the last few months i've laid everything under 14/1 on BF's baby name market. As long as it's not one of the favourites, I should make about a hundred quid with a max liability of £150.

    Gender-wise, I'm not believing the bollocks in the press - I'm pretty sure the gender is a 50/50 shot. Given the skewed odds therefore, I'm heavily invested in it being a boy (I'm on between 6/4 & 2/1). Still available from coral at 11/8, which I'd recommend if any casual punters fancy a flutter.

    Have I missed any other royal baby value bets?

    http://www.oddschecker.com/novelty/william-and-kate/
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited July 2013
    Breaking News from No 10.

    Alex Salmond is due to join the Prime Minister when entertaining Sir Andrew Murray for tea in Downing Street at 4:00 this afternoon.

    Scotland's First Minister agreed to attend after being informed that chocolate profiteroles will be served.
  • GrandioseGrandiose Posts: 2,323
    I'd say 15% - 50% - 35% I think.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,957
    How can a dukedom have princely titles attached to it? Surely the title should be Prince/Princess X of Cambridge.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    edited July 2013
    Pong said:

    Aargh, curse of the new thread strikes again. FPT:

    Royal baby news... Apparently it is to have the official title 'Prince/Princess of Cambridge'

    Which is nice.

    But I care much more about making money out of this hapless sprog.

    So far, betting wise, over the last few months i've laid everything under 14/1 on BF's baby name market. As long as it's not one of the favourites, I should make about a hundred quid with a max liability of £150.

    Gender-wise, I'm not believing the bollocks in the press - I'm pretty sure the gender is a 50/50 shot. Given the skewed odds therefore, I'm heavily invested in it being a boy (I'm on between 6/4 & 2/1). Still available from coral at 11/8, which I'd recommend if any casual punters fancy a flutter.

    Have I missed any other royal baby value bets?

    http://www.oddschecker.com/novelty/william-and-kate/

    With Andy Murray mania in full swing perhaps the royal couple might name a boy .... Prince Murray .... but after Murray Walker too and in honour of Morris Dancer and his F1 threads and posts !!

    HRH Prince Murray of Cambridge.

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,930
    AveryLP said:

    Breaking News from No 10.

    Alex Salmond is due to join the Prime Minister when entertaining Sir Andrew Murray for tea in Downing Street at 4:00 this afternoon.

    Scotland's First Minister agreed to attend after being informed that chocolate profiteroles will be served.

    Served by Andy at 130mph? Probably too much to hope for.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    Pong said:



    Have I missed any other royal baby value bets?

    http://www.oddschecker.com/novelty/william-and-kate/

    My advice would be to lay Chardonnay.

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,930
    The fact the poor boy (if it is a boy) will be called Prince surely scores out Andrew as a possible name doesn't it? That position is filled.

    If it is a girl I think Elizabeth is very, very, likely.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    edited July 2013
    RobD said:

    How can a dukedom have princely titles attached to it? Surely the title should be Prince/Princess X of Cambridge.

    Because the childs father is also HRH Prince William of Wales, just as Prince Andrew's children are HRH Princess of York whilst he is also Duke of York.

  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    JackW said:

    Pong said:

    Aargh, curse of the new thread strikes again. FPT:

    Royal baby news... Apparently it is to have the official title 'Prince/Princess of Cambridge'

    Which is nice.

    But I care much more about making money out of this hapless sprog.

    So far, betting wise, over the last few months i've laid everything under 14/1 on BF's baby name market. As long as it's not one of the favourites, I should make about a hundred quid with a max liability of £150.

    Gender-wise, I'm not believing the bollocks in the press - I'm pretty sure the gender is a 50/50 shot. Given the skewed odds therefore, I'm heavily invested in it being a boy (I'm on between 6/4 & 2/1). Still available from coral at 11/8, which I'd recommend if any casual punters fancy a flutter.

    Have I missed any other royal baby value bets?

    http://www.oddschecker.com/novelty/william-and-kate/

    With Andy Murray mania in full swing perhaps the royal couple might name a boy .... Prince Murray .... but after Murray Walker too and in honour of Morris Dancer and his F1 threads and posts !!

    HRH Prince Murray of Cambridge.

    Anyone for Dennis?
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    edited July 2013
    OT, is anyone else getting an ad on the site from an organization called En Campaigns that claims to be somehow associated with the Department of Business saying it will support entrepreneurs, but with "support" and "entrepreneurs" spelled wrong?

    static.messagespaceads.com/Advertisers/5fc2d4bea5c94d998b0946b4d2620cdc.gif
  • Jeez, listen to yourselves. You get all upset when someone lampoons Cameron or Milliband, calling them fop, or Wallace, but think it's fair game for Salmond to be ridiculed. It's almost as if you're scared, or something.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    DavidL said:

    The fact the poor boy (if it is a boy) will be called Prince surely scores out Andrew as a possible name doesn't it? That position is filled.

    If it is a girl I think Elizabeth is very, very, likely.

    And a clever choice would be James for a boy.

  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,957
    edited July 2013
    JackW said:

    RobD said:

    How can a dukedom have princely titles attached to it? Surely the title should be Prince/Princess X of Cambridge.

    Because the child's father is also HRH Prince William of Wales, just as Prince Andrew's children are HRH Princess of York whilst he is also Duke of York.

    I think the distinction is between Prince X of Y and Prince of Y, the latter implies the holder is a prince in his own right (by virtue of holding a principality).
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,930
    AveryLP said:

    DavidL said:

    The fact the poor boy (if it is a boy) will be called Prince surely scores out Andrew as a possible name doesn't it? That position is filled.

    If it is a girl I think Elizabeth is very, very, likely.

    And a clever choice would be James for a boy.

    As a Scot I don't think that the James's were amongst our most successful exports. Been out of favour for a long time.

    Maybe George?

  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    RobD said:

    JackW said:

    RobD said:

    How can a dukedom have princely titles attached to it? Surely the title should be Prince/Princess X of Cambridge.

    Because the child's father is also HRH Prince William of Wales, just as Prince Andrew's children are HRH Princess of York whilst he is also Duke of York.

    I think the distinction is between Prince X of Y and Prince of Y.
    The distinction is because Andrew is son of a living monarch whilst William is son of the heir to the throne who is Prince of Wales. Further HM has ordered that the children of the heir to the heir to the throne should also be HRH of Cambridge.

  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    AveryLP said:

    JackW said:

    Pong said:

    Aargh, curse of the new thread strikes again. FPT:

    Royal baby news... Apparently it is to have the official title 'Prince/Princess of Cambridge'

    Which is nice.

    But I care much more about making money out of this hapless sprog.

    So far, betting wise, over the last few months i've laid everything under 14/1 on BF's baby name market. As long as it's not one of the favourites, I should make about a hundred quid with a max liability of £150.

    Gender-wise, I'm not believing the bollocks in the press - I'm pretty sure the gender is a 50/50 shot. Given the skewed odds therefore, I'm heavily invested in it being a boy (I'm on between 6/4 & 2/1). Still available from coral at 11/8, which I'd recommend if any casual punters fancy a flutter.

    Have I missed any other royal baby value bets?

    http://www.oddschecker.com/novelty/william-and-kate/

    With Andy Murray mania in full swing perhaps the royal couple might name a boy .... Prince Murray .... but after Murray Walker too and in honour of Morris Dancer and his F1 threads and posts !!

    HRH Prince Murray of Cambridge.

    Anyone for Dennis?
    Today don't you mean anyone for tennis ?!?

  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Pong said:

    Aargh, curse of the new thread strikes again. FPT:

    Royal baby news... Apparently it is to have the official title 'Prince/Princess of Cambridge'

    Which is nice.

    But I care much more about making money out of this hapless sprog.

    So far, betting wise, over the last few months i've laid everything under 14/1 on BF's baby name market. As long as it's not one of the favourites, I should make about a hundred quid with a max liability of £150.

    Gender-wise, I'm not believing the bollocks in the press - I'm pretty sure the gender is a 50/50 shot. Given the skewed odds therefore, I'm heavily invested in it being a boy (I'm on between 6/4 & 2/1). Still available from coral at 11/8, which I'd recommend if any casual punters fancy a flutter.

    Have I missed any other royal baby value bets?

    http://www.oddschecker.com/novelty/william-and-kate/


    I backed some of Kate's great & Grandparents names ie Peter (grandad who died as they were engaged) at 250/1 and 50s, Olive (great gran who started the family business) and Valerie both at 66s

    Dorothy, Edith and Constance are the others I wanted to back but couldn't find prices
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,930
    JackW said:

    AveryLP said:

    JackW said:

    Pong said:

    Aargh, curse of the new thread strikes again. FPT:

    Royal baby news... Apparently it is to have the official title 'Prince/Princess of Cambridge'

    Which is nice.

    But I care much more about making money out of this hapless sprog.

    So far, betting wise, over the last few months i've laid everything under 14/1 on BF's baby name market. As long as it's not one of the favourites, I should make about a hundred quid with a max liability of £150.

    Gender-wise, I'm not believing the bollocks in the press - I'm pretty sure the gender is a 50/50 shot. Given the skewed odds therefore, I'm heavily invested in it being a boy (I'm on between 6/4 & 2/1). Still available from coral at 11/8, which I'd recommend if any casual punters fancy a flutter.

    Have I missed any other royal baby value bets?

    http://www.oddschecker.com/novelty/william-and-kate/

    With Andy Murray mania in full swing perhaps the royal couple might name a boy .... Prince Murray .... but after Murray Walker too and in honour of Morris Dancer and his F1 threads and posts !!

    HRH Prince Murray of Cambridge.

    Anyone for Dennis?
    Today don't you mean anyone for tennis ?!?

    I think Patricia is a little unlikely.

  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,674
    edited July 2013
    Latest UKPR average:

    Lab 38%
    Con 30%
    LD 10%

    That looks like a hung parliament to me once we move out of mid-term. The LDs will get about 15% due to personal votes.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,957
    edited July 2013
    JackW said:


    The distinction is because Andrew is son of a living monarch whilst William is son of the heir to the throne who is Prince of Wales. Further HM has ordered that the children of the heir to the heir to the throne should also be HRH of Cambridge.

    Sorry I added an extra sentence to my previous post to clarify what I was nattering on about.

    I don't buy that distinctions - that would mean there is a principality of Cambridge somewhere, given that there is now a Prince/Princess of it.

    All fascinatingly dull stuff... ;)
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    tim said:

    AveryLP said:

    Pong said:



    Have I missed any other royal baby value bets?

    http://www.oddschecker.com/novelty/william-and-kate/

    My advice would be to lay Chardonnay.

    You'll like this Avery.

    Bear with it, it's worth it for the killer "Isn't your child called India" -"that's not a location" money shot.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gvXUFvibog

    I could kind of see her point until it turned out her kids are called Poppy and India
  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    What's in a name?

    Quite a lot if it's Kyle, according to this teacher (second letter down):

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/letters/letters-selfreliance-is-no-joking-matter-8693660.html
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    JackW said:

    Andy_JS said:

    O/T:

    I agree that Andy Murray should probably get a knighthood — but when he's a bit older, not when he's only 26!

    Age shouldn't come into. If the achievement is worthy of the honour it should be awarded.

    Do you have a vested interest Mr Jack?
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Bit of a morale blow for the Reds - not being odds on to be nailed on.

    Next point of panic is when the Lab maj price starts to resemble the Con maj price.


  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    AveryLP said:

    Breaking News from No 10.

    Alex Salmond is due to join the Prime Minister when entertaining Sir Andrew Murray for tea in Downing Street at 4:00 this afternoon.

    Scotland's First Minister agreed to attend after being informed that chocolate profiteroles will be served.

    Has Mrs Salmond commented on how yesterday's events compared with the public euphoria at Fred Perry's win ?


  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,957
    edited July 2013
    Charles said:



    Do you have a vested interest Mr Jack?

    That would involve JackW kneeling before the current Sovereign, an act of recognition which may be too hard for the Jacobite to bear.

    Unless of course you mean he has a bet on it ;)
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    AveryLP said:

    DavidL said:

    The fact the poor boy (if it is a boy) will be called Prince surely scores out Andrew as a possible name doesn't it? That position is filled.

    If it is a girl I think Elizabeth is very, very, likely.

    And a clever choice would be James for a boy.

    Neither James I & VI or James II & VII had a great track record, so I doubt it.

    Additionally - don't recall, but may be JackW can help - wasn't there a James-over-the-water that would confuse the count?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    isam said:

    Pong said:

    Aargh, curse of the new thread strikes again. FPT:

    Royal baby news... Apparently it is to have the official title 'Prince/Princess of Cambridge'

    Which is nice.

    But I care much more about making money out of this hapless sprog.

    So far, betting wise, over the last few months i've laid everything under 14/1 on BF's baby name market. As long as it's not one of the favourites, I should make about a hundred quid with a max liability of £150.

    Gender-wise, I'm not believing the bollocks in the press - I'm pretty sure the gender is a 50/50 shot. Given the skewed odds therefore, I'm heavily invested in it being a boy (I'm on between 6/4 & 2/1). Still available from coral at 11/8, which I'd recommend if any casual punters fancy a flutter.

    Have I missed any other royal baby value bets?

    http://www.oddschecker.com/novelty/william-and-kate/


    I backed some of Kate's great & Grandparents names ie Peter (grandad who died as they were engaged) at 250/1 and 50s, Olive (great gran who started the family business) and Valerie both at 66s

    Dorothy, Edith and Constance are the others I wanted to back but couldn't find prices
    Lay them if you can.

    Just sayin'
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    tim said:

    AveryLP said:

    Pong said:



    Have I missed any other royal baby value bets?

    http://www.oddschecker.com/novelty/william-and-kate/

    My advice would be to lay Chardonnay.

    You'll like this Avery.

    Bear with it, it's worth it for the killer "Isn't your child called India" -"that's not a location" money shot.

    A worthy debate, tim.

    Setting aside its nuances, I voted for Katie as she was the looker.

    Must be something to do with twit school.

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,661
    tim said:

    AveryLP said:

    Pong said:



    Have I missed any other royal baby value bets?

    http://www.oddschecker.com/novelty/william-and-kate/

    My advice would be to lay Chardonnay.

    You'll like this Avery.

    Bear with it, it's worth it for the killer "Isn't your child called India" -"that's not a location" money shot.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gvXUFvibog

    Katie H must surely be a poster on here.

  • MillsyMillsy Posts: 900
    That's a good price for NOM
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    isam said:

    Pong said:

    Aargh, curse of the new thread strikes again. FPT:

    Royal baby news... Apparently it is to have the official title 'Prince/Princess of Cambridge'

    Which is nice.

    But I care much more about making money out of this hapless sprog.

    So far, betting wise, over the last few months i've laid everything under 14/1 on BF's baby name market. As long as it's not one of the favourites, I should make about a hundred quid with a max liability of £150.

    Gender-wise, I'm not believing the bollocks in the press - I'm pretty sure the gender is a 50/50 shot. Given the skewed odds therefore, I'm heavily invested in it being a boy (I'm on between 6/4 & 2/1). Still available from coral at 11/8, which I'd recommend if any casual punters fancy a flutter.

    Have I missed any other royal baby value bets?

    http://www.oddschecker.com/novelty/william-and-kate/


    I backed some of Kate's great & Grandparents names ie Peter (grandad who died as they were engaged) at 250/1 and 50s, Olive (great gran who started the family business) and Valerie both at 66s

    Dorothy, Edith and Constance are the others I wanted to back but couldn't find prices
    Are you sure you are not mistaking the genealogy of the Middleton family for a roll-call at a UKIP primary?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Lynton Crosby gets it:

    "that there were three reasons Conservative voters were turning their backs on the party: immigration, welfare, and the economy. The last reason was the most important driver, but the European Union was not the top reason. It is of course a contributing factor to other problems, particularly immigration."

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/07/exclusive-how-the-tories-plan-to-attack-ukip/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=exclusive-how-the-tories-plan-to-attack-ukip
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693

    What's in a name?

    Quite a lot if it's Kyle, according to this teacher (second letter down):

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/letters/letters-selfreliance-is-no-joking-matter-8693660.html

    Prince Kial of Cambridge... Well it has a certain modern ring to it.

    My favourite would be king Maximus. How cool would that be?!
  • dugarbandierdugarbandier Posts: 2,596
    JackW said:

    FPT - RobC said:


    "I thought knighthoods used only to be handed out to great sportsmen on their retirement. I'd find it embarrassing to be saddled with one while still competing and no doubt motivating your opponents to try even harder. Andy should decline if offered."
    ......................................................................

    Not so. Even recently Sir Wiggo, Sir Hoyo and Sir Ainslo all competed or will compete whilst dubbed.

    apparently the rot started with sir stanley matthews in 1965
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    RobD said:

    JackW said:


    The distinction is because Andrew is son of a living monarch whilst William is son of the heir to the throne who is Prince of Wales. Further HM has ordered that the children of the heir to the heir to the throne should also be HRH of Cambridge.

    Sorry I added an extra sentence to my previous post to clarify what I was nattering on about.

    I don't buy that distinctions - that would mean there is a principality of Cambridge somewhere, given that there is now a Prince/Princess of it.

    All fascinatingly dull stuff... ;)
    You're a little confused. Outside the title Prince of Wales the title prince does not infer a principality. Children of the monarch are Prince/ess of the United Kingdom.

    When Andrew was made Duke of York he didn't become Prince of York although his children as bodies of the male heir general are Princesses with the added territorial designation of their father - York.

    The last time we had a living monarch with three generational heirs was in 1894 when Prince Edward, later Edward VIII was born to Queen Victoria's grandson - later George V.

    Our present Queen has departed early from the 19th precedence as Edward was only His Highness Prince Edward of York for the first four years of his life.

    The following taken from Wiki :

    23 June 1894 – 28 May 1898: His Highness Prince Edward of York
    28 May 1898 – 22 January 1901: His Royal Highness Prince Edward of York[100]
    22 January 1901 – 9 November 1901: His Royal Highness Prince Edward of Cornwall and York
    9 November 1901 – 6 May 1910: His Royal Highness Prince Edward of Wales
    6 May 1910 – 23 June 1910: His Royal Highness The Duke of Cornwall
    23 June 1910 – 20 January 1936: His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales in Scotland: 1910–1936: His Royal Highness The Prince Edward, Duke of Rothesay

    20 January 1936 – 11 December 1936: His Majesty The King and, occasionally, outside the United Kingdom, and with regard to India: His Imperial Majesty The King-Emperor



  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    isam said:

    Pong said:

    Aargh, curse of the new thread strikes again. FPT:

    Royal baby news... Apparently it is to have the official title 'Prince/Princess of Cambridge'

    Which is nice.

    But I care much more about making money out of this hapless sprog.

    So far, betting wise, over the last few months i've laid everything under 14/1 on BF's baby name market. As long as it's not one of the favourites, I should make about a hundred quid with a max liability of £150.

    Gender-wise, I'm not believing the bollocks in the press - I'm pretty sure the gender is a 50/50 shot. Given the skewed odds therefore, I'm heavily invested in it being a boy (I'm on between 6/4 & 2/1). Still available from coral at 11/8, which I'd recommend if any casual punters fancy a flutter.

    Have I missed any other royal baby value bets?

    http://www.oddschecker.com/novelty/william-and-kate/


    I backed some of Kate's great & Grandparents names ie Peter (grandad who died as they were engaged) at 250/1 and 50s, Olive (great gran who started the family business) and Valerie both at 66s

    Dorothy, Edith and Constance are the others I wanted to back but couldn't find prices
    I'll give you any name you want (that isn't listed on oddschecker) at 66/1, for a fiver a shot.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Charles said:

    JackW said:

    Andy_JS said:

    O/T:

    I agree that Andy Murray should probably get a knighthood — but when he's a bit older, not when he's only 26!

    Age shouldn't come into. If the achievement is worthy of the honour it should be awarded.

    Do you have a vested interest Mr Jack?
    What would an aged Scottish noble want with more titles ....

    Betting on the other hand ....

  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    edited July 2013
    Edit. repeat post.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    isam said:

    tim said:

    AveryLP said:

    Pong said:



    Have I missed any other royal baby value bets?

    http://www.oddschecker.com/novelty/william-and-kate/

    My advice would be to lay Chardonnay.

    You'll like this Avery.

    Bear with it, it's worth it for the killer "Isn't your child called India" -"that's not a location" money shot.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gvXUFvibog
    I could kind of see her point until it turned out her kids are called Poppy and India
    My daughter has played with both of her children.

    What I found amusing was that when Ms Hopkins first aired her views about class and the names of children, my Ex declared on CiF that she would never let her children play with Poppy and India, entirely ignorant of the fact that her first born already had done so.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,957
    JackW said:



    You're a little confused. Outside the title Prince of Wales the title prince does not infer a principality. Children of the monarch are Prince/ess of the United Kingdom.

    When Andrew was made Duke of York he didn't become Prince of York although his children as bodies of the male heir general are Princesses with the added territorial designation of their father - York.

    The last time we had a living monarch with three generational heirs was in 1894 when Prince Edward, later Edward VIII was born to Queen Victoria's grandson - later George V.

    Our present Queen has departed early from the 19th precedence as Edward was only His Highness Prince Edward of York for the first four years of his life.

    The following taken from Wiki :

    The subtle difference is between "Y, Prince of X", and Prince Y of X. Charles is "Charles, Prince of Wales", whereas his son is "Prince William of Wales". Now I'm fairly confident this is just the Mail getting it wrong in its article, but Williams son (let's say) shouldn't be "Bob, Prince of Cambridge", implying there is a principality, he should be "Prince Bob of Cambridge", giving him a princely title attached to his fathers ducal holdings.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    edited July 2013
    Charles said:

    AveryLP said:

    DavidL said:

    The fact the poor boy (if it is a boy) will be called Prince surely scores out Andrew as a possible name doesn't it? That position is filled.

    If it is a girl I think Elizabeth is very, very, likely.

    And a clever choice would be James for a boy.

    Neither James I & VI or James II & VII had a great track record, so I doubt it.

    Additionally - don't recall, but may be JackW can help - wasn't there a James-over-the-water that would confuse the count?
    Not too sure having a poor track record is a bar !!

    James VII/II son was the Jacobite King James VIII/III and a very fine chap too as my avatar indicates !!

  • @JackW
    We should not of course forget the short-lived Principality of Chester, created by His late Majesty Richard II on 25 September 1397, but extant for barely two years.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    RobD said:

    JackW said:



    You're a little confused. Outside the title Prince of Wales the title prince does not infer a principality. Children of the monarch are Prince/ess of the United Kingdom.

    When Andrew was made Duke of York he didn't become Prince of York although his children as bodies of the male heir general are Princesses with the added territorial designation of their father - York.

    The last time we had a living monarch with three generational heirs was in 1894 when Prince Edward, later Edward VIII was born to Queen Victoria's grandson - later George V.

    Our present Queen has departed early from the 19th precedence as Edward was only His Highness Prince Edward of York for the first four years of his life.

    The following taken from Wiki :

    The subtle difference is between "Y, Prince of X", and Prince Y of X. Charles is "Charles, Prince of Wales", whereas his son is "Prince William of Wales". Now I'm fairly confident this is just the Mail getting it wrong in its article, but Williams son (let's say) shouldn't be "Bob, Prince of Cambridge", implying there is a principality, he should be "Prince Bob of Cambridge", giving him a princely title attached to his fathers ducal holdings.
    Some errors in the "Mail" story.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    @JackW
    We should not of course forget the short-lived Principality of Chester, created by His late Majesty Richard II on 25 September 1397, but extant for barely two years.

    Even that wasn't in my lifetime ....

    Jack W is ....

    Titters ....

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,234
    tim said:

    Lord Ashcroft ‏@LordAshcroft
    YouGov's London poll compared to the General Election 2010.
    CON 29 -5.5
    LAB 48 +11.4
    LibD 9 -13.1
    UKIP 10 +8.3

    That is a cracking poll for Labour.

    LAB gain Simon Hughes' seat on this polling I guess ? I'd chuckle if that happened.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,888
    RobD said:

    JackW said:



    You're a little confused. Outside the title Prince of Wales the title prince does not infer a principality. Children of the monarch are Prince/ess of the United Kingdom.

    When Andrew was made Duke of York he didn't become Prince of York although his children as bodies of the male heir general are Princesses with the added territorial designation of their father - York.

    The last time we had a living monarch with three generational heirs was in 1894 when Prince Edward, later Edward VIII was born to Queen Victoria's grandson - later George V.

    Our present Queen has departed early from the 19th precedence as Edward was only His Highness Prince Edward of York for the first four years of his life.

    The following taken from Wiki :

    The subtle difference is between "Y, Prince of X", and Prince Y of X. Charles is "Charles, Prince of Wales", whereas his son is "Prince William of Wales". Now I'm fairly confident this is just the Mail getting it wrong in its article, but Williams son (let's say) shouldn't be "Bob, Prince of Cambridge", implying there is a principality, he should be "Prince Bob of Cambridge", giving him a princely title attached to his fathers ducal holdings.
    Forget all this antiquated nonsense. The child's grandmother was very fond of eighties bands and musicians, and therefore there can only be one possible name for a boy:

    "Prince, The Artist Formerly Known As"

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bZSC-av8t4

    If it is a girl, we could have 'Princess Princess'

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlLKNxDbsi8

    Although oldsters may prefer to think of the Austin Princess:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austin_Princess

  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,950

    RobD said:

    JackW said:



    You're a little confused. Outside the title Prince of Wales the title prince does not infer a principality. Children of the monarch are Prince/ess of the United Kingdom.

    When Andrew was made Duke of York he didn't become Prince of York although his children as bodies of the male heir general are Princesses with the added territorial designation of their father - York.

    The last time we had a living monarch with three generational heirs was in 1894 when Prince Edward, later Edward VIII was born to Queen Victoria's grandson - later George V.

    Our present Queen has departed early from the 19th precedence as Edward was only His Highness Prince Edward of York for the first four years of his life.

    The following taken from Wiki :

    The subtle difference is between "Y, Prince of X", and Prince Y of X. Charles is "Charles, Prince of Wales", whereas his son is "Prince William of Wales". Now I'm fairly confident this is just the Mail getting it wrong in its article, but Williams son (let's say) shouldn't be "Bob, Prince of Cambridge", implying there is a principality, he should be "Prince Bob of Cambridge", giving him a princely title attached to his fathers ducal holdings.
    Forget all this antiquated nonsense. The child's grandmother was very fond of eighties bands and musicians, and therefore there can only be one possible name for a boy:

    "Prince, The Artist Formerly Known As"

    If it is a girl, we could have 'Princess Princess'

    Although oldsters may prefer to think of the Austin Princess:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austin_Princess

    Or even this Princess?

    http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=princess+elizabeth+engine&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.48705608,d.d2k&biw=1366&bih=538&wrapid=tlif137329464010210&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=PtDaUcPgC6nJ0AXFx4GgAQ
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    I assume the sprog was conceived on William's RAF base. If they wanted to throw tradition completely out the window, they could go with that:

    "Prince Valley of Cambridge"
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    FPT:
    SouthamObserver said:
    » show previous quotes
    We'll be in drought by the end of the summer, you mark my words!

    I don't know what the above post is trying to prove. This hot weather is destined to last about two weeks, ± a couple of days, which hopefully will provide good sunny days for The Open golf championship at Muirfield, which starts july 18th.

    After that no doubt we will have the start of glacier growth and a winter not seen since the mid 17th century.
  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    edited July 2013
    tim said:

    Anthony Wells on the tory members poll

    "A RATHER GLOOMY PICTURE FOR CAMERON"

    http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/07/08/conservative-member-survey-paints-rather-gloomy-pi/

    Impossible to assess without a comparison with past polling, and I doubt if there has been any. But I rather think you'd have got very similar results at other times, or indeed for other parties, such as for Labour members under Blair (when he had been in government for a while).
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    tim said:

    Anthony Wells on the tory members poll

    "A RATHER GLOOMY PICTURE FOR CAMERON"

    http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/07/08/conservative-member-survey-paints-rather-gloomy-pi/

    So the only two policies they asked about were gay marriage and overseas aid ? Right.

    Nothing about economic policy or anything else which is disappointing. Had they got bad polling on that then it would be a story.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,888

    RobD said:

    JackW said:



    You're a little confused. Outside the title Prince of Wales the title prince does not infer a principality. Children of the monarch are Prince/ess of the United Kingdom.

    When Andrew was made Duke of York he didn't become Prince of York although his children as bodies of the male heir general are Princesses with the added territorial designation of their father - York.

    The last time we had a living monarch with three generational heirs was in 1894 when Prince Edward, later Edward VIII was born to Queen Victoria's grandson - later George V.

    Our present Queen has departed early from the 19th precedence as Edward was only His Highness Prince Edward of York for the first four years of his life.

    The following taken from Wiki :

    The subtle difference is between "Y, Prince of X", and Prince Y of X. Charles is "Charles, Prince of Wales", whereas his son is "Prince William of Wales". Now I'm fairly confident this is just the Mail getting it wrong in its article, but Williams son (let's say) shouldn't be "Bob, Prince of Cambridge", implying there is a principality, he should be "Prince Bob of Cambridge", giving him a princely title attached to his fathers ducal holdings.
    Forget all this antiquated nonsense. The child's grandmother was very fond of eighties bands and musicians, and therefore there can only be one possible name for a boy:

    "Prince, The Artist Formerly Known As"

    If it is a girl, we could have 'Princess Princess'

    Although oldsters may prefer to think of the Austin Princess:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austin_Princess

    Or even this Princess?

    http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=princess+elizabeth+engine&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.48705608,d.d2k&biw=1366&bih=538&wrapid=tlif137329464010210&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=PtDaUcPgC6nJ0AXFx4GgAQ
    Good point.

    In fact, they could call her 'Margaret Rose' or 'Elizabeth' and there would be a locomotive ready-named for her. And it would be a superb LMS loco made in Crewe, rather than any of this GWR, LNER or Southern rubbish. ;-)

    Which reminds me, it's been twenty years since I last visited the Midland Railway Centre. I should go again...
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Pong said:

    isam said:

    Pong said:

    Aargh, curse of the new thread strikes again. FPT:

    Royal baby news... Apparently it is to have the official title 'Prince/Princess of Cambridge'

    Which is nice.

    But I care much more about making money out of this hapless sprog.

    So far, betting wise, over the last few months i've laid everything under 14/1 on BF's baby name market. As long as it's not one of the favourites, I should make about a hundred quid with a max liability of £150.

    Gender-wise, I'm not believing the bollocks in the press - I'm pretty sure the gender is a 50/50 shot. Given the skewed odds therefore, I'm heavily invested in it being a boy (I'm on between 6/4 & 2/1). Still available from coral at 11/8, which I'd recommend if any casual punters fancy a flutter.

    Have I missed any other royal baby value bets?

    http://www.oddschecker.com/novelty/william-and-kate/


    I backed some of Kate's great & Grandparents names ie Peter (grandad who died as they were engaged) at 250/1 and 50s, Olive (great gran who started the family business) and Valerie both at 66s

    Dorothy, Edith and Constance are the others I wanted to back but couldn't find prices
    I'll give you any name you want (that isn't listed on oddschecker) at 66/1, for a fiver a shot.
    Ok I'll have a fiver at 66s Dorothy Edith Constance and Olivia please
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Simon Fuller, Andy Murray's manager, arrives at 10 Downing Street in a suit jacket four sizes too small !!
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    I firmly believe that NOM remains a buy, but you have to be willing to sit it out for the long haul (hope springs eternal, whether you're a Labour supporter or a Conservative supporter). I've been a NOM buyer since 2010 and it will remain my default setting.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    tim said:

    JackW said:

    Simon Fuller, Andy Murray's manager, arrives at 10 Downing Street in a suit jacket four sizes too small !!

    There's more cameras than on one of Dave's Date Nights.

    Who gives a fig ?!?

  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,541

    tim said:

    Anthony Wells on the tory members poll

    "A RATHER GLOOMY PICTURE FOR CAMERON"

    http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/07/08/conservative-member-survey-paints-rather-gloomy-pi/

    Impossible to assess without a comparison with past polling, and I doubt if there has been any. But I rather think you'd have got very similar results at other times, or indeed for other parties, such as for Labour members under Blair (when he had been in government for a while).
    Not really - there were plenty of Labour people who didn't like Blair, especially over Iraq, but they mostly left the party. By 2008 Labour's remaining membership were predominantly hard-bitten loyalists or people who positively approved of Iraq and TB's other tradsemark policies. What should worry the Tories is that they've lost loads of members, continued to lose members even when they were gaining seats, and now seem to have significant contin uing unhappiness among the remaining members. It's like a tooth which the dentist desperately tries to save with more and more filling, but which keeps decaying underneath.

    Remarkable London poll there - in this case more about Labour gains than anyone else's decline.

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,405

    tim said:

    Anthony Wells on the tory members poll

    "A RATHER GLOOMY PICTURE FOR CAMERON"

    http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/07/08/conservative-member-survey-paints-rather-gloomy-pi/

    Impossible to assess without a comparison with past polling, and I doubt if there has been any. But I rather think you'd have got very similar results at other times, or indeed for other parties, such as for Labour members under Blair (when he had been in government for a while).
    Conservative Party membership has, however, more than halved under Cameron. That's a lot of people voting with their feet. It's true that Labour's membership is also at a very low figure, by historical standards.

  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    isam said:

    Pong said:

    isam said:

    Pong said:

    Aargh, curse of the new thread strikes again. FPT:

    Royal baby news... Apparently it is to have the official title 'Prince/Princess of Cambridge'

    Which is nice.

    But I care much more about making money out of this hapless sprog.

    So far, betting wise, over the last few months i've laid everything under 14/1 on BF's baby name market. As long as it's not one of the favourites, I should make about a hundred quid with a max liability of £150.

    Gender-wise, I'm not believing the bollocks in the press - I'm pretty sure the gender is a 50/50 shot. Given the skewed odds therefore, I'm heavily invested in it being a boy (I'm on between 6/4 & 2/1). Still available from coral at 11/8, which I'd recommend if any casual punters fancy a flutter.

    Have I missed any other royal baby value bets?

    http://www.oddschecker.com/novelty/william-and-kate/


    I backed some of Kate's great & Grandparents names ie Peter (grandad who died as they were engaged) at 250/1 and 50s, Olive (great gran who started the family business) and Valerie both at 66s

    Dorothy, Edith and Constance are the others I wanted to back but couldn't find prices
    I'll give you any name you want (that isn't listed on oddschecker) at 66/1, for a fiver a shot.
    Ok I'll have a fiver at 66s Dorothy Edith Constance and Olivia please

    Ok, Terms: has to be main, official first name. Middle names don't count.

    4x singles: Dorothy Edith Constance and Olivia, £5 on each at 66/1

    Total stake £20

    Voids on miscarriage, or if baby not born in 2013. PFP to adjudicate.

    If you're happy, paste the above terms into an email to PFP - arklebar@gmail.com

    Good luck!
  • Stuart_DicksonStuart_Dickson Posts: 3,557
    tim said:

    Lord Ashcroft ‏@LordAshcroft
    YouGov's London poll compared to the General Election 2010.
    CON 29 -5.5
    LAB 48 +11.4
    LibD 9 -13.1
    UKIP 10 +8.3

    That is a cracking poll for Labour.

    Yikes. That is indeed impressive. The Lib Dems must be filling their breeks.

    Is Ashcroft planning on doing a Scottish VI poll, cos nobody else seems to be interested.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,405

    tim said:

    Anthony Wells on the tory members poll

    "A RATHER GLOOMY PICTURE FOR CAMERON"

    http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/07/08/conservative-member-survey-paints-rather-gloomy-pi/

    Impossible to assess without a comparison with past polling, and I doubt if there has been any. But I rather think you'd have got very similar results at other times, or indeed for other parties, such as for Labour members under Blair (when he had been in government for a while).
    Not really - there were plenty of Labour people who didn't like Blair, especially over Iraq, but they mostly left the party. By 2008 Labour's remaining membership were predominantly hard-bitten loyalists or people who positively approved of Iraq and TB's other tradsemark policies. What should worry the Tories is that they've lost loads of members, continued to lose members even when they were gaining seats, and now seem to have significant contin uing unhappiness among the remaining members. It's like a tooth which the dentist desperately tries to save with more and more filling, but which keeps decaying underneath.

    Remarkable London poll there - in this case more about Labour gains than anyone else's decline.

    The swing to Labour in London (8.5%) is above the national swing in most polls (7%) but not markedly so.

  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    tim said:

    The swing to Labour in London should concern you more.

    And the very low ratings of Ed Miliband amongst Labour supporters should terrify you.
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    Get over yourself alert...

    Owen Jones‏@OwenJones845m
    @GuidoFawkes And yet - irrelevant as I apparently should be - you do a very good impression of someone who is scared of me
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    tim said:

    Anthony Wells on the tory members poll

    "A RATHER GLOOMY PICTURE FOR CAMERON"

    http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/07/08/conservative-member-survey-paints-rather-gloomy-pi/

    Impossible to assess without a comparison with past polling, and I doubt if there has been any. But I rather think you'd have got very similar results at other times, or indeed for other parties, such as for Labour members under Blair (when he had been in government for a while).
    Not really - there were plenty of Labour people who didn't like Blair, especially over Iraq, but they mostly left the party. By 2008 Labour's remaining membership were predominantly hard-bitten loyalists or people who positively approved of Iraq and TB's other tradsemark policies. What should worry the Tories is that they've lost loads of members, continued to lose members even when they were gaining seats, and now seem to have significant contin uing unhappiness among the remaining members. It's like a tooth which the dentist desperately tries to save with more and more filling, but which keeps decaying underneath.

    Remarkable London poll there - in this case more about Labour gains than anyone else's decline.

    Nick are you sure it was 2008 .... really, really sure.

  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,685

    tim said:

    The swing to Labour in London should concern you more.

    And the very low ratings of Ed Miliband amongst Labour supporters should terrify you.
    I guess they just have higher expectations. Blair spoiled them. After 100 years of opposition between them the Tories and Lib Dems would have settled for anyone who got them into no10.
  • Stuart_DicksonStuart_Dickson Posts: 3,557
    Pulpstar said:

    LAB gain Simon Hughes' seat on this polling I guess ? I'd chuckle if that happened.

    Me too. Got to be one of the most slimy MPs of the last 3 decades, and he has been up against vast numbers of formidable rivals.

  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    Sean_F said:

    Conservative Party membership has, however, more than halved under Cameron. That's a lot of people voting with their feet. It's true that Labour's membership is also at a very low figure, by historical standards.

    There are multiple trends and effects combining here, so it's hard to distinguish which ones are most important. However, I think the long-term trend of reduced engagement with societies and clubs of all kinds is probably the biggest - you get the same effect in all political parties, organisations like the scouts, churches, and many more, and this is true across all Western countries.

    Of course, it's also easier to fire up supporters when you're in opposition, especially if it looks as though you have a chance of throwing out the other lot.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Pong said:


    Royal baby news...

    Gender-wise, I'm not believing the bollocks in the press - I'm pretty sure the gender is a 50/50 shot. Given the skewed odds therefore, I'm heavily invested in it being a boy (I'm on between 6/4 & 2/1). Still available from coral at 11/8, which I'd recommend if any casual punters fancy a flutter.

    Have I missed any other royal baby value bets?

    http://www.oddschecker.com/novelty/william-and-kate/

    Sex is key. If the market is right, and it is already known to be a girl, clearly that rules out the boys' names. If the market is wrong and it is still 50/50, then boys' names are likely to be overpriced. So research where the "it's a girl" story originated.

    If it is 50/50, then probably the best course is to forget names and place 16 per cent of your bank on boys at 6/4 (according to the Kelly criterion).
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    tim said:
    Great poll for Boris....

    Doing well as mayor of London (net)
    OA : +37
    Con: +85
    Lab: +13
    LD: + 41
    UKIP: +51
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    Pong said:

    isam said:

    Pong said:

    isam said:

    Pong said:

    Aargh, curse of the new thread strikes again. FPT:

    Royal baby news... Apparently it is to have the official title 'Prince/Princess of Cambridge'

    Which is nice.

    But I care much more about making money out of this hapless sprog.

    So far, betting wise, over the last few months i've laid everything under 14/1 on BF's baby name market. As long as it's not one of the favourites, I should make about a hundred quid with a max liability of £150.

    Gender-wise, I'm not believing the bollocks in the press - I'm pretty sure the gender is a 50/50 shot. Given the skewed odds therefore, I'm heavily invested in it being a boy (I'm on between 6/4 & 2/1). Still available from coral at 11/8, which I'd recommend if any casual punters fancy a flutter.

    Have I missed any other royal baby value bets?

    http://www.oddschecker.com/novelty/william-and-kate/


    I backed some of Kate's great & Grandparents names ie Peter (grandad who died as they were engaged) at 250/1 and 50s, Olive (great gran who started the family business) and Valerie both at 66s

    Dorothy, Edith and Constance are the others I wanted to back but couldn't find prices
    I'll give you any name you want (that isn't listed on oddschecker) at 66/1, for a fiver a shot.
    Ok I'll have a fiver at 66s Dorothy Edith Constance and Olivia please

    Ok, Terms: has to be main, official first name. Middle names don't count.

    4x singles: Dorothy Edith Constance and Olivia, £5 on each at 66/1

    Total stake £20

    Voids on miscarriage, or if baby not born in 2013. PFP to adjudicate.

    If you're happy, paste the above terms into an email to PFP - arklebar@gmail.com

    Good luck!

    Sorry Sam - obviously, I meant Peter the Punter - PtP. Not PfP (Peter from Putney)


  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    Pulpstar said:

    LAB gain Simon Hughes' seat on this polling I guess ? I'd chuckle if that happened.

    Me too. Got to be one of the most slimy MPs of the last 3 decades, and he has been up against vast numbers of formidable rivals.

    Actually my opinion of Simon Hughes has markedly improved. He might have been one of the awkward squad but has been remarkably loyal to the Coalition, which of course is an extremely positive position to hold !!

  • Stuart_DicksonStuart_Dickson Posts: 3,557

    ... I think the long-term trend of reduced engagement with societies and clubs of all kinds is probably the biggest - you get the same effect in all political parties, organisations like the scouts, churches, and many more, and this is true across all Western countries.

    Of course, it's also easier to fire up supporters when you're in opposition, especially if it looks as though you have a chance of throwing out the other lot.

    Ho ho. Are you sure about that Richard? "All political parties"? I can name one that has doubled in membership in recent years, and it is not in opposition either.

    Your world may stop at Watford Gap, but the real one doesn't.

  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    edited July 2013
    @Jonathan - Brave words. As one of the very few people who has consistently assessed Ed Miliband from the start - not as bad as most Labour supporters thought in the first year of his leadership, not as good as most Labour supporters fooled themselves into thinking in the second year - I have to say I am amazed at Labour complacency about him (assuming it's not just a brave face, of course). If anything, he has diminished in the role; he certainly hasn't grown into it.

    Good enough to get into No 10? Maybe, given the massive challenges the coalition faces in the most difficult economic times for a generation. But good enough to be a half-decent PM, in what will remain difficult conditions with the likely added complication of a hung parliament or very small majority? That question should terrify you, especially since your front-bench team is also unusually weak at the moment.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,685

    Sean_F said:

    Conservative Party membership has, however, more than halved under Cameron. That's a lot of people voting with their feet. It's true that Labour's membership is also at a very low figure, by historical standards.

    There are multiple trends and effects combining here, so it's hard to distinguish which ones are most important. However, I think the long-term trend of reduced engagement with societies and clubs of all kinds is probably the biggest - you get the same effect in all political parties, organisations like the scouts, churches, and many more, and this is true across all Western countries.

    Of course, it's also easier to fire up supporters when you're in opposition, especially if it looks as though you have a chance of throwing out the other lot.
    In Horsham, the Scouts has a massive waiting list and there are a number of warehouse churches packed out on Sundays. No shortage of clubs either.

    Political parties are out of date. Why be a member? It's just work and a lot of stick.

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,405

    Sean_F said:

    Conservative Party membership has, however, more than halved under Cameron. That's a lot of people voting with their feet. It's true that Labour's membership is also at a very low figure, by historical standards.

    There are multiple trends and effects combining here, so it's hard to distinguish which ones are most important. However, I think the long-term trend of reduced engagement with societies and clubs of all kinds is probably the biggest - you get the same effect in all political parties, organisations like the scouts, churches, and many more, and this is true across all Western countries.

    Of course, it's also easier to fire up supporters when you're in opposition, especially if it looks as though you have a chance of throwing out the other lot.
    That's the thing. The Conservatives were losing members, even in opposition. It's certainly not the case that the churches, scouts etc. have seen membership halve in 7 years.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,674
    The Telegraph published this a couple of weeks before the last election:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7591249/General-Election-2010-Conservatives-lead-in-100-key-seats-Telegraph-poll-shows.html
    "General Election 2010: Conservatives lead in 100 key seats, Telegraph poll shows

    The Conservatives are on course for a convincing election victory after a new poll for The Daily Telegraph showed the party is leading Labour by 12 points in crucial marginal constituencies."
  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    @Stuart_Dickson - Sorry, my mistake. I should have said 'major political parties'.
  • valleyboyvalleyboy Posts: 606
    UKIP have announced they will be fielding candidates in both Pembrokeshire seats,Both are Con/Lab marginals
  • Stuart_DicksonStuart_Dickson Posts: 3,557

    @Stuart_Dickson - Sorry, my mistake. I should have said 'major political parties'.

    Can't get much more major than forming the national government, with an overall parliamentary majority.

  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    edited July 2013
    isam - email me to confirm the bet: wooooooooody@googlemail.com, and I'll email you back from my proper email.

    (I don't fancy publishing my main email on here, for obvious reasons)
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,685
    edited July 2013

    @Jonathan - Brave words. As one of the very few people who has consistently assessed Ed Miliband from the start - not as bad as most Labour supporters thought in the first year of his leadership, not as good as most Labour supporters fooled themselves into thinking in the second year - I have to say I am amazed at Labour complacency about him (assuming it's not just a brave face, of course). If anything, he has diminished in the role; he certainly hasn't grown into it.

    Good enough to get into No 10? Maybe, given the massive challenges the coalition faces in the most difficult economic times for a generation. But good enough to be a half-decent PM, in what will remain difficult conditions with the likely added complication of a hung parliament or very small majority? That question should terrify you, especially since your front-bench team is also unusually weak at the moment.

    Personally I find EdM a real puzzle. Sometimes he is rather good and is an intriguing prospect for PM. Intelligent and quietly determined in an Attleesque kind of way. On the other hand, he sometimes he bores me to tears.

    I am feeling very non-partisan at the moment. I am glad that the coalition is making progress on some fronts at last. Taken them an age to overcome their own mistakes.

    All front bench teams are quite weak at the moment IMO. Nothing to be terrified about though. Cheer up!
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,234
    tim Posts: 5,555 :O !
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    NOM now moving ahead of Lab Majority on Betfair....
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    edited July 2013
    tim said:

    Ed Miliband should allow an open primary in Falkirk
    The best way for Ed Miliband and Unite to lance this boil is to trust local people, says Sarah Wollaston.


    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/10167048/Ed-Miliband-should-allow-an-open-primary-in-Falkirk.html

    Sensible piece.
    And politically of course Ed can emphasise that Cameron has broken his promise on open primaries.

    She estimates the cost of a postal open primary at £40k per constituency (without electronic returns)

    So £26 Million to cover all constituencies.
    Between 1/3 and 1/4 of the cost of the police commissioner elections farce.

    So you want the taxpayer to pony up the cost of this
  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    edited July 2013
    Jonathan said:

    Personally I find EdM a real puzzle. Sometimes he is rather good and is an intriguing prospect for PM. Intelligent and quietly determined in an Attleesque kind of way. On the other hand, he sometimes he bores me to tears.

    I think that William Hague is the nearest comparison. He became a cabinet minister at a young age and with relatively little political experience, became leader too early (and maybe was never the right personality for the role anyway), but he has since grown into being a really heavyweight politicians. Perhaps Ed Miliband would or will follow a similar trajectory; he's bright, he's personable, he's hard to dislike, he evidently thinks about issues and strategy - but he doesn't give the impression of being on top of things. The recent Tom Watson shenanigans gives the strong impression that the big bruisers were running things behind the scenes (and I don't mean just selections, but the policy mix as well.)

    You should have chosen Ed Balls. At least there would have been no doubt whatsoever about who was in charge.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    Sean_F said:


    The swing to Labour in London (8.5%) is above the national swing in most polls (7%) but not markedly so.

    and the long-term trend in London is to Labour.
  • @tim
    If the state is going to get into the business of financing primary elections on a serious basis(which I'm not in principle opposed to), then those elections must be regulated by electoral law. They can't simply be left to the political parties to administer, nor can they be conducted according to the party rulebooks alone. If Miliband is prepared to accept that, good on him, but somehow I doubt he will.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    TGOHF said:


    She estimates the cost of a postal open primary at £40k per constituency (without electronic returns)

    So £26 Million to cover all constituencies.
    Between 1/3 and 1/4 of the cost of the police commissioner elections farce.

    £40k per party...
  • RichardNabaviRichardNabavi Posts: 3,413
    tim said:

    @TGOHF

    Cameron promised to fund open primaries in the coalition agreement, I think he should keep his promise.

    If the LibDems keep theirs and reduce the number of constituencies, that would free up some budget.
This discussion has been closed.