Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » It’s now now neck and neck on Betfair between a LAB majorit
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.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
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.
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
I agree that Andy Murray should probably get a knighthood — but when he's a bit older, not when he's only 26!
"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.
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.
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/
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.
HRH Prince Murray of Cambridge.
If it is a girl I think Elizabeth is very, very, likely.
static.messagespaceads.com/Advertisers/5fc2d4bea5c94d998b0946b4d2620cdc.gif
Maybe George?
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
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.
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...
I could kind of see her point until it turned out her kids are called Poppy and India
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
Next point of panic is when the Lab maj price starts to resemble the Con maj price.
Unless of course you mean he has a bet on it
Additionally - don't recall, but may be JackW can help - wasn't there a James-over-the-water that would confuse the count?
Just sayin'
Setting aside its nuances, I voted for Katie as she was the looker.
Must be something to do with twit school.
"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
My favourite would be king Maximus. How cool would that be?!
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
Betting on the other hand ....
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.
James VII/II son was the Jacobite King James VIII/III and a very fine chap too as my avatar indicates !!
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.
Jack W is ....
Titters ....
"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
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
"Prince Valley of Cambridge"
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.
Nothing about economic policy or anything else which is disappointing. Had they got bad polling on that then it would be a story.
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...
Remarkable London poll there - in this case more about Labour gains than anyone else's decline.
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!
Is Ashcroft planning on doing a Scottish VI poll, cos nobody else seems to be interested.
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
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.
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).
Doing well as mayor of London (net)
OA : +37
Con: +85
Lab: +13
LD: + 41
UKIP: +51
Sorry Sam - obviously, I meant Peter the Punter - PtP. Not PfP (Peter from Putney)
Your world may stop at Watford Gap, but the real one doesn't.
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.
Political parties are out of date. Why be a member? It's just work and a lot of stick.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7591249/General-Election-2010-Conservatives-lead-in-100-key-seats-Telegraph-poll-shows.html
(I don't fancy publishing my main email on here, for obvious reasons)
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!
You should have chosen Ed Balls. At least there would have been no doubt whatsoever about who was in charge.
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.