"Much will be expected of Murray as Scotland prepares for its referendum on independence in 2014. Since his comment that he supports the other side against England football teams, he has maintained a typically pithy approach to questions of national identity, describing himself as proud to be both Scottish and British.
In his televised post-match interview he talked of himself as the “first British winner” in 77 years. That made Alex Salmond’s bout of saltire-waving all the more silly. (Does he always carry a flag around with him?) The popularity of Scotland’s first minister is often exaggerated but it is vital to his Scottish National party’s cause. Murray’s humble acceptance of mixed identities may come to be symbolic for the other side."
"Mr Miliband has no power-base on which to fall back, no established network of institutions and outriders to do the heavy-lifting for him. Though most are loyal to him as party leader, no think-tank, pressure group or parliamentary gang is closely aligned with his personal project. Shifting Grounds, a website, is one exception, but is insufficient on its own. Compass, once Progress's equivalent on the "soft left" of the party, could have provided a gathering-point, but instead neutered its potential influence by offering membership to members of the Green Party and the Lib Dems.
Most of Mr Miliband's problems arise from the absence of such a network. Labourites gripe that his office is aloof, a complaint accentuated by its physical location (high in Norman Shaw, the turreted Victorian office block on the northern extremity of the parliamentary estate). Strategy, communications and policy-making do not join up, they grumble. Those standing up for him in the media receive too little support from their colleagues, the press and Labour's intellectual superstructure. To the press and voters, Labour thus risks appearing to lack policies, gusto or unity—more this week than at any point since 2010. None of these charges is entirely true. But, if Mr Miliband does not marshal a coherent network of support within the party soon, it may become so."
@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!
I think Ed Miliband could do with some elder-statespeople. I know they tend to have baggage but i suspect the public secretly feels comforted by some old heads. Miliband has Harman and that's about it. I can't think of anyone else who is visible.
What are the likes of David Blunkett, Alan Johnson or Tessa Jowell up to? Are they interested?
Cameron's team looked a bit young and inexperienced but he had the likes of Ken Clarke, William Hague and IDS around the place. Plus fulsome support from Michael Howard and people like Heseltine who would represent the party on QT or in interviews.
At first glance Miliband's team seems lighter. A bit like Arsenal. Decent young players but not hard or experienced enough to win anything anymore.
What pi**es me off about this whole party funding / expenses / honours mess is that our politicians - all of them - react to each crisis by using their favourite current idea, or the one that would gain them the best political position.
What we need to do is look at the entire system and redesign it from the ground up. There are some basic questions: what principles should be at the systems' heart, what are the current problems, and how do we solve them?
Instead, they just fart around tidying up the edges. It is time for the whole thing to be looked at without reverting to party politics.
The reason that no sane party will implement primary elections in the forseeable future is simple. It would amount to felo de se: MPs would have a power base all but independent of the party machines, and the parties would lose a crucial source of patronage. Open primaries pose a mortal threat to the survival of the highly centralised political parties which dominate Westminster.
As for the pledge in the Coalition Agreement, it is incoherent and unworkable.
It seems to me that, as on so many things, the Coalition Agreement was right about this.
The target should be seats that have not changed hands for a very long time; the open Primary should be for the party in possession only and the opportunity should arise when there is a vacancy, that is when the current MP is standing down. (The last one is debatable but the idea is likely to be a lot more palatable to MPs if they are not personally threatened and it would at least be a first step).
I agree with Tim that Labour in Falkirk meets all these criteria and the government should pay for it if asked to do so. But the legislation to authorise the payment is not in place is it?
My guess if it were there would be some pressure on retiring MPs to declare their intention in time to get the funding. It would be a good way of enlivening democracy where it is least potent.
@tim Classic misreporting of a pollster's findings by the pollster. More people are concerned about the influence of the rich over the Conservatives. But we don't know whether people are more concerned.
@tim - I accept the inconsistency but whereas I favour postal ballots for union elections (as opposed to taking place at poorly attended branch gathering), I am more inclined to favour a well-publicized selection meeting, open to all constituents irrespective of party or none, to make the selection for Parliamentary candidates.
The rationale is simple: people get to hear for themselves the various contenders speak and be questioned by a 'neutral' moderator and then by members of the audience. The shortlist of, say, six should be chosen by the Association Executive (perhaps with a gender balance...I'm not fussed). Prior to the meeting, all the short-listed aspirants will have held their own meetings around the constituency talking to local groups, party members, Councillors etc. to strengthen their support for the big day.
Clearly the turnout will be lower than a postal ballot (and far far cheaper) but the lessening of 'democracy' I don't contend would be significant and would to a large extent be outweighed by a much more engaged and informed selectorate.
@antifrank - It hardly inspires confidence to discover from the Economist article that the only group closely aligned with Ed Miliband's political position is called Shifting Grounds.
@tim - I accept the inconsistency but whereas I favour postal ballots for union elections (as opposed to taking place at poorly attended branch gathering), I am more inclined to favour a well-publicized selection meeting, open to all constituents irrespective of party or none, to make the selection for Parliamentary candidates.
The rationale is simple: people get to hear for themselves the various contenders speak and be questioned by a 'neutral' moderator and then by members of the audience. The shortlist of, say, six should be chosen by the Association Executive (perhaps with a gender balance...I'm not fussed). Prior to the meeting, all the short-listed aspirants will have held their own meetings around the constituency talking to local groups, party members, Councillors etc. to strengthen their support for the big day.
Clearly the turnout will be lower than a postal ballot (and far far cheaper) but the lessening of 'democracy' I don't contend would be significant and would to a large extent be outweighed by a much more engaged and informed selectorate.
Much easier to pack a meeting though isn't it. As the Tories in Bethnal Green found out with that nice slum landlord who shipped all his tenants in resulting in the process being cancelled.
We're hardly short of methods of communications these days, people can livestream the debates on their phones and computers.Set up a TV channel for the process, whatever.
If it means on-line / electronic voting, then it's a terrible idea that is far too open to large-scale corruption by every side.
"Midnight embargo I'm afraid, but Ed Miliband's speech tomorrow on how Labour will change selections has pretty big news."
Of course, Sunny Hundal's definition of "pretty big news" might be different from the rest of us.
Oh dear. Hard cases make bad laws, so one person's "pretty big" announcement might just be someone else's ill-considered knee-jerk reaction. My money is on the latter.
@tim - It is of course possible to pack a meeting and I'd get nervous on that score were the turnout less than 100 or so.
And that was certainly a concern before we chose that option. But along with the other Tory constituencies - perhaps 10 or so - that opted for open primary meeting, the attendance in a very safe seat was 500 plus. And a number of political opponents took part, but comparing notes afterwards with a leading Councillor from the other side, we found we both voted for the same candidate (the winner) because he was by far the more accomplished and convincing performer. With that size of audience, attendees appear to genuinely enter into the spirit of the occasion.
I would have thought the interest in marginal seats would be even higher.
Frankly I'm sceptical about the numbers who would tune in remotely....and then cast a subsequent vote
But ultimately I'm a pragmatist on the method: I have no fundamental objection to postal ballots. One interim solution is for the parties to mandate immediately open primary meetings for the selections (with no incumbent MP that is) over the next six/nine months, and if that doesn't do the trick then go for compulsory postal ballots thereafter.
@DecrepitJohnL My betting would be in the same direction. The phrase "on the hoof" would sum up the Labour leadership response to the Falkirk fiasco nicely.
It would seem I can 'lay' Gove as next leader of the Tories on Betfair £36 at 7-1 but also bet on him at 10-1 to be the next leader with Hills.
Is there any arb oppo there, even after commissions etc and modest lay size?
Just to learn really.
Ta.
I can't check the markets themselves right now, but it seems you're probably right - it looks like an arb.
Check the T&C's very carefully though, With markets like this (and next football club manager etc) you can potentially lose both the back & lay bet if the result is not clear cut - eg 'interim' leader / caretaker manager.
Also consider the length of time you'd need to tie up funds for. I'd want at least a 10% P/A ROI on these sort of long-term arbs. If Cameron wins a maj in 2015, then retires in 2020 then it ain't a great bet!
Oh, and either company could conceivably go bust before the bet is settled.
'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.'
Does the Labour figure include the alleged mass memberships courtesy of UNITE?
It seems we'll enter the next GE with at least in some sense 'unwanted' leaders at the front of all the parties. In all three cases they probably just about have majority support.
Cameron should perhaps be best placed to get there. He's doing a decent (In my view good) job. However the Tories have the most to gain from a change. If Boris was an MP then Cameron would certainly be at risk. I suspect the 'dream ticket' is that Cameron stays and get re-elected, and that Boris finds himself back in parliament ready for a third conservative term. (Oh happy days!)
Clegg is currently clearly the man to have at the helm for the LDs whilst they are in coalition or talks about coalitions. I suspect that he'll only be replaced if they fail to be a part of the government and even then the LDs will go for someone with the experience of building agreements. Cable may as well retire.
Labour find themselves in an interesting position. They probably should happily continue with Ed. The difficulty they have is that there are a handful of people who didn't quite measure up to DMill, but easily outshine EMill. The contenders from the younger ranks are basically only attractive because they are younger.
I'd be interested to hear anyone's view on the NextGE leaders market on BF. I've backed the unchanged at around 2.00, but am reluctant to get too carried away in that the bet is at the whim of 3 secret societies.
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.
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).
Thanks for the headsup on the kelly criterion - I've never come across it before. A couple of problems when using it for casual betting with bookies, though;
1. How do you define your bankroll? 2. Bookie limits - particularly on politics/novelty markets
Interesting what that might mean. Party members one would presume have a near 100% allegiance when actually voting. Usually that means that they haven't thought about the issues of the day at all. They have been totally immune to short-term pressures etc. That's not really that great.
On the other hand there are the non-aligned who's views may blow in the wind. I think that overall that has to be worse.
1. How do you define your bankroll? 2. Bookie limits - particularly on politics/novelty markets
1. If you are fully committed to the scheme then every penny you can raise or may ever be able to raise. Very few people would be so aggressive though. Kelly doesn't embrace any error in your evaluation of an event. Effectively that means that should you believe that you are infallible then you will be substantially overstaked.
2. The degree to which a betting opportunity has depth is irrelevant.
.Sally Chidzoy @sallychidzoy At least 3 letters sent post-Falkirk to Ed Milliband + other senior figures asking them to look at Peterborough Lab party.BBC Look East 6:30
The letters talk about bullying...and intimidation and "some very dubious events" surrounding the selection of the PPC, Lisa Forbes.
One of the letters says: "our own members are vicious and vindictive to a degree that could never align to socialist values"
Socialist values may have all sorts of good things going for them, but bullying would seem to be part of the mindset too. A matter for themselves though. Basic humanity isn't a political issue.
"One of the letters says: "our own members are vicious and vindictive to a degree that could never align to socialist values""
And people try to claim that Gove is exaggerating about the lack of quality in history classes in schools. Gulags, purges, "re-education", death camps, Cambodia, secret police, the abuse of psychiatric hospitals in the Warsaw pact...do these people not know anything? Have they not read anything? A significant number of the most viscious and vindictive murderers in history went by the name socialist.
Thanks for the headsup on the kelly criterion - I've never come across it before. A couple of problems when using it for casual betting with bookies, though;
1. How do you define your bankroll? 2. Bookie limits - particularly on politics/novelty markets
Interesting equation, nonetheless.
I'd not use it, as it can be far too aggressive in most betting situations, where it is more likely your assessment of chances is wrong than that the price is. But in this situation, we know that boys and girls are more-or-less equally likely.
Here, you are offered 6/4 against a true evens chance. The value is clear, but you cannot put your whole bank on because there is still a 50/50 chance you will lose. The equation tells you how much you should risk if you want to maximise bankroll growth.
Ah, but once again, maybe the market is telling you there has been a leak of a scan result.
So I'd just take the general shape of the result, which is you should have more on when value is greater, and when the chances of winning are greater.
A significant number of the most viscious and vindictive murderers in history went by the name socialist.
I think you're overdoing it. Stalin was a convenience murderer. I'm not sure he was vicious or vindictive. Socialism absolutely has perhaps a short butcher bill, but relative to it's age then you're right. Murderous and horrible.
The underlying theme in all of this surely has to be that if you believe in something strongly enough that you might contemplate murder then that is precisely the time when you've gone too far.
Sally Chidzoy @sallychidzoy Am told tonight that complaints/statements are being sent to Labour party HQ in attempt to block appointment of a PPC in the Midlands.
"The underlying theme in all of this surely has to be that if you believe in something strongly enough that you might contemplate murder then that is precisely the time when you've gone too far."
The banning of women in city centre cafes with prams the size of Sherman tanks?
Sunil - Give him time. Roger - Well given the shameless way he, Dave and Salmond have cashed in on Murray's success I am not surprised, but what do you expect from politicians!
"The PB Tories are always amusing, they haven't the ability to discuss a London YouGov poll, a mansion tax poll or a poll of Tory membership."
They would all be a disappointing distraction.
The story of the moment is how is Ed going to deal with his Unite problem. I for one am interested to see what sort of leadership he shows. Cameron is a known quantity.
1. How do you define your bankroll? 2. Bookie limits - particularly on politics/novelty markets
1. If you are fully committed to the scheme then every penny you can raise or may ever be able to raise. Very few people would be so aggressive though. Kelly doesn't embrace any error in your evaluation of an event. Effectively that means that should you believe that you are infallible then you will be substantially overstaked.
2. The degree to which a betting opportunity has depth is irrelevant.
1. Interesting. Crap anecdote alert;
I remember during my first year at uni - one of the big online casinos was offering a 50% loss rebate. After a few weeks of ignoring the emails, I read the T&C's & realised it was up to £1k stake and required only a single spin of roulette. I concluded that although I couldn't really afford to lose £500 of my student loan, I'd be an idiot NOT to take the gamble - and for the full £1k stake. In theory, I should also go for higher odds - ie, a single number - to maximise the EV. I didn't quite have the balls to do it on a single number (2.7% chance of winning, 97.3% chance of losing) - but ended up doing it on an even money bet. They kept the offer going, week after week. Some weeks you win, some you lose & get a 50% refund. I made about £8k before they twigged what I was doing & banned me. I remember rationalising it in the same way they rationalise pension investments - the younger you are the more risk you should take, so long as the odds are on your side.
But is it really rational for an 18 year old to risk their student loan on roulette? Even if the odds are fixed in your favour?
2. well, until paddy power offers you 37p max stake. At which point it's hardly worth the effort, regardless of how good the odds are.
Even funnier, most of them can't bring themselves to support the coalition policy on open primaries for fear Labour are going to pick it up.
That's about infiltrators. In theory I should worry about some person or other that arrives and airs daft views which are entirely convincing and then flies out (they always fly) to the opposition and can deftly undermine my credibility.
Open primaries make sense. I know the detail wouldn't work, but perhaps a system where you vote according to your view might be good too. Very alien mind you!
Latest Oz polls Essential Research Coalition 52% Labour 48%, Morgan Labor 54.5% Coalition 45.5%. Primary - Essential Research Labor on 38% and the Coalition on 46%, while the Greens are down a point to 8%. Morgan the primary votes are 41.5% for Labor (up two), 39.5% for the Coalition (down one) and 8.5% for the Greens (unchanged).
Blair would have christened Murray as The Peoples Player..Brown would have probably turned up dressed in some Tartan outfit, that belonged at one time to hs preacher daddy
But is it really rational for an 18 year old to risk their student loan on roulette? Even if the odds are fixed in your favour?
You'll forgive me Pong, but I've reduced your question to a simpler one. I think this captures it.
18yo bet like a nutter according to Kelly? Yes - if you stake correctly and bet systematically and have a good edge. Bit dull tho... No - the life opportunities for a 18yo represent (I guess) a better expected growth rate than Kelly does. Likely to be much more fun too
OT I've just been reminded of something - did Gordon Brown really make some bizarre election boast about curing cancer within 20yrs or something like that if Labour was voted back in?
It seems so improbable - along with abolishing Boom & Bust, I'm wondering if it's true.
OT I've just been reminded of something - did Gordon Brown really make some bizarre election boast about curing cancer within 20yrs or something like that if Labour was voted back in?
It seems so improbable - along with abolishing Boom & Bust, I'm wondering if it's true.
Finding a cure for cancer and eliminating the economic cycle were amongst the lesser of Brown's boasts ;
"The scandal about Labour party selections goes far deeper. The present uproar arises solely because Unite has started to have some success in pushing back against what the right wing has been doing unchallenged for years. It is time the spotlight was turned on the activities of Progress, largely funded by Lord Sainsbury, which has been sparing no expense to get its candidates adopted. The Sainsbury "block vote" has been used to create a parliamentary Labour party that does not look like, or think like, the broader party.
Unite has been doing far less, far later than the well-funded standard-bearers of the New Labour status quo. And we have been doing it democratically and openly, with our members participating and our funding accounted for. A universally applied spending cap that levels this playing field could be a step forward.
Of course, funding does not exhaust the ways in which the right wing has manipulated selection procedures. Every manoeuvre has been deployed, often with the assistance of Labour headquarters, to parachute favoured candidates into safe seats, with the constituency party bypassed. Until our Blairite critics face up to the serial abuses of party democracy associated with the New Labour years, they cannot be taken seriously as reformers. They simply want to carry on using parliamentary seats as patronage tools as before.
These abuses by the right wing were made easier by the collapse in party membership. This was not inevitable. The thinning-out of Labour's ranks was partly the consequence of a single policy decision – the Iraq war – which drove thousands out of the party, and partly the result of unaccountable domination by a parliamentary elite, which makes membership participation seem like a waste of time..."
Another tosspot politician, desperate for some stardust. What a pathetic bunch our leaders are.
But if they do not do such things, people say they are 'in hiding' or 'out of touch'.
Truly, our politicians cannot win.
Unlike Murray. ;-)
I'm going to have to disagree with you on that. I just don't like seeing politicians chasing fame. It's like when they tweet about XFactor, or appear in The Simpsons, they just come over as w#£%&#s.
The more I see of Cameron trying to take advatage, politically, of Murrays epic win, the more he reminds me of Napoleon, the gross pig of Animal Farm. In fact he grows more porcine every day.
The more I see of Cameron trying to take advatage, politically, of Murrays epic win, the more he reminds me of Napoleon, the gross pig of Animal Farm. In fact he grows more porcine every day.
"The scandal about Labour party selections goes far deeper. The present uproar arises solely because Unite has started to have some success in pushing back against what the right wing has been doing unchallenged for years. It is time the spotlight was turned on the activities of Progress, largely funded by Lord Sainsbury, which has been sparing no expense to get its candidates adopted. The Sainsbury "block vote" has been used to create a parliamentary Labour party that does not look like, or think like, the broader party.
Unite has been doing far less, far later than the well-funded standard-bearers of the New Labour status quo. And we have been doing it democratically and openly, with our members participating and our funding accounted for. A universally applied spending cap that levels this playing field could be a step forward.
Of course, funding does not exhaust the ways in which the right wing has manipulated selection procedures. Every manoeuvre has been deployed, often with the assistance of Labour headquarters, to parachute favoured candidates into safe seats, with the constituency party bypassed. Until our Blairite critics face up to the serial abuses of party democracy associated with the New Labour years, they cannot be taken seriously as reformers. They simply want to carry on using parliamentary seats as patronage tools as before.
These abuses by the right wing were made easier by the collapse in party membership. This was not inevitable. The thinning-out of Labour's ranks was partly the consequence of a single policy decision – the Iraq war – which drove thousands out of the party, and partly the result of unaccountable domination by a parliamentary elite, which makes membership participation seem like a waste of time..."
But is it really rational for an 18 year old to risk their student loan on roulette? Even if the odds are fixed in your favour?
Yes, but remember Kelly takes into account the likelihood of winning, as well as the value. Since in roulette the odds are known, well, you do the maths!
'As a political force Englishness is on the rise – and Labour mustn't forget it' - This week the party's headache is Falkirk. But its long-term problems will be south of the border
... outlook is well represented by Ukip, which might well be described as an English nationalist party, favouring as it does an English parliament. Ukip supporters are also far more likely than those of other parties to describe themselves as "English" rather than "British".
Labour has never succeeded in winning an enduring parliamentary majority without winning a majority of seats in England. When dependent on the Scottish vote – as in 1950, 1964 and 1974 – Labour had either a majority in single figures or no majority at all.
... it is possible that, in 2015, Labour could be dependent on Scotland and Wales for an overall majority. This would again raise the question first highlighted by Tam Dalyell, the former MP for West Lothian, which asks why Scottish MPs should vote on domestic English matters, such as health and education, which in Scotland are the responsibility of the Scottish parliament.
The Tory answer is English votes for English laws. But this is incompatible with cabinet government since it would mean two different administrations: Labour for foreign affairs, defence and economic policy; Tory for health, education and housing.
... Labour is a unionist party – the only major party with substantial representation in Scotland, Wales and England. It will campaign hard against Scot independence. But it needs to campaign equally hard to ensure that the unionist slogan "Better together" works as well for England as it does for Scotland and Wales.
The more I see of Cameron trying to take advatage, politically, of Murrays epic win, the more he reminds me of Napoleon, the gross pig of Animal Farm. In fact he grows more porcine every day.
Yep. I don't know why Murray bothers with those stuffed shirts. I do hope he's not considering a Sebastion Coe type career. I expect not. I'd also like to hope that he wouldn't accept a knighthood. Wiggins did I fear.
Another tosspot politician, desperate for some stardust. What a pathetic bunch our leaders are.
But if they do not do such things, people say they are 'in hiding' or 'out of touch'.
Truly, our politicians cannot win.
Unlike Murray. ;-)
I'm going to have to disagree with you on that. I just don't like seeing politicians chasing fame. It's like when they tweet about XFactor, or appear in The Simpsons, they just come over as w#£%&#s.
Fair enough, and I understand where you are coming from. If I were a politician and was asked what my team was, I would reply: "None. Football is a game played by sub-Neanderthals and watched by Neanderthals, whilst commented on by Amoeba."
Which is why I am not a politician. But you should see that a politician can be honest when asked crass questions like "what is your favourite biscuit" or "what is your favourite band" and be pilloried, or wax lyrical about something they only know from a briefing.
There is no such thing as the 'common man' that all senior politicians strive to be.
If Cameron had not invited Murray over after the historic win, the headlines would be: "Loser PM blanks winner!" And the PM's rivals would be all too glad to pick up the pieces.
The more I see of Cameron trying to take advatage, politically, of Murrays epic win, the more he reminds me of Napoleon, the gross pig of Animal Farm. In fact he grows more porcine every day.
The Prime Minister of the country invites a victorious sporting champion to Downing Street - and also invites the leaders of the Lib-Dems, Labour and SNP ... and its taking advantage?
After Ashes victories the cricketers went to Downing Street. After the Olympics the athletes went to Downing Street. Etc, etc
After winning Wimbledon should Murray have been snubbed just because he's Scottish? If this was unique to just Murray you might - just might - have a point. But you don't as it's not.
Downing Street represents the country and just sometimes its nice to put aside partisan politics and celebrate success.
The more I see of Cameron trying to take advatage, politically, of Murrays epic win, the more he reminds me of Napoleon, the gross pig of Animal Farm. In fact he grows more porcine every day.
Yep. I don't know why Murray bothers with those stuffed shirts. I do hope he's not considering a Sebastion Coe type career. I expect not. I'd also like to hope that he wouldn't accept a knighthood. Wiggins did I fear.
To be fair to Cameron he invited other senior politicos - he didn't "hog" it
BBC News 24 had a video of a pro-Morsi gathering after the (tragic / evil / hideous) shooting of 51 pro-Morsi protesters outside a barracks in Cairo.
What was notable was that, in the close-ups, there was not a single female face that I could see. I am sure the anti-Morsi protests featured women heavily.
It will be interesting to see if this impression is real or a coincidence of the clip shown.
The more I see of Cameron trying to take advatage, politically, of Murrays epic win, the more he reminds me of Napoleon, the gross pig of Animal Farm. In fact he grows more porcine every day.
Yep. I don't know why Murray bothers with those stuffed shirts. I do hope he's not considering a Sebastion Coe type career. I expect not. I'd also like to hope that he wouldn't accept a knighthood. Wiggins did I fear.
To be fair to Cameron he invited other senior politicos - he didn't "hog" it
The Camerons and Murrays have been bounded together by blood ties since Culloden. It was moving to see their modern day protagonists united on the steps of No.10.
The Camerons and Murrays have been bounded together by blood ties since Culloden. It was moving to see their modern day protagonists united on the steps of No.10.
Have none of the Nats seen the Graeme Swann interview yet?
Nick Ferrari did his best to stitch up the Education Secretary with a history and maths test on LBC this morning, but there was never really any danger there:
some pygmy's on PB tonight. Murray wins an amazing victory and the PM of the day, regardless of politics, is not supposed to invite him to number 10..small minds ..small brains.
some pygmy's on PB tonight. Murray wins an amazing victory and the PM of the day, regardless of politics, is not supposed to invite him to number 10..small minds ..small brains.
The rich and big business aren't actually loyal to the Tories in the way the unions are with Labour. Look at the way the City went over to Blair and New Labour after backing the Tories through the Thatcher and Major years, only to return once Cameron had taken the leadership. The large corporations go where the power and influence is, it is actually small business which is most loyal to the Tory Party!
Nick Ferrari did his best to stitch up the Education Secretary with a history and maths test on LBC this morning, but there was never really any danger there:
Comments
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/10556b1a-e7a8-11e2-9aad-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2YTDBHJZP
"Much will be expected of Murray as Scotland prepares for its referendum on independence in 2014. Since his comment that he supports the other side against England football teams, he has maintained a typically pithy approach to questions of national identity, describing himself as proud to be both Scottish and British.
In his televised post-match interview he talked of himself as the “first British winner” in 77 years. That made Alex Salmond’s bout of saltire-waving all the more silly. (Does he always carry a flag around with him?) The popularity of Scotland’s first minister is often exaggerated but it is vital to his Scottish National party’s cause. Murray’s humble acceptance of mixed identities may come to be symbolic for the other side."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/blighty/2013/07/labour-politics
"Mr Miliband has no power-base on which to fall back, no established network of institutions and outriders to do the heavy-lifting for him. Though most are loyal to him as party leader, no think-tank, pressure group or parliamentary gang is closely aligned with his personal project. Shifting Grounds, a website, is one exception, but is insufficient on its own. Compass, once Progress's equivalent on the "soft left" of the party, could have provided a gathering-point, but instead neutered its potential influence by offering membership to members of the Green Party and the Lib Dems.
Most of Mr Miliband's problems arise from the absence of such a network. Labourites gripe that his office is aloof, a complaint accentuated by its physical location (high in Norman Shaw, the turreted Victorian office block on the northern extremity of the parliamentary estate). Strategy, communications and policy-making do not join up, they grumble. Those standing up for him in the media receive too little support from their colleagues, the press and Labour's intellectual superstructure. To the press and voters, Labour thus risks appearing to lack policies, gusto or unity—more this week than at any point since 2010. None of these charges is entirely true. But, if Mr Miliband does not marshal a coherent network of support within the party soon, it may become so."
What are the likes of David Blunkett, Alan Johnson or Tessa Jowell up to? Are they interested?
Cameron's team looked a bit young and inexperienced but he had the likes of Ken Clarke, William Hague and IDS around the place. Plus fulsome support from Michael Howard and people like Heseltine who would represent the party on QT or in interviews.
At first glance Miliband's team seems lighter. A bit like Arsenal. Decent young players but not hard or experienced enough to win anything anymore.
What we need to do is look at the entire system and redesign it from the ground up. There are some basic questions: what principles should be at the systems' heart, what are the current problems, and how do we solve them?
Instead, they just fart around tidying up the edges. It is time for the whole thing to be looked at without reverting to party politics.
As for the pledge in the Coalition Agreement, it is incoherent and unworkable.
The target should be seats that have not changed hands for a very long time; the open Primary should be for the party in possession only and the opportunity should arise when there is a vacancy, that is when the current MP is standing down. (The last one is debatable but the idea is likely to be a lot more palatable to MPs if they are not personally threatened and it would at least be a first step).
I agree with Tim that Labour in Falkirk meets all these criteria and the government should pay for it if asked to do so. But the legislation to authorise the payment is not in place is it?
My guess if it were there would be some pressure on retiring MPs to declare their intention in time to get the funding. It would be a good way of enlivening democracy where it is least potent.
The rationale is simple: people get to hear for themselves the various contenders speak and be questioned by a 'neutral' moderator and then by members of the audience. The shortlist of, say, six should be chosen by the Association Executive (perhaps with a gender balance...I'm not fussed). Prior to the meeting, all the short-listed aspirants will have held their own meetings around the constituency talking to local groups, party members, Councillors etc. to strengthen their support for the big day.
Clearly the turnout will be lower than a postal ballot (and far far cheaper) but the lessening of 'democracy' I don't contend would be significant and would to a large extent be outweighed by a much more engaged and informed selectorate.
"Midnight embargo I'm afraid, but Ed Miliband's speech tomorrow on how Labour will change selections has pretty big news."
Of course, Sunny Hundal's definition of "pretty big news" might be different from the rest of us.
It would seem I can 'lay' Gove as next leader of the Tories on Betfair £36 at 7-1 but also bet on him at 10-1 to be the next leader with Hills.
Is there any arb oppo there, even after commissions etc and modest lay size?
Just to learn really.
Ta.
Big announcement from Miliband tomorrow as he tries to move on from Falkirk. Some proposals impressive, some raise more Qs than they answer.
And that was certainly a concern before we chose that option. But along with the other Tory constituencies - perhaps 10 or so - that opted for open primary meeting, the attendance in a very safe seat was 500 plus. And a number of political opponents took part, but comparing notes afterwards with a leading Councillor from the other side, we found we both voted for the same candidate (the winner) because he was by far the more accomplished and convincing performer. With that size of audience, attendees appear to genuinely enter into the spirit of the occasion.
I would have thought the interest in marginal seats would be even higher.
Frankly I'm sceptical about the numbers who would tune in remotely....and then cast a subsequent vote
But ultimately I'm a pragmatist on the method: I have no fundamental objection to postal ballots. One interim solution is for the parties to mandate immediately open primary meetings for the selections (with no incumbent MP that is) over the next six/nine months, and if that doesn't do the trick then go for compulsory postal ballots thereafter.
Check the T&C's very carefully though, With markets like this (and next football club manager etc) you can potentially lose both the back & lay bet if the result is not clear cut - eg 'interim' leader / caretaker manager.
Also consider the length of time you'd need to tie up funds for. I'd want at least a 10% P/A ROI on these sort of long-term arbs. If Cameron wins a maj in 2015, then retires in 2020 then it ain't a great bet!
Oh, and either company could conceivably go bust before the bet is settled.
'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.'
Does the Labour figure include the alleged mass memberships courtesy of UNITE?
Cameron should perhaps be best placed to get there. He's doing a decent (In my view good) job. However the Tories have the most to gain from a change. If Boris was an MP then Cameron would certainly be at risk. I suspect the 'dream ticket' is that Cameron stays and get re-elected, and that Boris finds himself back in parliament ready for a third conservative term. (Oh happy days!)
Clegg is currently clearly the man to have at the helm for the LDs whilst they are in coalition or talks about coalitions. I suspect that he'll only be replaced if they fail to be a part of the government and even then the LDs will go for someone with the experience of building agreements. Cable may as well retire.
Labour find themselves in an interesting position. They probably should happily continue with Ed. The difficulty they have is that there are a handful of people who didn't quite measure up to DMill, but easily outshine EMill. The contenders from the younger ranks are basically only attractive because they are younger.
I'd be interested to hear anyone's view on the NextGE leaders market on BF. I've backed the unchanged at around 2.00, but am reluctant to get too carried away in that the bet is at the whim of 3 secret societies.
1. How do you define your bankroll?
2. Bookie limits - particularly on politics/novelty markets
Interesting equation, nonetheless.
Interesting what that might mean. Party members one would presume have a near 100% allegiance when actually voting. Usually that means that they haven't thought about the issues of the day at all. They have been totally immune to short-term pressures etc. That's not really that great.
On the other hand there are the non-aligned who's views may blow in the wind. I think that overall that has to be worse.
2. The degree to which a betting opportunity has depth is irrelevant.
At least 3 letters sent post-Falkirk to Ed Milliband + other senior figures asking them to look at Peterborough Lab party.BBC Look East 6:30
The letters talk about bullying...and intimidation and "some very dubious events" surrounding the selection of the PPC, Lisa Forbes.
One of the letters says: "our own members are vicious and vindictive to a degree that could never align to socialist values"
"One of the letters says: "our own members are vicious and vindictive to a degree that could never align to socialist values""
And people try to claim that Gove is exaggerating about the lack of quality in history classes in schools. Gulags, purges, "re-education", death camps, Cambodia, secret police, the abuse of psychiatric hospitals in the Warsaw pact...do these people not know anything? Have they not read anything? A significant number of the most viscious and vindictive murderers in history went by the name socialist.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BOqnIL2CEAIWsfY.jpg
Here, you are offered 6/4 against a true evens chance. The value is clear, but you cannot put your whole bank on because there is still a 50/50 chance you will lose. The equation tells you how much you should risk if you want to maximise bankroll growth.
Ah, but once again, maybe the market is telling you there has been a leak of a scan result.
So I'd just take the general shape of the result, which is you should have more on when value is greater, and when the chances of winning are greater.
The underlying theme in all of this surely has to be that if you believe in something strongly enough that you might contemplate murder then that is precisely the time when you've gone too far.
"6:53PM
Just the visitor Andy wanted, posing with Ed Miliband and the Wimbledon trophy"
But to be fair Ed looks as embarrassed as he would if caught in fragrante delicto with a Wimbledon ball boy
Sally Chidzoy @sallychidzoy
Am told tonight that complaints/statements are being sent to Labour party HQ in attempt to block appointment of a PPC in the Midlands.
"The underlying theme in all of this surely has to be that if you believe in something strongly enough that you might contemplate murder then that is precisely the time when you've gone too far."
The banning of women in city centre cafes with prams the size of Sherman tanks?
Kelly's little equation is provably correct.
"The PB Tories are always amusing, they haven't the ability to discuss a London YouGov poll, a mansion tax poll or a poll of Tory membership."
They would all be a disappointing distraction.
The story of the moment is how is Ed going to deal with his Unite problem. I for one am interested to see what sort of leadership he shows. Cameron is a known quantity.
This could be the making of Ed.
I remember during my first year at uni - one of the big online casinos was offering a 50% loss rebate. After a few weeks of ignoring the emails, I read the T&C's & realised it was up to £1k stake and required only a single spin of roulette. I concluded that although I couldn't really afford to lose £500 of my student loan, I'd be an idiot NOT to take the gamble - and for the full £1k stake. In theory, I should also go for higher odds - ie, a single number - to maximise the EV. I didn't quite have the balls to do it on a single number (2.7% chance of winning, 97.3% chance of losing) - but ended up doing it on an even money bet. They kept the offer going, week after week. Some weeks you win, some you lose & get a 50% refund. I made about £8k before they twigged what I was doing & banned me. I remember rationalising it in the same way they rationalise pension investments - the younger you are the more risk you should take, so long as the odds are on your side.
But is it really rational for an 18 year old to risk their student loan on roulette? Even if the odds are fixed in your favour?
2. well, until paddy power offers you 37p max stake. At which point it's hardly worth the effort, regardless of how good the odds are.
Open primaries make sense. I know the detail wouldn't work, but perhaps a system where you vote according to your view might be good too. Very alien mind you!
Latest Oz polls Essential Research Coalition 52% Labour 48%, Morgan Labor 54.5% Coalition 45.5%. Primary - Essential Research Labor on 38% and the Coalition on 46%, while the Greens are down a point to 8%. Morgan the primary votes are 41.5% for Labor (up two), 39.5% for the Coalition (down one) and 8.5% for the Greens (unchanged).
ALP internal polling also has them ahead in seats they need to win
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/internal-labor-polling-shows-kevin-rudds-return-has-the-alp-in-potential-election-winning-position/story-e6frg6n6-1226676186119
A little bit of maths and it becomes fun.
It's what I do for a living.
You'll forgive me Pong, but I've reduced your question to a simpler one. I think this captures it.
18yo bet like a nutter according to Kelly?
Yes - if you stake correctly and bet systematically and have a good edge. Bit dull tho...
No - the life opportunities for a 18yo represent (I guess) a better expected growth rate than Kelly does. Likely to be much more fun too
It seems so improbable - along with abolishing Boom & Bust, I'm wondering if it's true.
Another tosspot politician, desperate for some stardust. What a pathetic bunch our leaders are.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iPaiylUYW0
This man was once PM.
Truly, our politicians cannot win.
Unlike Murray. ;-)
Innocent face
"The scandal about Labour party selections goes far deeper. The present uproar arises solely because Unite has started to have some success in pushing back against what the right wing has been doing unchallenged for years. It is time the spotlight was turned on the activities of Progress, largely funded by Lord Sainsbury, which has been sparing no expense to get its candidates adopted. The Sainsbury "block vote" has been used to create a parliamentary Labour party that does not look like, or think like, the broader party.
Unite has been doing far less, far later than the well-funded standard-bearers of the New Labour status quo. And we have been doing it democratically and openly, with our members participating and our funding accounted for. A universally applied spending cap that levels this playing field could be a step forward.
Of course, funding does not exhaust the ways in which the right wing has manipulated selection procedures. Every manoeuvre has been deployed, often with the assistance of Labour headquarters, to parachute favoured candidates into safe seats, with the constituency party bypassed. Until our Blairite critics face up to the serial abuses of party democracy associated with the New Labour years, they cannot be taken seriously as reformers. They simply want to carry on using parliamentary seats as patronage tools as before.
These abuses by the right wing were made easier by the collapse in party membership. This was not inevitable. The thinning-out of Labour's ranks was partly the consequence of a single policy decision – the Iraq war – which drove thousands out of the party, and partly the result of unaccountable domination by a parliamentary elite, which makes membership participation seem like a waste of time..."
I'm going to have to disagree with you on that. I just don't like seeing politicians chasing fame. It's like when they tweet about XFactor, or appear in The Simpsons, they just come over as w#£%&#s.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2358352/Andy-Murray-smartens-join-PM-Downing-Street-photo-opportunity-Cameron-keen-up.html
http://www.express.co.uk/comment/columnists/leo-mckinstry/413240/Don-t-let-Miliband-turn-Britain-into-a-French-farce
- This week the party's headache is Falkirk. But its long-term problems will be south of the border http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/08/labour-englishness-falkirk
Which is why I am not a politician. But you should see that a politician can be honest when asked crass questions like "what is your favourite biscuit" or "what is your favourite band" and be pilloried, or wax lyrical about something they only know from a briefing.
There is no such thing as the 'common man' that all senior politicians strive to be.
If Cameron had not invited Murray over after the historic win, the headlines would be: "Loser PM blanks winner!" And the PM's rivals would be all too glad to pick up the pieces.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-23230890
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/04_02/brownSLSH0604_468x412.jpg
After Ashes victories the cricketers went to Downing Street.
After the Olympics the athletes went to Downing Street.
Etc, etc
After winning Wimbledon should Murray have been snubbed just because he's Scottish? If this was unique to just Murray you might - just might - have a point. But you don't as it's not.
Downing Street represents the country and just sometimes its nice to put aside partisan politics and celebrate success.
BBC News 24 had a video of a pro-Morsi gathering after the (tragic / evil / hideous) shooting of 51 pro-Morsi protesters outside a barracks in Cairo.
What was notable was that, in the close-ups, there was not a single female face that I could see. I am sure the anti-Morsi protests featured women heavily.
It will be interesting to see if this impression is real or a coincidence of the clip shown.
An absolute mess.
It's a pig in a poke and I'd advise Murray not to buy it.
Nick Ferrari did his best to stitch up the Education Secretary with a history and maths test on LBC this morning, but there was never really any danger there:
http://order-order.com/2013/07/08/listen-gove-passes-lbc-history-test/
But surely the correct answer to "what do you get when you multiply a half by a quarter" is "a Miliband McLuskeyed".