Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The real mug punters at the moment are those piling onto a

SystemSystem Posts: 12,179
edited July 2013 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The real mug punters at the moment are those piling onto a CON majority at 3-1

Full Ladbrokes GE2015 betting
LAB majority 5/4 (from 11/10)
Hung parliament 13/8
CON maj 3/1 (from 7/2)
UKIP maj 100/1
LD maj 200/1

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    First!
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    FPT

    Among VI Cameron vs Miliband:

    Good in a crisis: +26
    Natural leader: +25
    Charismatic: +22
    Strong: +20
    Decisive: +17
    Sticks to what he believes in: +17
    Honest: +4
    In touch with concerns of ordinary people: -28

    OA Labour back below 40, lead +8: http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/ie9dn86na5/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-090713.pdf
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    edited July 2013
    tim said:

    Looks like Labours share hasn't taken a hit over the last week

    You think the average lead is still +8?

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    tim said:

    Same as it ever was.
    Had he not been the Tory Kinnock and only put 3.6% on their vote.

    We've been through this before.

    There has been a (continuing) secular change in British politics between 1992 and 2010 with a dramatic reduction of the share of votes available to the two largest parties.

    A 3.6% increase may be similar in absolute terms, but in terms of the available pool it is a stronger performance.

    But if the facts don't fit tim's analysis they are to be ruthlessly ignored
  • Stuart_DicksonStuart_Dickson Posts: 3,557
    "The real mug punters at the moment are those piling onto a CON majority at 3-1"
    Well, you'd have to be a mug backing CON MAJ with Ladbrokes at 3/1 when at least 6 other bookies, plus Betfair, are offering a better price.

    Best prices today - next UK GE

    LAB majority 19/13 (Betfair)
    Hung parliament 13/8 (Ladbrokes)
    CON maj 4/1 (Stan James; You Win)
    UKIP maj 125/1 (William Hill)
    LD maj 250/1 (William Hill)


  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    ## BETTING POST ##

    A few weeks ago, someone joked on here about coming over to watch his team Charlton play Gibraltar in a pre-season friendly at the Victoria Stadium tonight.

    I think it was @FluffyThoughts, but for whoever it was - Bet365 are currently offering Gib at 9/1

    I'll be there tonight and already have just put some beer money on it too.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    edited July 2013
    @tim - is that a "yes" or a "no"?

    Lots of squirrels this early in the morning - is the Cheshire farmer expecting another rough day?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    tim said:

    Charles said:

    tim said:

    Same as it ever was.
    Had he not been the Tory Kinnock and only put 3.6% on their vote.

    We've been through this before.

    There has been a (continuing) secular change in British politics between 1992 and 2010 with a dramatic reduction of the share of votes available to the two largest parties.

    A 3.6% increase may be similar in absolute terms, but in terms of the available pool it is a stronger performance.

    But if the facts don't fit tim's analysis they are to be ruthlessly ignored
    The post conference season ICM was 44/27/18

    To argue that because Osborne and Cameron lost ground predominately because of an unwritten rule that the share available to the two main parties has inevitably shrunk, rather than Cameron and Osborne being a bit useless is absurd.

    But how about a bet that Charles' rule is reversed next time and the two big parties increase their share.
    Usual terms
    Usual excuses expected.
    It's not absurd: it's statistical reality. 3.6% of 10% (for example) is a better relative performance than 3.6% of 20%.

    But I'm happy to bet that Labour/Tories will increase their aggregate share of the vote next time. What odds will you offer for £10?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,914
    edited July 2013
    Historically nine times out of ten either Labour or the Tories get an overall majority and with a weakened Lib Dem vote this should be overwhelming favourite again.

    To win outright the Tories need to swing the polls beyond what is realistic so short of catastrophic collapse Labour with a working majority looks much the best of the alternative bets.
  • Stuart_DicksonStuart_Dickson Posts: 3,557

    @tim - is that a "yes" or a "no"?

    Lots of squirrels this early in the morning - expecting another rough day?

    Tim doesn't need to spot squirrels when David Cameron's incompetent government is the elephant in the room.

    When/if Cameron gets his act together that 4/1 price on CON MAJ will drop, irrespective of what Labour says or does. The ball is in the government's court, and they are playing an astonishingly poor game.

  • Stuart_DicksonStuart_Dickson Posts: 3,557
    Charles said:

    But I'm happy to bet that Labour/Tories will increase their aggregate share of the vote next time. What odds will you offer for £10?

    You're a big spender Charles!

    With that paltry sum you have just conceded tim his point.

  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    My impression is that rough days do not affect the polls that much, generally taking a couple of weeks to affect projected vote shares.

    I wouldnt expect too much change over the summer, but the autumn conference season may have a different tone with 18 months to go.

    Either Miliband will kick the Union issue into the long grass or have a very fractious conference 18 months before an election. I think he would be wise to not stir up to much of a fight with Len.

    Ed Miliband should have a small majority in 2015 unless his party do something really stupid.

    The WLQ proposals sound interesting. It would be good to see a well drafted bill on the issue in the next Queens speech to tidy up this unfinished business of devolution.

    It would severely limit what an incoming Miliband govt could do, but is hard to argue against.
    tim said:

    @tim - is that a "yes" or a "no"?

    Lots of squirrels this early in the morning - is the Cheshire farmer expecting another rough day?

    Rough days as defined by the PB Tories are rarely reflected in the polls.
    Although good days for Cameron, as defined by the PB Tories usually result in a rise for one or other their opponents.
    See 2012 budget and the Awesome Speech for further details.
  • Stuart_DicksonStuart_Dickson Posts: 3,557
    edited July 2013
    tim said:

    Charles said:

    tim said:

    Same as it ever was.
    Had he not been the Tory Kinnock and only put 3.6% on their vote.

    We've been through this before.

    There has been a (continuing) secular change in British politics between 1992 and 2010 with a dramatic reduction of the share of votes available to the two largest parties.

    A 3.6% increase may be similar in absolute terms, but in terms of the available pool it is a stronger performance.

    But if the facts don't fit tim's analysis they are to be ruthlessly ignored
    To argue that because Osborne and Cameron lost ground predominately because of an unwritten rule that the share available to the two main parties has inevitably shrunk, rather than Cameron and Osborne being a bit useless is absurd.

    But how about a bet that Charles' rule is reversed next time and the two big parties increase their share.
    Usual terms
    Usual excuses expected.
    Con+Lab at UK GE 2010 (GB only) = 66.63%
    Con+Lab at current polling (GB only) = approx 66%

    ... but then if we take into account that the UKIP and small party vote share is going to be significantly lower come the next UK GE, then it is looking like Con+Lab exceeding 66.63% is entirely feasible, indeed likely.

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    tim said:

    Charles said:

    tim said:

    Charles said:

    tim said:

    Same as it ever was.
    Had he not been the Tory Kinnock and only put 3.6% on their vote.

    We've been through this before.

    There has been a (continuing) secular change in British politics between 1992 and 2010 with a dramatic reduction of the share of votes available to the two largest parties.

    A 3.6% increase may be similar in absolute terms, but in terms of the available pool it is a stronger performance.

    But if the facts don't fit tim's analysis they are to be ruthlessly ignored
    The post conference season ICM was 44/27/18

    To argue that because Osborne and Cameron lost ground predominately because of an unwritten rule that the share available to the two main parties has inevitably shrunk, rather than Cameron and Osborne being a bit useless is absurd.

    But how about a bet that Charles' rule is reversed next time and the two big parties increase their share.
    Usual terms
    Usual excuses expected.
    It's not absurd: it's statistical reality. 3.6% of 10% (for example) is a better relative performance than 3.6% of 20%.

    But I'm happy to bet that Labour/Tories will increase their aggregate share of the vote next time. What odds will you offer for £10?
    Evens that your rule is reversed and the two parties increase their share.
    If this is another of your parlour games involving a dozen posts about having evaluated the metric and ending up in no bet then save us all the bother of reading them and say now.
    You may have noticed that the main third party is now in government, after a fashion? That rather changes things.

    I think the Lab + Tory score will go up, that the LDs will fall by, say 7-8% and UKIP will add 4-5%. The regional parties will gain some as well, but not enough to offset the LD fall.

    So I'm happy to bet the aggregate share will go up.

    But it sounds like we want to have the same side of the bet.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    But I'm happy to bet that Labour/Tories will increase their aggregate share of the vote next time. What odds will you offer for £10?

    You're a big spender Charles!

    With that paltry sum you have just conceded tim his point.

    Not really. I don't bet as a rule - I prefer to invest based on fundamental value and don't have the time to follow the betting markets closely enough.

    £10 I can lose without caring one way or the other. £50 would be a nice meal out with my wife & I'd rather do that than (potentially) give it to tim.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    tim said:

    Charles said:

    But I'm happy to bet that Labour/Tories will increase their aggregate share of the vote next time. What odds will you offer for £10?

    You're a big spender Charles!

    With that paltry sum you have just conceded tim his point.

    I think it's wise that everyone bets according to their ability.

    More important that people bet according to their means and risk appetite.

    If someone can afford to lose £1m and they enjoy betting at that level then let them do it regardless of their ability.

    I choose not to.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited July 2013
    norman smith @BBCNormanS
    Paul Kenny @GMB_union says "we'll be lucky" if 10 per cent of his members decide to "opt in" to affiliate to Labour Party @BBCr4today

    That explains the apparently oddly worded press release last night that read more like an intention to disaffiliate.

    GMB's Paul Kenny: "Consequences of this are very far reaching." Some of lingo abt unions from some in Labour "disappointing and insulting."

    GMB's Paul Kenny tells @BBCr4today his union has long tried to persuade members to join Labour, but "we've not been knocked down in a rush."
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    tim said:

    Charles said:

    tim said:

    Same as it ever was.
    Had he not been the Tory Kinnock and only put 3.6% on their vote.

    We've been through this before.

    There has been a (continuing) secular change in British politics between 1992 and 2010 with a dramatic reduction of the share of votes available to the two largest parties.

    A 3.6% increase may be similar in absolute terms, but in terms of the available pool it is a stronger performance.

    But if the facts don't fit tim's analysis they are to be ruthlessly ignored
    To argue that because Osborne and Cameron lost ground predominately because of an unwritten rule that the share available to the two main parties has inevitably shrunk, rather than Cameron and Osborne being a bit useless is absurd.

    But how about a bet that Charles' rule is reversed next time and the two big parties increase their share.
    Usual terms
    Usual excuses expected.
    Con+Lab at UK GE 2010 (GB only) = 66.63%
    Con+Lab at current polling (GB only) = approx 66%

    ... but then if we take into account that the UKIP and small party vote share is going to be significantly lower come the next UK GE, then it is looking like Con+Lab exceeding 66.63% is entirely feasible, indeed likely.

    That's my analysis too. Hence why I don't want to take tim's bet at evens. The fact that he's not prepared to take the other side implies to me he thinks its an off-market price.
  • Stuart_DicksonStuart_Dickson Posts: 3,557
    tim said:

    I suspect they will be getting very excited about an Ollie Letwin plan on English MP's next.
    God help us.

    Here's hoping.

    Never underestimate the ability of the Conservative and Unionist Party to shoot itself in the foot on one of its key, indeed defining, subjects: the Union.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-constitutional-bombshell-that-would-reshape-british-politics-8698506.html

    There be trouble ahead.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    Charles said:

    tim said:

    Same as it ever was.
    Had he not been the Tory Kinnock and only put 3.6% on their vote.

    We've been through this before.

    There has been a (continuing) secular change in British politics between 1992 and 2010 with a dramatic reduction of the share of votes available to the two largest parties.

    A 3.6% increase may be similar in absolute terms, but in terms of the available pool it is a stronger performance.

    But if the facts don't fit tim's analysis they are to be ruthlessly ignored
    In 2010 the Tories received 55.5% of the two-party share. This is slightly better than the 54.9% that they achieved in 1992.

    One might hold the view that the share of the vote going to the two main parties has declined because, well, they've both been rubbish, so it is hard to use it as a reason why particular leaders of these parties have not been rubbish.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    edited July 2013

    Charles said:

    tim said:

    Same as it ever was.
    Had he not been the Tory Kinnock and only put 3.6% on their vote.

    We've been through this before.

    There has been a (continuing) secular change in British politics between 1992 and 2010 with a dramatic reduction of the share of votes available to the two largest parties.

    A 3.6% increase may be similar in absolute terms, but in terms of the available pool it is a stronger performance.

    But if the facts don't fit tim's analysis they are to be ruthlessly ignored
    In 2010 the Tories received 55.5% of the two-party share. This is slightly better than the 54.9% that they achieved in 1992.

    One might hold the view that the share of the vote going to the two main parties has declined because, well, they've both been rubbish, so it is hard to use it as a reason why particular leaders of these parties have not been rubbish.
    They've certainly proven unable to turn back the tide.

    My point was just that Cameron was not as rubbish as Kinnock!

    edit: I hadn't thought about looking at the share of the two party vote though. It would be interesting to see how Kinnock did on that measure.

    edit: Kinnock went from 42.2% to 45.0% + 2.9%. Cameron went from 47.9% to 55.5% +7.5%. Looks like we have a winner. And it's not tim.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    tim said:

    @tim - is that a "yes" or a "no"?

    Lots of squirrels this early in the morning - is the Cheshire farmer expecting another rough day?

    Rough days as defined by the PB Tories are rarely reflected in the polls.
    Although good days for Cameron, as defined by the PB Tories usually result in a rise for one or other their opponents.
    See 2012 budget and the Awesome Speech for further details.
    Still no, "yes" or "no" then.....funny that.....

  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    edited July 2013
    I note that Ed's awesome, earthchanging speech, is splashed all over the front pages today.
  • Mike Smithson thinks that there is a lot of money going on what people want to happen, rather than what they think will actually happen? I'm not sure that is true any more.

    Sporting Index used to tell me that they always had significant volumes of 'sympathy money' for backing England, or buying goals (few want to see a 0-0 draw---unless he's sold total goals). Now, Sporting tell me that the punters who are still in the game are making much more informed views, and not betting with their heart.

    Except on thinly traded markets, befair prices are a very accurate reflection of the probability of something happening. The exception to that is that big outsiders (such as UKIP or the LDs forming the next govt) are always too short a price.
  • Stuart_DicksonStuart_Dickson Posts: 3,557

    One might hold the view that the share of the vote going to the two main parties has declined because, well, they've both been rubbish, so it is hard to use it as a reason why particular leaders of these parties have not been rubbish.

    Indeed.

    The same thing struck me a couple of days ago when Richard Nabavi got a bit tetchy because the Tories, Labour and Lib Dems have all been losing members in their droves, whereas, for example, the SNP and UKIP have been dramatically increasing their membership numbers.

    Richard sees this as irrelevant: that the decline in Con,Lab,LD membership levels is somehow part of a natural scheme of things. Of course, it isn't. If any of them were any good they would be attracting new members rather than being so repulsive that even hard-core believers stop paying the modest annual fee.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,007
    edited July 2013
    Last night Alan Johnson said Labour must divorce itself from the current Union subscription practices and that this was an OMOV/Clause 4 moment.

    So, having ditched all essentially Labour/Left Wing policies, why on earth would anyone still support the Labour Party?

    They've proven themselves hopeless at running the economy, have promised no more borrowing (I think) and also signed up to the Conservatives' spending plans. So what does that leave us?

    Housebuilding? No second jobs for MPs?

    What's the Labour vision?

    Genuinely perplexed here.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    tim said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    tim said:

    Same as it ever was.
    Had he not been the Tory Kinnock and only put 3.6% on their vote.

    We've been through this before.

    There has been a (continuing) secular change in British politics between 1992 and 2010 with a dramatic reduction of the share of votes available to the two largest parties.

    A 3.6% increase may be similar in absolute terms, but in terms of the available pool it is a stronger performance.

    But if the facts don't fit tim's analysis they are to be ruthlessly ignored
    In 2010 the Tories received 55.5% of the two-party share. This is slightly better than the 54.9% that they achieved in 1992.

    One might hold the view that the share of the vote going to the two main parties has declined because, well, they've both been rubbish, so it is hard to use it as a reason why particular leaders of these parties have not been rubbish.
    They've certainly proven unable to turn back the tide.

    My point was just that Cameron was not as rubbish as Kinnock!
    Kinnock put on 3.6% in 1992 against Major
    Cameron put on 3.6% in 2010 against Brown.

    There's an argument to say Cameron is worse than Kinnock, unless you assume parity between Major and Brown, which I doubt you do.


    See my response to Oblitus. Assuming that all modern politicians are operating in an environment where fewer people are engaged, Cameron did relatively better than Kinnock.
  • Stuart_DicksonStuart_Dickson Posts: 3,557
    TOPPING said:

    So, having ditched all essentially Labour/Left Wing policies, why on earth would anyone still support the Labour Party?

    Here's a clue:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8678370.stm

  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,914
    @Topping

    "They've proven themselves hopeless at running the economy, have promised no more borrowing (I think) and also signed up to the Conservatives' spending plans. So what does that leave us?"

    It leaves them not being the Tories. A USP that shouldn't be underestimated.
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071

    ..what people want to happen, rather than what they think will actually happen? I'm not sure that is true any more...and not betting with their heart.

    Do you think that's true across the board? What about the Murray match, for example? Was that uninfluenced by sentiment? I'd be very surprised. Which gambling company recently ran a teeth-grindingly awful ad about betting against your own team?

    I confess that there are some markets where some time ago I recognised my partisan blinkers were interfering with judgement (US politics, for example). I withdrew from gambling in those areas and am only just, as my betting matures, venturing back into them now older and wiser.

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,433
    TOPPING said:

    Last night Alan Johnson said Labour must divorce itself from the current Union subscription practices and that this was an OMOV/Clause 4 moment.

    So, having ditched all essentially Labour/Left Wing policies, why on earth would anyone still support the Labour Party?

    They've proven themselves hopeless at running the economy, have promised no more borrowing (I think) and also signed up to the Conservatives' spending plans. So what does that leave us?

    Housebuilding? No second jobs for MPs?

    What's the Labour vision?

    Genuinely perplexed here.

    What's the Labour vision?

    There isn't one. labour just stand for getting themselves elected and porkbarrelling their mates.

    To date EdM hasn't put forward a plan for the UK or for Labour. Vacuum politics.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,007
    Roger said:

    @Topping

    "They've proven themselves hopeless at running the economy, have promised no more borrowing (I think) and also signed up to the Conservatives' spending plans. So what does that leave us?"

    It leaves them not being the Tories. A USP that shouldn't be underestimated.

    well that's exactly it. And I don't.

    But I think the economic recovery will go some fair way to compensate.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,433
    Roger said:

    @Topping

    "They've proven themselves hopeless at running the economy, have promised no more borrowing (I think) and also signed up to the Conservatives' spending plans. So what does that leave us?"

    It leaves them not being the Tories. A USP that shouldn't be underestimated.

    Roger it's an SP not a USP as the rise of other parties shows.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,661
    If the WLQ report is accurate it makes a Lab/LD coalition post-election more likely and will hasten the introduction of PR. If English MPs are to have a veto on English legislation, let's make sure their composition reflects how the English voted. We don't want a repeat of 2005, do we?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,914
    @Alanbrooke

    " Roger it's an SP not a USP as the rise of other parties shows."

    It's a USP by virtue of Labour being the only party that can defeat them (now the Lib Dems have become a wholly owned subsidiary)
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Vacuum politics is a very accurate summary.

    No major UK politician seems to have a real vision of how they want this country to evolve.

    I would not be too unhappy with a Miliband govt, particularly after he boots out Balls from anything to do with money, but that is mainly just a reflection of my own pork barrel interests.

    Never in my lifetime have I found politicians so uninspiring.

    TOPPING said:

    Last night Alan Johnson said Labour must divorce itself from the current Union subscription practices and that this was an OMOV/Clause 4 moment.

    So, having ditched all essentially Labour/Left Wing policies, why on earth would anyone still support the Labour Party?

    They've proven themselves hopeless at running the economy, have promised no more borrowing (I think) and also signed up to the Conservatives' spending plans. So what does that leave us?

    Housebuilding? No second jobs for MPs?

    What's the Labour vision?

    Genuinely perplexed here.

    What's the Labour vision?

    There isn't one. labour just stand for getting themselves elected and porkbarrelling their mates.

    To date EdM hasn't put forward a plan for the UK or for Labour. Vacuum politics.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,433
    tim said:

    TOPPING said:

    Roger said:

    @Topping

    "They've proven themselves hopeless at running the economy, have promised no more borrowing (I think) and also signed up to the Conservatives' spending plans. So what does that leave us?"

    It leaves them not being the Tories. A USP that shouldn't be underestimated.

    well that's exactly it. And I don't.

    But I think the economic recovery will go some fair way to compensate.

    Three years of bumping along the bottom followed by a housing bubble as manufacturing and exports stay flat, deficit reduction is stalled and living standards fall over the parliament.
    That will be the Tory offer.
    Plus a promise to be competent next time because the Lib Dems stopped them doing what they really wanted.
    Yes it's a poor hand, the only advantage it has is the alternative is even weaker as Ed the incomprehensible says "wibble" or if pushed into a corner "predestination". That's just how bad he is, he can make Osborne look good.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,433
    Roger said:

    @Alanbrooke

    " Roger it's an SP not a USP as the rise of other parties shows."

    It's a USP by virtue of Labour being the only party that can defeat them (now the Lib Dems have become a wholly owned subsidiary)

    they can't atm we're heading for a HP.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 14,389
    Thanks Mike.

    Yes, I agree those odds offer good value and I disagree with the esteemed David Kendrick - the 3/1 can best be explained by heart-over-head syndrome, which afflicts punters on politics more than in any other realm of betting I know.

    Meanwhile, over at Trent Bridge, the First Test starts today. Last summer, the PB Cricket Betting Team was spectacular successful and followers can make a profitable start to the series by once again laying the draw, available to at a fraction over 3/1.

    As regular followers of The Team will know, few Tests are drawn these days unless the weather intervenes. The nine previous matches at Trent Bridge all produced a result. The weather is set fair. The bowlers are better than the batters. My prediction is that it will be over in four days, but 'll play safe and just take that 3/1 against the draw.

    Better value even than laying the Tories.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Mike, your premise seems to be that when push comes to shove the voters will have more faith in Ed than Gordon.

    I'm not so sure about that. Will another two years of Ed cement his position or will it crack further and turn to dust ? There must be a reasonable chance that the latter scenario plays out especially with a huge majority of voters not convinced that Ed has the measure of the office of PM.

    Another thoughlet that is emerging from the entrails of my ARSE is the prospect of a significantly higher poll turnout in 2015, a spike similar to 1992, that ensured Major returned with a narrow majority. Would we have been saying two years out from that election that Con maj punters were mugs ?

    PBers should also keep a very keen eye on the results of my ARSE in the lead up to the 2015 GE. Presently the latest projection shows the Conservatives are only 30 seats short of a majority. My ARSE will be in the field from tomorrow and as usual will be published exclusively on PB from Monday next.

    Tick tock, tick tock ....The clock is running down as the economy improves and Ed doesn't !!
  • EasterrossEasterross Posts: 1,915
    I never cease to be amazed at how OGH's dislike of the Tories shines through in his commentaries. When the prospect of a Tory majority government looks more obvious the odds will reduce so of course people who believe it is a serious prospect will get in earlier. Isn't that what you betting people do?

    How quickly earlier threads are ignored because it doesn't suit the current desired narrative.

    Last week OGH was promoting a graph on Twitter which showed David Cameron achieved the 3rd largest swing to an incoming government for decades. Only Blair in 1997 and Lady Thatcher in 1979 did better.

    Put the 2010 result in context.
    In Feb74 Ted Heath had been defending a majority and Harold Wilson failed to win a majority by 17 seats
    In Oct 74 the minority Wilson government achieved a majority albeit just
    In 1979 Jim Callaghan had been defending a minority government and Margaret Thatcher on a swing barely higher than David Cameron's 2010 one achieved a majority over 40.
    In 1997 John Major had been defending a minority government and Tony Blair on a swing almost double that achieved by Margaret Thatcher won his landslide
    In 2010 Gordon Brown was defending a majority larger than that achieved by Margaret Thatcher in 1979 and David Cameron fell short of a majority by almost an identical number of seats with Harold Wilson in Feb 1974.

    Harold Wilson had a limp Liberal Party sniping at his tail but David Cameron had Clegg mania to deal with and 40+ more seats in the hands of a 3rd party.

    Last week we also saw a graph showing the swing back to the government from this stage 22 months out and I think it was Rod Crosby our swingologist who observed that if usual service applies in 2015 David Cameron will achieve a respectable majority.

    I am not claiming David Cameron will achieve a majority in 2015 but those who dismiss it basically because it doesn't fit in with their preferred narrative, do so at their peril.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    I feel the same = its Tory-lite. If there wasn't much difference before - there's even less now. I guess its the inevitable end-game that the Third Way Clinton kicked off all those years ago.

    That said, the idea that the Big Four unions give millions to Labour - when 49% of their members voted Tory or LD and only 38% Labour at the last GE is nonsense. And the current spat between them and Labour has just shone a light on it. Paul Kenny saying that he'd predict only 10% of his members choosing to donate to Labour isn't exactly a reason for the status quo either...

    If unions want to use their subs to support their own vested interest disputes - that's up to them - but handing millions to a Party most of their members didn't actually vote for seems perverse nowadays. They've been taken over by a change in attitudes and failed to keep up.
    TOPPING said:

    Last night Alan Johnson said Labour must divorce itself from the current Union subscription practices and that this was an OMOV/Clause 4 moment.

    So, having ditched all essentially Labour/Left Wing policies, why on earth would anyone still support the Labour Party?

    They've proven themselves hopeless at running the economy, have promised no more borrowing (I think) and also signed up to the Conservatives' spending plans. So what does that leave us?

    Housebuilding? No second jobs for MPs?

    What's the Labour vision?

    Genuinely perplexed here.

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,007
    tim said:

    TOPPING said:

    Roger said:

    @Topping

    "They've proven themselves hopeless at running the economy, have promised no more borrowing (I think) and also signed up to the Conservatives' spending plans. So what does that leave us?"

    It leaves them not being the Tories. A USP that shouldn't be underestimated.

    well that's exactly it. And I don't.

    But I think the economic recovery will go some fair way to compensate.

    Three years of bumping along the bottom followed by a housing bubble as manufacturing and exports stay flat, deficit reduction is stalled and living standards fall over the parliament.
    That will be the Tory offer.
    Plus a promise to be competent next time because the Lib Dems stopped them doing what they really wanted.
    Bumping along the bottom ain't half bad (cf Europe). "The economy" is moving in the right direction (competency). Manufacturing, exports, deficit reduction, meh: details not considered by 97% of the population.

    Living standards are key yes but better the devil you know. No one wants to go back three years and the overriding Cons message will be that Labour will send us back to the beginning of the bad times.
  • GeoffM said:

    ..what people want to happen, rather than what they think will actually happen? I'm not sure that is true any more...and not betting with their heart.

    Do you think that's true across the board? What about the Murray match, for example? Was that uninfluenced by sentiment? I'd be very surprised. Which gambling company recently ran a teeth-grindingly awful ad about betting against your own team?

    I confess that there are some markets where some time ago I recognised my partisan blinkers were interfering with judgement (US politics, for example). I withdrew from gambling in those areas and am only just, as my betting matures, venturing back into them now older and wiser.

    It is not completely true, although it gets truer as the market becomes more mature. Certainly, in cricket, India are often too short a price because of the weight of patriotic money.

    Over 80% of the money on Betfair is now 'professional', where there is no element of wanting a particular result.

    If there are big volumes on a particular Betfair market, it is an excellent and accurate indicator of the true probabilities.

  • Stuart_DicksonStuart_Dickson Posts: 3,557
    JackW said:

    Mike, your premise seems to be that when push comes to shove the voters will have more faith in Ed than Gordon.

    I'm not so sure about that. Will another two years of Ed cement his position or will it crack further and turn to dust ? There must be a reasonable chance that the latter scenario plays out especially with a huge majority of voters not convinced that Ed has the measure of the office of PM.

    Another thoughlet that is emerging from the entrails of my ARSE is the prospect of a significantly higher poll turnout in 2015, a spike similar to 1992, that ensured Major returned with a narrow majority. Would we have been saying two years out from that election that Con maj punters were mugs ?

    PBers should also keep a very keen eye on the results of my ARSE in the lead up to the 2015 GE. Presently the latest projection shows the Conservatives are only 30 seats short of a majority. My ARSE will be in the field from tomorrow and as usual will be published exclusively on PB from Monday next.

    Tick tock, tick tock ....The clock is running down as the economy improves and Ed doesn't !!

    Governments lose elections. Oppositions don't win them.

    Major had loser written all over him.
    McConnell had loser written all over him.
    Brown had loser written all over him.
    Clegg has loser written all over him.
    Cameron has loser written all over him.

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,661

    Thanks Mike.

    Yes, I agree those odds offer good value and I disagree with the esteemed David Kendrick - the 3/1 can best be explained by heart-over-head syndrome, which afflicts punters on politics more than in any other realm of betting I know.

    Meanwhile, over at Trent Bridge, the First Test starts today. Last summer, the PB Cricket Betting Team was spectacular successful and followers can make a profitable start to the series by once again laying the draw, available to at a fraction over 3/1.

    As regular followers of The Team will know, few Tests are drawn these days unless the weather intervenes. The nine previous matches at Trent Bridge all produced a result. The weather is set fair. The bowlers are better than the batters. My prediction is that it will be over in four days, but 'll play safe and just take that 3/1 against the draw.

    Better value even than laying the Tories.

    In the last five ashes series England have started very poorly. They got away with it in 09 (just) and 10/11 because the Australian attack was not up to taking 20 wickets. This year their fast bowlers look a lot better. On that basis I'd make Australia slight favourites.

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,433

    JackW said:

    Mike, your premise seems to be that when push comes to shove the voters will have more faith in Ed than Gordon.

    I'm not so sure about that. Will another two years of Ed cement his position or will it crack further and turn to dust ? There must be a reasonable chance that the latter scenario plays out especially with a huge majority of voters not convinced that Ed has the measure of the office of PM.

    Another thoughlet that is emerging from the entrails of my ARSE is the prospect of a significantly higher poll turnout in 2015, a spike similar to 1992, that ensured Major returned with a narrow majority. Would we have been saying two years out from that election that Con maj punters were mugs ?

    PBers should also keep a very keen eye on the results of my ARSE in the lead up to the 2015 GE. Presently the latest projection shows the Conservatives are only 30 seats short of a majority. My ARSE will be in the field from tomorrow and as usual will be published exclusively on PB from Monday next.

    Tick tock, tick tock ....The clock is running down as the economy improves and Ed doesn't !!

    Governments lose elections. Oppositions don't win them.

    Major had loser written all over him.
    McConnell had loser written all over him.
    Brown had loser written all over him.
    Clegg has loser written all over him.
    Cameron has loser written all over him.

    In that case Miliband must have even bigger loser written all over him.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,838
    Good morning, everyone.

    I've just skimmed the Letwin proposals to actually answer the West Lothian Question. English votes for English laws is entirely defensible. Of course, it leads to two classes of MP, but we have that now (Scottish MP votes tipped the balance on tuition fees even though that's a devolved matter).

    I think the problem is the increase in devolution, specifically borrowing. You cannot let Scotland and Wales borrow independently. If they go too far then, inevitably, England (as we'd still all be part of the UK in such a scenario) would have to bail them out. That decreases the need for responsible borrowing (or legitimately erring on the riskier side, you might argue) from devolved powers whilst making England potentially liable for borrowing over which it has no control.

    The England situation was always going to arise. If Labour hadn't needlessly bounded down the road of devolution (how's it going killin the SNP stone dead, incidentally?) they might have actually considered this. English votes on English laws is fairer to the electorate but does create two classes of MP. An English Parliament would make more sense, but relegate the Westminster Parliament to Treasury, Defence and Foreign Affairs.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216

    JackW said:

    Mike, your premise seems to be that when push comes to shove the voters will have more faith in Ed than Gordon.

    I'm not so sure about that. Will another two years of Ed cement his position or will it crack further and turn to dust ? There must be a reasonable chance that the latter scenario plays out especially with a huge majority of voters not convinced that Ed has the measure of the office of PM.

    Another thoughlet that is emerging from the entrails of my ARSE is the prospect of a significantly higher poll turnout in 2015, a spike similar to 1992, that ensured Major returned with a narrow majority. Would we have been saying two years out from that election that Con maj punters were mugs ?

    PBers should also keep a very keen eye on the results of my ARSE in the lead up to the 2015 GE. Presently the latest projection shows the Conservatives are only 30 seats short of a majority. My ARSE will be in the field from tomorrow and as usual will be published exclusively on PB from Monday next.

    Tick tock, tick tock ....The clock is running down as the economy improves and Ed doesn't !!

    Cameron has loser written all over him.
    And the independence referendum?

    Or is that "too soon to tell"?
  • Stuart_DicksonStuart_Dickson Posts: 3,557
    Jack, I note that your preliminary Scotch ARSE is predicting a 60/40 victory for Alistair Darling's "Project Fear" campaign.

    In that case, I assume that you consider Paddy Power's 5/6 on the YES vote percentage being lower that 41.5% to be money in the bank? How much have you put on?
  • EasterrossEasterross Posts: 1,915
    very witty Tim, there only have been 2 incoming governments in last 35 years and as usual you are wrong. the Thatcher swing was barely higher than the Cameron one. The Blair one was almost the size of the other two combined.
    tim said:

    @Easterross

    Last week OGH was promoting a graph on Twitter which showed David Cameron achieved the 3rd largest swing to an incoming government for decades. Only Blair in 1997 and Lady Thatcher in 1979 did better.

    ie the worst swing for an incoming govt over the last 35 years by a mile.

  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    JackW said:

    Mike, your premise seems to be that when push comes to shove the voters will have more faith in Ed than Gordon.

    I'm not so sure about that. Will another two years of Ed cement his position or will it crack further and turn to dust ? There must be a reasonable chance that the latter scenario plays out especially with a huge majority of voters not convinced that Ed has the measure of the office of PM.

    Another thoughlet that is emerging from the entrails of my ARSE is the prospect of a significantly higher poll turnout in 2015, a spike similar to 1992, that ensured Major returned with a narrow majority. Would we have been saying two years out from that election that Con maj punters were mugs ?

    PBers should also keep a very keen eye on the results of my ARSE in the lead up to the 2015 GE. Presently the latest projection shows the Conservatives are only 30 seats short of a majority. My ARSE will be in the field from tomorrow and as usual will be published exclusively on PB from Monday next.

    Tick tock, tick tock ....The clock is running down as the economy improves and Ed doesn't !!

    Governments lose elections. Oppositions don't win them.

    Major had loser written all over him.
    McConnell had loser written all over him.
    Brown had loser written all over him.
    Clegg has loser written all over him.
    Cameron has loser written all over him.

    It clearly escaped your notice that in the period I noted namely 1992 that "Major had loser written all over him" won.



  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    The WLQ reports look quite encouraging and a way through the minefield in the short term. I assume that between them LD and Tories could get this change through on a 3-line whip - are there many/any LDs who'd vote against such a compromise on principle?

    "The reforms will form part of a package of constitutional changes that will also include plans to devolve further tax and borrowing powers to the Welsh Assembly.

    A senior minister told the Mail: ‘The idea is to give English MPs the right to ratify legislation that concerns England. It would effectively create a “fourth reading” of a bill on English-only matters.

    ‘Scotland has had devolution and is now voting on independence. Wales is going to get more powers. It would be wrong not to address the issue of England, too.’

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2359131/English-MPs-veto-laws-England-Proposals-politicians-given-power-stop-legislation-passed-majority.html#ixzz2YcjAvfJG
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,433

    Good morning, everyone.

    I've just skimmed the Letwin proposals to actually answer the West Lothian Question. English votes for English laws is entirely defensible. Of course, it leads to two classes of MP, but we have that now (Scottish MP votes tipped the balance on tuition fees even though that's a devolved matter).

    I think the problem is the increase in devolution, specifically borrowing. You cannot let Scotland and Wales borrow independently. If they go too far then, inevitably, England (as we'd still all be part of the UK in such a scenario) would have to bail them out. That decreases the need for responsible borrowing (or legitimately erring on the riskier side, you might argue) from devolved powers whilst making England potentially liable for borrowing over which it has no control.

    The England situation was always going to arise. If Labour hadn't needlessly bounded down the road of devolution (how's it going killin the SNP stone dead, incidentally?) they might have actually considered this. English votes on English laws is fairer to the electorate but does create two classes of MP. An English Parliament would make more sense, but relegate the Westminster Parliament to Treasury, Defence and Foreign Affairs.

    Quite so Mr D, if we have a federal UK lets do it properly. An English Parliament and a much smaller Westminster ( say 250-300 ) since they have now less to do.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Today's frontpages aren't very interested in EdM's speech http://www.thepaperboy.com/uk/front-pages.cfm
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    Jack, I note that your preliminary Scotch ARSE is predicting a 60/40 victory for Alistair Darling's "Project Fear" campaign.

    In that case, I assume that you consider Paddy Power's 5/6 on the YES vote percentage being lower that 41.5% to be money in the bank? How much have you put on?

    Incorrect Stuart.

    The 60/40 was my own initial view. My tartan ARSE, not a "Scotch ARSE", has yet to issue its first projection and will not do so until the autumn.

    The PP 5/6 is value but I rarely tie money up in long date wagers and more personally the allowed stakes are often too paltry to bother !!

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,838
    Mr. Brooke, an English Parliament would be the least bad way to resolve the West Lothian Question but the political class won't be keen. Labour already attempted to break up the kingdom of Alfred the Great with their weak-kneed regional assemblies idiocy, and I don't think any of the major parties would fancy relinquishing the concentration of power that Westminster currently enjoys.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,914
    edited July 2013
    I saw Caroline Flint on Channel 4 News pitted against a bombastic Tory and it occurred to me firstly that Labour have loads more women (most Labour interviewees seem to be female) and that Tories have more than their share of supercilious or aggressive males (in the style of Gove or Osborne).

    In answer to Toppings conundrum I think these are the sorts of things that slowly seep into peoples consciousness and help to explain why the Tories and labour enjoy their separate reputations.

    http://www.channel4.com/news/catch-up/
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216

    The England situation was always going to arise. If Labour hadn't needlessly bounded down the road of devolution (how's it going killin the SNP stone dead, incidentally?) they might have actually considered this. English votes on English laws is fairer to the electorate but does create two classes of MP. An English Parliament would make more sense, but relegate the Westminster Parliament to Treasury, Defence and Foreign Affairs.

    I think the proposed solution theoretically less desirable, but practically more doable - there is little evidence of enthusiasm for a separate " English Parliament" - if the answer is "more politicians" it's unlikely we're asking the right question.

    After the mess left on the economy, good to see the coalition addressing the constitutional vandalism of the last government.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,433
    tim said:

    JackW said:

    Mike, your premise seems to be that when push comes to shove the voters will have more faith in Ed than Gordon.

    I'm not so sure about that. Will another two years of Ed cement his position or will it crack further and turn to dust ? There must be a reasonable chance that the latter scenario plays out especially with a huge majority of voters not convinced that Ed has the measure of the office of PM.

    Another thoughlet that is emerging from the entrails of my ARSE is the prospect of a significantly higher poll turnout in 2015, a spike similar to 1992, that ensured Major returned with a narrow majority. Would we have been saying two years out from that election that Con maj punters were mugs ?

    PBers should also keep a very keen eye on the results of my ARSE in the lead up to the 2015 GE. Presently the latest projection shows the Conservatives are only 30 seats short of a majority. My ARSE will be in the field from tomorrow and as usual will be published exclusively on PB from Monday next.

    Tick tock, tick tock ....The clock is running down as the economy improves and Ed doesn't !!

    Governments lose elections. Oppositions don't win them.

    Major had loser written all over him.
    McConnell had loser written all over him.
    Brown had loser written all over him.
    Clegg has loser written all over him.
    Cameron has loser written all over him.

    In that case Miliband must have even bigger loser written all over him.
    Kinnock never led Major in the approval ratings.
    Miliband has led Cameron for 15 months now.

    Of course he could blow it like Cameron did after leading Brown, but he's made of sterner stuff than Cameron.
    Yesterday showed that.
    Miliband is made of nothing of the sort if he was a true stand up and be counted leader he'd be saying what he and Labour stand for, stuff his opponents and argue his corner. As it is he is hiding behind focus groups, afraid to launch policies in case they get attacked and has no pride or confidence in what he says. Yet another empty suit who wants the top job but doesn't know what to do with it.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,838
    Miss Vance, I agree with your assessment of the English votes for English laws being more practical if an inferior answer to the WLQ.

    However, I suspect most Englishmen (of those with a view either way) would support an English Parliament.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    "London, 10 July 2013 -- The outlook for the UK's banking system has been changed to stable from negative, says Moody's Investors Service in a report published today. The outlook change reflects: (1) the UK's increasingly stable economic outlook despite its low growth prospects; (2) the consequent improvement in the outlook for asset quality; (3) continuing improvements in capital ratios driven in part by more stringent capital requirements; (4) an expectation that improvements in funding and liquidity metrics will be maintained over the outlook period; and (5) improving profitability and efficiency ratios due to lower impairments."

    http://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-UKs-banking-system-outlook-changed-to-stable-from-negative--PR_277500?WT.mc_id=@moodysratings

    I blame Osborne....
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Telegraph points out:

    "A similar convention is currently in place over the decisions of the Scottish Parliament, which forbids Westminster using its sovereign power to reverse decisions made in Edinburgh."

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10170664/English-MPs-could-get-a-veto-over-laws-that-only-affect-England.html
  • Stuart_DicksonStuart_Dickson Posts: 3,557
    edited July 2013

    an English Parliament would be the least bad way to resolve the West Lothian Question

    Of course there are only two correct answers to the WLQ:

    A) a full, complete, proper, all-encompassing, indivisible Union (abolishing the Court of Session, College of Justice, Scottish Parliament etc etc etc). Get rid of E,NI,W and S altogether and let's just be one unified Yookay.

    B) dissolution of the Union

    A is impossible. That leaves B.

  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    I think I prefer UKIP maj to LD maj. Getting one seat is hard, but there must be a point where that flips and they get loads. Faragasm leading to:
    UKIP 35
    Con 20
    Lab 20
    or something would be a majority, wouldn't it?
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    "London, 10 July 2013 -- The outlook for the UK's banking system has been changed to stable from negative, says Moody's Investors Service in a report published today. The outlook change reflects: (1) the UK's increasingly stable economic outlook despite its low growth prospects; (2) the consequent improvement in the outlook for asset quality; (3) continuing improvements in capital ratios driven in part by more stringent capital requirements; (4) an expectation that improvements in funding and liquidity metrics will be maintained over the outlook period; and (5) improving profitability and efficiency ratios due to lower impairments."

    http://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-UKs-banking-system-outlook-changed-to-stable-from-negative--PR_277500?WT.mc_id=@moodysratings

    I blame Osborne....

    Tick tock, tick tock ....

    Talking of the clock running down The Duchess of Cambridge is shortly to deliver to the nation an heir to the throne .... but is it a single child ?? .... might the Duchess be having twins ??

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,838
    Mr. Dickson, whilst I agree that both A and B would work, a federal system (C) is also a realistic possibility.

    Of course, anyone with half a brain in their head would've considered this sort of thing and the impact on England before rushing towards devolution. Unfortunately the same chap who thought it'd kill nationalism in Scotland stone dead was the same chap who thought Iraq was bristling with WMD.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Division of powers between English MPs and UK MPs :


    House reforms: Division of powers

    English-only matters:

    * Agriculture, forestry and fisheries

    * Education and training

    * Environment

    * Health and social services

    * Housing

    * Law and order (including the licensing of air weapons)

    * Local government

    * Sport and the arts

    * Tourism and economic development

    * Transport (including drink-driving and speed limits).

    Matters reserved for the UK Parliament:

    * Benefits and social security

    * Immigration

    * Defence

    * Foreign policy

    * Employment

    * Broadcasting

    * Trade and industry

    * Nuclear energy, oil, coal, gas and electricity

    * Consumer rights

    * Data protection

    * The constitution
    Plenty to keep them all amused!

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-constitutional-bombshell-that-would-reshape-british-politics-8698506.html





  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,433

    an English Parliament would be the least bad way to resolve the West Lothian Question

    Of course there are only two correct answers to the WLQ:

    A) a full, complete, proper, all-encompassing, indivisible Union (abolishing the Court of Session, College of Justice, Scottish Parliament etc etc etc). Get rid of E,NI,W and S altogether and let's just be one unified Yookay.

    B) dissolution of the Union

    A is impossible. That leaves B.

    Yeah that's like the inevitable triumph of communism There are only two possibilities - apart from all the other ones you couldn't imagine. Life is rarely black and white, it's mostly shades of grey, fifty and counting.
  • Stuart_DicksonStuart_Dickson Posts: 3,557

    I think I prefer UKIP maj to LD maj. Getting one seat is hard, but there must be a point where that flips and they get loads. Faragasm leading to:
    UKIP 35
    Con 20
    Lab 20
    or something would be a majority, wouldn't it?

    UKIP 33
    Con 20
    Lab 20

    ... would result in a UKIP majority of 52 (according to Baxter).
  • IOSIOS Posts: 1,450
    Labour are in a great position precisely because Cameron cocked up AV and the Boundary review.


    New boundaries and AV and it could be very difficult. But even then. The Tories wouldn't know how to campaign.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    edited July 2013

    an English Parliament would be the least bad way to resolve the West Lothian Question

    Of course there are only two correct answers to the WLQ:

    A) a full, complete, proper, all-encompassing, indivisible Union (abolishing the Court of Session, College of Justice, Scottish Parliament etc etc etc). Get rid of E,NI,W and S altogether and let's just be one unified Yookay.

    B) dissolution of the Union

    A is impossible. That leaves B.

    You failed that exam magnificently.

    C) WLQ is not a question but a statement of regularized constitutional fact.

    D) The UK moves to a federal system.

    E) Scotland leaves the UK and becomes part of the SNP inspired United States of the ARC of Prosperity - USAP

  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    I agree - its a doable fudge of using what we've got now but changing how it works in practice.

    Assuming this is announced at conference - be good to see a timetable for it - before GE2015 would be a perfect since it'd be moot afterwards...

    The England situation was always going to arise. If Labour hadn't needlessly bounded down the road of devolution (how's it going killin the SNP stone dead, incidentally?) they might have actually considered this. English votes on English laws is fairer to the electorate but does create two classes of MP. An English Parliament would make more sense, but relegate the Westminster Parliament to Treasury, Defence and Foreign Affairs.

    I think the proposed solution theoretically less desirable, but practically more doable - there is little evidence of enthusiasm for a separate " English Parliament" - if the answer is "more politicians" it's unlikely we're asking the right question.

    After the mess left on the economy, good to see the coalition addressing the constitutional vandalism of the last government.
  • Stuart_DicksonStuart_Dickson Posts: 3,557

    Mr. Dickson, whilst I agree that both A and B would work, a federal system (C) is also a realistic possibility.

    Of course, anyone with half a brain in their head would've considered this sort of thing and the impact on England before rushing towards devolution. Unfortunately the same chap who thought it'd kill nationalism in Scotland stone dead was the same chap who thought Iraq was bristling with WMD.

    In Blair's defence, it wasn't him that pronounced the "devolution will kill nationalism stone dead" blooper. It was this dud:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Robertson,_Baron_Robertson_of_Port_Ellen
  • IOSIOS Posts: 1,450
    Wouldn't environment be a national issue?
  • MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792

    an English Parliament would be the least bad way to resolve the West Lothian Question

    Of course there are only two correct answers to the WLQ:

    A) a full, complete, proper, all-encompassing, indivisible Union (abolishing the Court of Session, College of Justice, Scottish Parliament etc etc etc). Get rid of E,NI,W and S altogether and let's just be one unified Yookay.

    B) dissolution of the Union

    A is impossible. That leaves B.

    Yeah that's like the inevitable triumph of communism There are only two possibilities - apart from all the other ones you couldn't imagine. Life is rarely black and white, it's mostly shades of grey, fifty and counting.
    The prophet Salmond's statement that the dissolution of the Union is " inevitable " is on the permanent record. To doubt his word is blasphemy for SNP cultists.

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    The Grauniad editorial on Ed's BIG Speech:
    If a political event is judged by the reactions to it, there may in the end be less to Ed Miliband's speech on changing Labour's relationship with the unions than meets the eye. After all, if both Tony Blair, high priest of broad church Labour, and Unite's Len McCluskey, high commissar of class-against-class Labour, can pronounce themselves in favour of Mr Miliband's package, as happened today, the inference is either that something is being fudged or that one of them has read things wrong.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/09/labour-unions-ed-miliband-editorial
  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699
    Mr Dickson - A question for you .
    Do you know if the Scottish referendum votes will be counted/announced on a constituency or council area basis ?
  • Stuart_DicksonStuart_Dickson Posts: 3,557
    JackW said:

    ... United States of the ARC of Prosperity - USAP

    Ho ho. I thought that Project Fear had given up on the "Arc of Insolvency" jibes.

    And here's why:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita

    Hint: look at where Ireland and Iceland are, relative to the Yookay.

    Jim Murphy slagging off Ireland, Norway, Iceland etc was a great chortle here at PB at the time. Not so funny now, huh?


  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    tim said:

    Division of powers between English MPs and UK MPs :



    House reforms: Division of powers

    English-only matters:

    * Agriculture, forestry and fisheries

    * Education and training

    * Environment

    * Health and social services

    * Housing

    * Law and order (including the licensing of air weapons)

    * Local government

    * Sport and the arts

    * Tourism and economic development

    * Transport (including drink-driving and speed limits).

    Matters reserved for the UK Parliament:

    * Benefits and social security

    * Immigration

    * Defence

    * Foreign policy

    * Employment

    * Broadcasting

    * Trade and industry

    * Nuclear energy, oil, coal, gas and electricity

    * Consumer rights

    * Data protection

    * The constitution
    Plenty to keep them all amused!

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-constitutional-bombshell-that-would-reshape-british-politics-8698506.html





    Makes more sense to devolve most of the first list to the regions?

    "Voters say no"

    "People in the North East have voted "no" in a referendum on whether to set up an elected regional assembly. Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott admitted his plans for regional devolution had suffered an "emphatic defeat" on Thursday night.

    The total number of people voting against the plans was 696,519 (78%), while 197,310 (22%) voted in favour. Official figures showed 47.8% of the region's 1.9 million voters took part in the all-postal ballot."

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3984387.stm
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,433

    an English Parliament would be the least bad way to resolve the West Lothian Question

    Of course there are only two correct answers to the WLQ:

    A) a full, complete, proper, all-encompassing, indivisible Union (abolishing the Court of Session, College of Justice, Scottish Parliament etc etc etc). Get rid of E,NI,W and S altogether and let's just be one unified Yookay.

    B) dissolution of the Union

    A is impossible. That leaves B.

    Yeah that's like the inevitable triumph of communism There are only two possibilities - apart from all the other ones you couldn't imagine. Life is rarely black and white, it's mostly shades of grey, fifty and counting.
    The prophet Salmond's statement that the dissolution of the Union is " inevitable " is on the permanent record. To doubt his word is blasphemy for SNP cultists.

    I see salmond is slowly revamping his team for the Indyref or is that managing departures ? His current bet is that a guy from the Sunday post can give wee Eck what he wants.

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/salmonds-adviser-departs-at-crucial-point-for-yes-campaign.21566780
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,914
    edited July 2013
    @ Carlotta


    I didn't understand these figures. Are they the difference between Milibands and Cameron's or someting else. Looking at the link didn't help!
    (eg 'Honest' Miliband 16 Cameron 13 in your chart +4)

    Among VI Cameron vs Miliband:

    Good in a crisis: +26
    Natural leader: +25
    Charismatic: +22
    Strong: +20
    Decisive: +17
    Sticks to what he believes in: +17
    Honest: +4
    In touch with concerns of ordinary people: -28

    OA Labour back below 40, lead +8: http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/ie9dn86na5/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-090713.pdf
  • MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792
    edited July 2013

    JackW said:

    ... United States of the ARC of Prosperity - USAP

    Ho ho. I thought that Project Fear had given up on the "Arc of Insolvency" jibes.

    And here's why:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita

    Hint: look at where Ireland and Iceland are, relative to the Yookay.

    Jim Murphy slagging off Ireland, Norway, Iceland etc was a great chortle here at PB at the time. Not so funny now, huh?


    From Salmond's legendary " Arc of Prosperity " speech ;

    "of course we Scots are lucky enough to have the one of the best brands in the world - a global recognition and affection for our culture that money cannot buy. Take financial services. With RBS and HBOS - two of the world's biggest banks - Scotland has global leaders today, tomorrow and for the long-term. "

    Amazingly this preposterous speech was delivered in 2008 , deep into the financial catastrophe that would require £ 500 billion of Yookay taxpayers' money to prop up RBS and BoS.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    JackW said:

    ... United States of the ARC of Prosperity - USAP

    Ho ho. I thought that Project Fear had given up on the "Arc of Insolvency" jibes.

    And here's why:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita

    Hint: look at where Ireland and Iceland are, relative to the Yookay.

    Jim Murphy slagging off Ireland, Norway, Iceland etc was a great chortle here at PB at the time. Not so funny now, huh?


    As the "Arc of Prosperity" was/is SNP policy how can it be part of "Project Fear" ?!?

    Titters ....

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    tim said:

    tim said:

    Division of powers between English MPs and UK MPs :



    House reforms: Division of powers

    English-only matters:

    * Agriculture, forestry and fisheries

    * Education and training

    * Environment

    * Health and social services

    * Housing

    * Law and order (including the licensing of air weapons)

    * Local government

    * Sport and the arts

    * Tourism and economic development

    * Transport (including drink-driving and speed limits).

    Matters reserved for the UK Parliament:

    * Benefits and social security

    * Immigration

    * Defence

    * Foreign policy

    * Employment

    * Broadcasting

    * Trade and industry

    * Nuclear energy, oil, coal, gas and electricity

    * Consumer rights

    * Data protection

    * The constitution
    Plenty to keep them all amused!

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-constitutional-bombshell-that-would-reshape-british-politics-8698506.html





    Makes more sense to devolve most of the first list to the regions?
    "Voters say no"

    "People in the North East have voted "no" in a referendum on whether to set up an elected regional assembly. Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott admitted his plans for regional devolution had suffered an "emphatic defeat" on Thursday night.

    The total number of people voting against the plans was 696,519 (78%), while 197,310 (22%) voted in favour. Official figures showed 47.8% of the region's 1.9 million voters took part in the all-postal ballot."

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3984387.stm
    So the Letwin plan is going to a referendum is it?
    Like Police Commissioners?
    So that's Labour's line of attack? Must try harder

    And it's Letwin & Alexander......

    Clegg saw no need for a referendum on HoL reform (it was the deal breaker ) - why for this?
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited July 2013
    Another good article from Rob Marchant re EdM vs Unions

    "...Symbolism is something gets undervalued in life in general, probably rightly. But in politics, sometimes it’s not only desirable but essential. Clause four was all symbolism, and none the less important for that...Indeed, many commentators failed to grasp that this struggle was not about right-left politics at all. The symbolism of yesterday was to make a break with the political equivalent of an abusive relationship, where power and accountability are uneven and twisted. And, as in that case, both partners need to take a step back and put it on a more healthy footing if it is to survive.

    But the putting in to practice will, inevitably, be far more difficult than the announcement. There is one obvious reason for this: this was not a meticulously-planned, strategic announcement but a nifty, turn-on-a-sixpence tactical response to a lethal problem. And that problem was caused by the failure of Refounding Labour to tackle problems with the party’s organisation; problems which both cried out to be fixed and which many happily pretended did not actually need fixing. La, la, I can’t hear you. Until Falkirk...

    ...Most vitally, though, the affiliation money must be paid directly to the party. It is all very well to follow the Unison model of two separate funds for Labour affiliation and for general political campaigns. But while union leaders hold the purse-strings, power is still effectively concentrated in the hands of three union leaders. It may be possible to ring-fence funds in individual unions through rulebook controls, but this would be on a case-by-case basis and only with their full cooperation. It is a highly complicated piece of management and it only takes one union leader to get stroppy and turn the tap off, and it’d be back to the bad old days. Tricky.

    Second, primaries for London. A great idea, in that it solves three problems in one: it sets a pilot for fairer parliamentary selections, which can then follow on from it (it is sadly too late to fix them now before 2015); it is a dangling threat against any union which thinks to attempt a repeat of Falkirk; and it breaks up the cabal of vested interests in London which facilitated the repeated selection of Ken Livingstone.

    But primaries are inordinately expensive. We have yet to see the costings for all of this and that is surely because they cannot credibly have been knocked up in a few days. Finally we should sound a note of caution. It was impressive to unite Blair and McCluskey around the same political platform; but it was also a tad surprising, after McCluskey and Miliband spending months at daggers drawn.

    There are three possible reasons for this: one is that McCluskey was genuinely caught off-balance and has wisely reserved judgement to see what happens. Miliband will manage things well and overcome any union opposition. It all sounds a bit too good to be true.

    The second is that McCluskey is so confident that the scheme will fail, or sees a way so clearly around it, that he is happy to go along for now and will later do just as he likes. And the cynics among us might just see a third: a deal has been done. This is pure conjecture, of course, but hardly beyond the realms of possibility. And if McCluskey’s acquiescence has been bought, what has it been bought with?" http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2013/07/10/miliband’s-moment-of-truth/
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Roger said:

    @ Carlotta


    I didn't understand these figures. Are they the difference between Milibands and Cameron's or someting else. Looking at the link didn't help!f

    It's the difference between what Conservative voters think of Cameron and what Labour voters think of Miliband - so raw numbers:

    Sticks to what he believes in:
    Con on Cam: 50
    Lab on Ed: 33

    Cam vs Ed: +17

    On only one measure "in touch with ordinary people" do Lab VI rate Ed higher than Con view Cameron.

    Btw - have you seen "The Act of Killing" yet?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    tim said:

    tim said:

    tim said:

    Division of powers between English MPs and UK MPs :



    House reforms: Division of powers

    English-only matters:

    * Agriculture, forestry and fisheries

    * Education and training

    * Environment

    * Health and social services

    * Housing

    * Law and order (including the licensing of air weapons)

    * Local government

    * Sport and the arts

    * Tourism and economic development

    * Transport (including drink-driving and speed limits).

    Matters reserved for the UK Parliament:

    * Benefits and social security

    * Immigration

    * Defence

    * Foreign policy

    * Employment

    * Broadcasting

    * Trade and industry

    * Nuclear energy, oil, coal, gas and electricity

    * Consumer rights

    * Data protection

    * The constitution
    Plenty to keep them all amused!

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-constitutional-bombshell-that-would-reshape-british-politics-8698506.html





    Makes more sense to devolve most of the first list to the regions?
    "Voters say no"

    "People in the North East have voted "no" in a referendum on whether to set up an elected regional assembly. Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott admitted his plans for regional devolution had suffered an "emphatic defeat" on Thursday night.

    The total number of people voting against the plans was 696,519 (78%), while 197,310 (22%) voted in favour. Official figures showed 47.8% of the region's 1.9 million voters took part in the all-postal ballot."

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3984387.stm
    So the Letwin plan is going to a referendum is it?
    Like Police Commissioners?
    So that's Labour's line of attack? Must try harder

    And it's Letwin & Alexander......

    Clegg saw no need for a referendum on HoL reform (it was the deal breaker ) - why for this?
    Regional Assemblies.
    So that's the Labour plan....Bourbonesque....learned nothing and forgotten nothing.....
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Should England eventually have a national assembly where would PBers like to see it located ?

    Perhaps one of the historic locations - York, Oxford or Winchester ??
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,433
    JackW said:

    Should England eventually have a national assembly where would PBers like to see it located ?

    Perhaps one of the historic locations - York, Oxford or Winchester ??

    Given all the paraphenalia that would accompany it, it would need to be in a major city - Birmingham, Manchester or Leeds.

    If it could be squeezed somewhere historic York or Rutland.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    tim said:

    Same as it ever was.
    Had he not been the Tory Kinnock and only put 3.6% on their vote.

    We've been through this before.

    There has been a (continuing) secular change in British politics between 1992 and 2010 with a dramatic reduction of the share of votes available to the two largest parties.

    A 3.6% increase may be similar in absolute terms, but in terms of the available pool it is a stronger performance.

    But if the facts don't fit tim's analysis they are to be ruthlessly ignored
    In 2010 the Tories received 55.5% of the two-party share. This is slightly better than the 54.9% that they achieved in 1992.

    One might hold the view that the share of the vote going to the two main parties has declined because, well, they've both been rubbish, so it is hard to use it as a reason why particular leaders of these parties have not been rubbish.
    They've certainly proven unable to turn back the tide.

    My point was just that Cameron was not as rubbish as Kinnock!

    edit: I hadn't thought about looking at the share of the two party vote though. It would be interesting to see how Kinnock did on that measure.

    edit: Kinnock went from 42.2% to 45.0% + 2.9%. Cameron went from 47.9% to 55.5% +7.5%. Looks like we have a winner. And it's not tim.Tides happen because of the gravitational influence of the moon. Who, or what, is more responsible for the general public becoming disengaged from politics than politicians?

    You compare Kinncok's second election with Cameron's first (I was comparing Cameron and Major's first elections). Interestingly, Kinnock's performance on this measure is very similar in his first election to his second when looking at changes in the share of the two-party share, increasing from 39.4% to 42.2%, +2.8%.

    In Major's second election his share of the two-party share declined by 13.4 percentage points, to 41.5%. A similar decline for Cameron would put him on 42.1% of the two-party share, which would be about 27.4% on a static two-party share, against Labour's 37.7%. Miliband just short of a 100-seat majority...
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    I don't think there are very many mug punters among the UKIP members I've met. Indeed, all activity sems to be going into building the party and getting ready for conference season.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,914
    @Carlotta

    "Btw - have you seen "The Act of Killing" yet?"

    I'm going this week end. Weird idea. Is it good?
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Given that 49% of union members voted for HMG parties in GE2010 - surely this is an opportunity for the Tories and LDs to stop being shy about it and get on the front foot re this potential target audience?

    Mrs T tried it many years ago - why not try again. The Lefties who think they own union members in perpetuity will clearly pour scorn all over it, but frankly - they're never going to do anything else.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/files/2012/11/121120-tradeunions.jpg
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,433
    tim said:

    @TheStaggers: Exclusive: Miliband's proposed donation cap will be £5,000. http://t.co/O6C2UYhwPG

    Very sensible

    And it will apply to Trade Unions

    except when it doesn't.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Roger said:

    @Carlotta

    "Btw - have you seen "The Act of Killing" yet?"

    I'm going this week end. Weird idea. Is it good?

    Stunning - very uncomfortable viewing - but the horror, as in all good drama, is leavened by humour - what I missed at the time, but an Indonesian friend pointed out, was the fat gangster in drag is clearly a pisstake of President Suharto's avaricious wife - which makes it even funnier. I don't know if the Director did that deliberately (I haven't read that he did) - perhaps his Indonesian costumer did it for him!
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,957
    JackW said:

    Should England eventually have a national assembly where would PBers like to see it located ?

    Perhaps one of the historic locations - York, Oxford or Winchester ??

    I'd want somewhere up North, so York seems like an attractive option. Just need a spur off the M1, and a bit of an extension of HS2! Would also be a nice coup for the Yorkists after their humiliating defeat in '85.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    @tim - the people in the North East were asked if they wanted a regional assembly. They voted 78:22 against. Get over it.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,433
    edited July 2013
    tim said:

    tim said:

    @TheStaggers: Exclusive: Miliband's proposed donation cap will be £5,000. http://t.co/O6C2UYhwPG

    Very sensible

    And it will apply to Trade Unions

    except when it doesn't.
    It would apply to all TU donations
    then Labour's bust. TU donations in kind alone amount to more than £5k p.a. so they'd all have to be scaled back and Unions couldn't give them any cash. Or maybe the system get gamed again and we end up with 2000 small unions. Where money and politics are involved the rules will be bent.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    JackW said:

    Should England eventually have a national assembly where would PBers like to see it located ?

    Perhaps one of the historic locations - York, Oxford or Winchester ??

    Given all the paraphenalia that would accompany it, it would need to be in a major city - Birmingham, Manchester or Leeds.

    If it could be squeezed somewhere historic York or Rutland.
    Rutland - Excellent idea. Squeeze the mp's into historic Oakham Castle !!
This discussion has been closed.