Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The real mug punters at the moment are those piling onto a
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
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
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
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
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)
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.
Lots of squirrels this early in the morning - is the Cheshire farmer expecting another rough day?
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?
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.
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.
With that paltry sum you have just conceded tim his point.
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.
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.
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.
£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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8678370.stm
"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.
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.
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.
But I think the economic recovery will go some fair way to compensate.
" 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)
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.
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.
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 !!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Or is that "too soon to tell"?
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?
"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
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 !!
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/
After the mess left on the economy, good to see the coalition addressing the constitutional vandalism of the last government.
However, I suspect most Englishmen (of those with a view either way) would support an English Parliament.
http://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-UKs-banking-system-outlook-changed-to-stable-from-negative--PR_277500?WT.mc_id=@moodysratings
I blame Osborne....
"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
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.
A is impossible. That leaves B.
UKIP 35
Con 20
Lab 20
or something would be a majority, wouldn't it?
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 ??
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.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-constitutional-bombshell-that-would-reshape-british-politics-8698506.html
Con 20
Lab 20
... would result in a UKIP majority of 52 (according to Baxter).
New boundaries and AV and it could be very difficult. But even then. The Tories wouldn't know how to campaign.
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
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...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Robertson,_Baron_Robertson_of_Port_Ellen
Do you know if the Scottish referendum votes will be counted/announced on a constituency or council area basis ?
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?
"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
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/salmonds-adviser-departs-at-crucial-point-for-yes-campaign.21566780
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
"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.
Titters ....
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?
"...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/
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?
So that's the Labour plan....Bourbonesque....learned nothing and forgotten nothing.....
Perhaps one of the historic locations - York, Oxford or Winchester ??
If it could be squeezed somewhere historic York or Rutland.
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...
"Btw - have you seen "The Act of Killing" yet?"
I'm going this week end. Weird idea. Is it good?
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