Con 290 .. Lab 280 .. LibDem 40 .. SNP 13 .. PC 3 .. NI 18 .. Ukip 2 .. Respect 1 .. Green 1 .. Ind 1 .. Speaker 1
Hung Parliament - Conservatives Short By 36.
SNP 13 ?
Which 13?
In order to get to 13 Westminster seats the SNP would have to start winning places like Edinburgh West, from 4th place! (Admittedly we hold the Holyrood seat, but still...)
Either that or else JackW is predicting a partial collapse of the SLAB vote under Ed Miliband. Sub 34%, from 42% under Gordon Brown.
I would think rEd to do well to match Gordo's performance in Scotland in 2015.
I thought you asked abòut Polish people assimilating?
How would you suggest measuring that? I'm assuming people who lived there before saying how it has affected their lives doesn't count, along with a big vote for a party that wants to end mass immigration?
But it's a reasonable question to ask I think. ow would you suggest measuring assimilation?
Well, isam, I think you also need to think of migrants falling into two broad categories: those who have come here to work or study and plan to leave later; and those who plan to permanently move.
Much of the intra-EU immigration falls into the latter category. (What might be called the Reverse Auf Wiedersein Pet.) I've just been through an expensive building project, where a large number of the workers were Poles. The vast majority (all but one) lived in shared rooms and had families back in Poland. They went back to Poland every other weekend, and were working here because there was plenty of opportunity to earn £100/day - and this was 2-3x what they'd get in Poland. These people have no great interest in assimilating, in much the same way Barry and Oz were never going to assimilate in Germany. (The Poles, in this respect, are the new Irish.)
It is not a bet I would make without further information.
On the face of it Watford should be good for the LDs. They have the elected mayor who has gone on to get re-elected but I think 3-way marginals are going to be challenging for the yellows. It was LAB up to 2010 when they finished 3rd
@MikeSmithson - Do you think the 6/1 on the LibDems might be value?
I think Mike is spot on here Nabbers.
The 6/1 is tempting but .... but ....
This seat is a minefield, looking like 05-10 all over again. LibDem very strong locally and in second place in the seat looking to squeeze the life out of the third placed party ..... and then look at 2010 - the Tory jumps from third place to win !!
This seat is a minefield, looking like 05-10 all over again. LibDem very strong locally and in second place in the seat looking to squeeze the life out of the third placed party ..... and then look at 2010 - the Tory jumps from third place to win !!
It must have been my donation to Richard Harrington's campaign wot done it...
Mr. Kendrick, I've no special insight but would suggest emphasising policies that have common ground with most people. (Cutting fuel duty would go down well, likewise overseas aid and a lower limit on benefits).
I don't think it is anything to do with policies. The problem is feelings, not policies.
So huge surprise, you need a comprehensive fully costed set of policies (let's call it a manifesto) rather than fixating on one of several things that floats peoples' boats at the moment and going for the "feeling" vote.
Thing is, then instead of a protest party, with plenty of votes, at least in mid-term, UKIP ends up one more A in NOTA.
This is the exact opposite of what UKIP wants. Our USP---BOO---is fine, mainstream and popular.
What we need to change is for undecided voters to feel basically warm towards to UKIP, rather than having a vague feeling that we are 'extremist'.
A detailed, fully set of costed policies would be of interest only to our competitors and anoraks. That would be of negative value.
I would think rEd to do well to match Gordo's performance in Scotland in 2015.
Indeed. GB had positive approval ratings in Scotland (unlike the rest of the country) right up to the GE. Ed, not to put too fine a point on it, doesn't.
This seat is a minefield, looking like 05-10 all over again. LibDem very strong locally and in second place in the seat looking to squeeze the life out of the third placed party ..... and then look at 2010 - the Tory jumps from third place to win !!
It must have been my donation to Richard Harrington's campaign wot done it...
Never has 50p been more devastating to my overall betting outcomes !!
It goes to show how big scandals in the world of political nerds (Ian Oakley) often have minimal impact on the ground. I also thought Watford was going to fall to the Yellow Peril in 2010.
norman smith @BBCNormanS IDS people inform me that the real IDS is not on Twitter.
I bet Sam Cam knew that.#GlobalRace.
Big Society ministerial communications at work. Why should we spend taxpayer money paying IDS to tweet when public-spirited volunteers will do a better job for free?
Yep, much of 2015 change will come down to how the SLD disaffected split. However I can't believe Ed consistently having -30 to -40 ratings in Scotland won't have an effect on the enthusiasm of the Labour vote.
@TGOHF "I would think rEd to do well to match Gordo's performance in Scotland in 2015".
I reckon if Labour are in with a chance of getting rid of the Tories then they will do very well in Scotland, assuming the referendum has failed the majority of Scots will be vey content with an SNP govt in Holyrood and a Labour Government in Westminster. Labour's vote is also likely to benefit from the Lib Dems decline.
PS Don't you think the "rEd" thing is a bit school-playgroundy for a grownups forum?
Perhaps someone could list for me the Scottish Labour Westminster seats that they think are in jeopardy.
The Scots might not like Ed Miliband as much as Gordon Brown, but they will probably dislike David Cameron more in 2015 than in 2010. That should be enough for Labour's purposes. If as seems most likely the independence referendum has been defeated in 2014, the SNP will be a sideshow for Westminster.
Coming from someone who believed that Boris Island was close enough to London for the best part of a decade that's amusing.
So come on, tell me your plan for the expansion of Heathrow that will cope with a projected growth in capacity until the 2040-2050 timeframe, and is operationally flexible. There have been various proposals, but all have problems and some are dafter than even Boris Island (yet alone the various other on-land alternatives at Isle of Grain or near Cooling).
Sadly I just cannot see it. The Heathrow site has some fundamental problems that will not be easy - or feasible IMHO - to fix.
Also remember that Heathrow is already at capacity, so any third runway would only really be dealing with the current capacity problems, not future ones. A bandage rather than a cure.
I have lost my Labrookes account details so am playing small sums at BillyKnoll's gaff. With no access to a spread-account I have decided to - in effect - lay-the-draw for the Second Test.
Backing 2-1 funds on an England win (i.e. Oz win; better odds, half the stakes) I should have a minimum return of ~20% if we win (or a ~40% win if we lose). Looking at the weather forecast (and the respective teams) this should be free money (not least because I am funding it via my First Test winnings).
Got a link to the last proper MORI approval ratings poll in Scotland, they appear to have changed their website so you can't find them
It's Ed relative to Nick and Dave that will count. Clegg will be miles lower, as will Cameron.
Not quite. It's the difference between Gordon vs Dave 2010 and Ed vs Dave 2015 that will count.
Having said that, I concur with antifrank's implied point that there don't seem to be many Scot Lab seats which look vulnerable. Maybe Ochil & South Perthshire at a push, Falkirk in a rout.
Mr. Kendrick, I've no special insight but would suggest emphasising policies that have common ground with most people. (Cutting fuel duty would go down well, likewise overseas aid and a lower limit on benefits).
I don't think it is anything to do with policies. The problem is feelings, not policies.
So huge surprise, you need a comprehensive fully costed set of policies (let's call it a manifesto) rather than fixating on one of several things that floats peoples' boats at the moment and going for the "feeling" vote.
Thing is, then instead of a protest party, with plenty of votes, at least in mid-term, UKIP ends up one more A in NOTA.
This is the exact opposite of what UKIP wants. Our USP---BOO---is fine, mainstream and popular.
What we need to change is for undecided voters to feel basically warm towards to UKIP, rather than having a vague feeling that we are 'extremist'.
A detailed, fully set of costed policies would be of interest only to our competitors and anoraks. That would be of negative value.
Hmm lots of contradictions there, David.
For people to feel warm towards UKIP you have to not scare the horses and this is done by being boring and predictable on a range of issues whereby they can adopt a neutral view of you as a whole and single out the BOO issue as one to support.
Just having BOO means that people worry that you might be bonkers or little englanders.
As a single issue pressure group your strategy suffices; as a political party it doesn't.
Con 290 .. Lab 280 .. LibDem 40 .. SNP 13 .. PC 3 .. NI 18 .. Ukip 2 .. Respect 1 .. Green 1 .. Ind 1 .. Speaker 1
Hung Parliament - Conservatives Short By 36.
Tories on 290 and UKIP gaining seats is as implausible as it was when you first floated it with 5 UKIP MP's. Now we all know you're going to go UKIP 0 soon, why not stop fannying about, you've gone from 5 to 2 due to embarrassment, just do it.
Dull fellow X 2 this morning.
The ability of small parties (sorry Ukippers) to gain seats whilst the big two (sorry yellow peril) slug it out is a historical fact.
Get a grip "tim" .... go milk a few cows or take a gander at "Farmers Weekly" but kindly desist from commenting on political projections that you don't have the brains to deal with !!
Moo, moo .....
Explain why the UKIP projection has gone from 5 to 2 over the last few weeks if it's not just embarrassment at the first figure plucked out of the air.
Incorrect dullard.
The previous ARSE projection published on 1st July has Ukip on 3 seats. They've dropped one .... a bit like you.
Facts aren't your strong point. Stick to smears, half truths and getting MODERATED on a continuous basis. You do those very well.
And a previous one had 5.
So you were wrong then .... We are shocked .... Not.
Your inability to grasp some simple historical electoral facts is surely no surprise as you seem to see all elections through the prism of your anti Conservative bile.
If you can prize yourself away from this months issue of the Cheshire Gentleman Farmer & Pig Breeders Gazette you will note that since the Feb 1974 election that small parties have gained seats outwith the main battle.
Sirotkin's a Russian chap of 17 who is thought likely to become a driver (replacing Hulkenberg, about whom rumours of leaving were abundant even before today) next year.
Sauber's been in financial trouble for a while and this should help the outfit to survive. I hope Sirotkin and Gutierrez can be fairly competitive, though.
If I were Red Bull I'd go for Hulkenberg, but there's also a decent chance he could replace Grosjean (depending on his performance) or Massa. There's also a chance he could be left without a drive next year, which would be a shame as he's a very good driver.
Mr. Kendrick, I've no special insight but would suggest emphasising policies that have common ground with most people. (Cutting fuel duty would go down well, likewise overseas aid and a lower limit on benefits).
I don't think it is anything to do with policies. The problem is feelings, not policies.
So huge surprise, you need a comprehensive fully costed set of policies (let's call it a manifesto) rather than fixating on one of several things that floats peoples' boats at the moment and going for the "feeling" vote.
Thing is, then instead of a protest party, with plenty of votes, at least in mid-term, UKIP ends up one more A in NOTA.
This is the exact opposite of what UKIP wants. Our USP---BOO---is fine, mainstream and popular.
What we need to change is for undecided voters to feel basically warm towards to UKIP, rather than having a vague feeling that we are 'extremist'.
A detailed, fully set of costed policies would be of interest only to our competitors and anoraks. That would be of negative value.
Hmm lots of contradictions there, David.
For people to feel warm towards UKIP you have to not scare the horses and this is done by being boring and predictable on a range of issues whereby they can adopt a neutral view of you as a whole and single out the BOO issue as one to support.
Just having BOO means that people worry that you might be bonkers or little englanders.
As a single issue pressure group your strategy suffices; as a political party it doesn't.
No, he's right, nobody's going to follow their detailed policies anyway. If they get into the top two they'll need enough to persuade people they'd be a plausible government, but they're nowhere near that point yet. Right now they need symbols, not substance.
The symbols need to be things that are a little bit surprising, and you wouldn't have associated with UKIP, but don't actually contradict their main message.
'Explain why the UKIP projection has gone from 5 to 2 over the last few weeks if it's not just embarrassment at the first figure plucked out of the air.'
JackW has a successful track record when it comes to predicting real election results,you don't. .
For people to feel warm towards UKIP you have to not scare the horses and this is done by being boring and predictable on a range of issues whereby they can adopt a neutral view of you as a whole and single out the BOO issue as one to support.
Just having BOO means that people worry that you might be bonkers or little englanders.
As a single issue pressure group your strategy suffices; as a political party it doesn't.
Is it worth changing the name? I know BOO is the USP, but it also suggests a dangerous obsession.
The other question about policies is where UKIP seeks to take votes. Is the target disaffected Conservatives who feel the party has become too dominated by the metropolitan elite? Or is the WWC who feel immigration (both EU and non-EU) has been a negative for their prospects? Or is UKIP the party of Freedom (with a capital 'F'), in which case the target to a large extent will be Orange Book LibDemmers.
I think the danger for UKIP is seeing itself only as a party of protest (we speak truth to power!). With the big two-and-a-half being so similar in outlook, there is an opportunity for UKIP to develop a distinctive identity. But that requires some hard choices which will inevitably alienate some of its existing supporters - with the long-term benefit being a much more credible party.
Mr. Kendrick, I've no special insight but would suggest emphasising policies that have common ground with most people. (Cutting fuel duty would go down well, likewise overseas aid and a lower limit on benefits).
I don't think it is anything to do with policies. The problem is feelings, not policies.
So huge surprise, you need a comprehensive fully costed set of policies (let's call it a manifesto) rather than fixating on one of several things that floats peoples' boats at the moment and going for the "feeling" vote.
Thing is, then instead of a protest party, with plenty of votes, at least in mid-term, UKIP ends up one more A in NOTA.
This is the exact opposite of what UKIP wants. Our USP---BOO---is fine, mainstream and popular.
What we need to change is for undecided voters to feel basically warm towards to UKIP, rather than having a vague feeling that we are 'extremist'.
A detailed, fully set of costed policies would be of interest only to our competitors and anoraks. That would be of negative value.
Hmm lots of contradictions there, David.
For people to feel warm towards UKIP you have to not scare the horses and this is done by being boring and predictable on a range of issues whereby they can adopt a neutral view of you as a whole and single out the BOO issue as one to support.
Just having BOO means that people worry that you might be bonkers or little englanders.
As a single issue pressure group your strategy suffices; as a political party it doesn't.
No, he's right, nobody's going to follow their detailed policies anyway. If they get into the top two they'll need enough to persuade people they'd be a plausible government, but they're nowhere near that point yet. Right now they need symbols, not substance.
The symbols need to be things that are a little bit surprising, and you wouldn't have associated with UKIP, but don't actually contradict their main message.
Kipper's stance on prostitution is very liberal and drugs.
Mr. Thoughts, could you possibly reclaim your account by e-mailing Ladbrokes?
I got rid of my btconnect account after my first contract-extension in The Netherlands. I did try to inform Ladbrookes recently (via t'Web-site) but Shads never got the message.
I admit the funds would be useful - over the next month-or-so - regarding The Ashes. The problem with web-based betting-accounts (that require email-account verification) is that so many of us are - actually - vagrants.... *
On UKIP, I wonder if more emphasis (assuming this is their policy, of course) on an English Parliament and less uneven devolution might go down well. Treating all constituent parts of the country equally is fair and just, and an English Parliament would also answer the West Lothian Question.
Liam Byrne’s attack on the workless benefit cap this morning is interesting, because he’s trying to position himself as tougher than the Conservatives on out-of-work benefits. Labour’s shadow work and pensions secretary said:
‘The benefit cap is a good idea in principle but it’s already fallen apart in practice. Ministers have bodged the rules so the cap won’t affect Britain’s 4,000 largest families and it does nothing to stop people living a life on welfare. The government needs to go back to the drawing board, design a cap without holes and put a two-year limit on the time you can spend on the dole, like Labour’s compulsory jobs guarantee.’
In the early days of debate about the cap, Labour preferred to attack the cap on the basis that it hits larger families hardest (it is calculated by adding all the benefits the family is entitled to together, and only paying the housing benefit that makes the difference between the total benefit entitlement and the £26,000 cap, which means larger families receive a very small amount of rent money indeed) and that it made many areas unaffordable. Clearly the party has realised that this attack means nothing to voters, who if anything want a tougher cap. Instead, Byrne is focusing on those families who will fall through the holes in this cap. A parliamentary question from Labour found 4,000 out of work families will still receive more than £26,000 in benefits.
Whether Byrne can keep the tough Labour narrative going depends very much on whether his colleagues are able to restrain themselves from attacking the cap, given that’s what they’ve spent the past couple of years doing.
On UKIP, I wonder if more emphasis (assuming this is their policy, of course) on an English Parliament and less uneven devolution might go down well. Treating all constituent parts of the country equally is fair and just, and an English Parliament would also answer the West Lothian Question.
Surely for UKIP to go mainstream, they have to talk less about constitutions and more about what direct impact they will have on your job/pension/school/hospital. Constitutional matters, though important, are a rather niche concern.
Got a link to the last proper MORI approval ratings poll in Scotland, they appear to have changed their website so you can't find them
It's Ed relative to Nick and Dave that will count. Clegg will be miles lower, as will Cameron.
Can't find it either (or at least the one I did find had Cameron but not Miliband). From memory Ed was certainly beating Nick into a pulp, but Dave was a lot closer.
My sympathies, Mr. Thoughts. I keep on having finickity issues with Ladbrokes (not really their fault, I'm immensely lax about updating my card details).
Weirdly, almost all my winning tips on F1 (such as they've been) this year have been with Ladbrokes, so the balance is fairly healthy, whereas my Betfair account is rather thin.
Incidentally, I rather enjoyed the Hunt Vs Lauda programme on the BBC last night. It's a shame Murray Walker can't still commentate. Top chap, he is.
Whether Byrne can keep the tough Labour narrative going depends very much on whether his colleagues are able to restrain themselves from attacking the cap, given that’s what they’ve spent the past couple of years doing.
He also needs to have a word with Labour councillors and with Labour's friends at the BBC, who have jointly been spending the last two days trying to make out that a cap is the end of civilised life as we know it.
Sirotkin's a Russian chap of 17 who is thought likely to become a driver (replacing Hulkenberg, about whom rumours of leaving were abundant even before today) next year.
Sauber's been in financial trouble for a while and this should help the outfit to survive. I hope Sirotkin and Gutierrez can be fairly competitive, though.
If I were Red Bull I'd go for Hulkenberg, but there's also a decent chance he could replace Grosjean (depending on his performance) or Massa. There's also a chance he could be left without a drive next year, which would be a shame as he's a very good driver.
It's a desperate move by Sauber, who is a team owner I respect. Sirotkin does not have the experience to move up into F1, and I'm not sure his results in races or testing deserve a superlicence.
The superlicences are there for a reason. There are much better-qualified (and possibly better) drivers out there, if you count for skill instead of potential income.
Indeed, I'd rather someone give Susie Wolff a punt, but again there are much more deserving drivers out there.
On UKIP, I wonder if more emphasis (assuming this is their policy, of course) on an English Parliament and less uneven devolution might go down well. Treating all constituent parts of the country equally is fair and just, and an English Parliament would also answer the West Lothian Question.
Surely for UKIP to go mainstream, they have to talk less about constitutions and more about what direct impact they will have on your job/pension/school/hospital. Constitutional matters, though important, are a rather niche concern.
A grown up pro-active discussion about a pact would also help.
On UKIP, I wonder if more emphasis (assuming this is their policy, of course) on an English Parliament and less uneven devolution might go down well. Treating all constituent parts of the country equally is fair and just, and an English Parliament would also answer the West Lothian Question.
Surely for UKIP to go mainstream, they have to talk less about constitutions and more about what direct impact they will have on your job/pension/school/hospital. Constitutional matters, though important, are a rather niche concern.
A grown up pro-active discussion about a pact would also help.
I just can't see a pact happening. The Conservative Party has already promised an in/out referendum in 2017 (and that will be in the manifesto). So, what could they offer to UKIP that would not alienate their business supporters?
In addition, the Conservative Party has no interest in sponsoring a rival on the right. A pact would give credibility (and MPs) to UKIP that would be enormously to the latter's benefit in the long-run. It would be akin to what the Liberals did around the turn of the 20th Century. By entering a pact with the new Labour Party it signed its own death warrant.
Mr. Thoughts, could you possibly reclaim your account by e-mailing Ladbrokes?
You normally just go on and click on forgot userid/password, think on Ladbrokes you need to phone their support team to sort it though. They do have online chat so easy to find out.
It's impressive that you can sense how the electorate is thinking in places like Boston. I visited last weekend, and brother and two nephews went to the local and took part in the pub quiz. We called ourselves the Quizlamic Extremists and it went down well (but we only came second).
The impression I got (anecdotes) would lead to be think Mark Simmonds has some work to do to hold off UKIP. Unless, of course, UKIP implodes before then. Currently, if Farage stood, I think he would win but I expect you know better. My anecdotes did suggest a good local UKIP performance last May and so it transpired, but I don't claim to be as prescient as Jack's ARSE.
Mr. Jessop, I was about to correct you on Wolff, who just doesn't have the credentials for F1.
I'm surprised Sauber couldn't get more sponsorship after their very good 2012 season.
Mr. Jonathan, perhaps, but with money tight there's not much scope for popular spending policies.
That's sort of my point about Wolff. She does not have the credentials at the moment for F1, but has more than Sirotkin (leaving aside being married to a rich and influential bloke). If they are going to go for money, then Wolff would be an interesting hire. Then again, her husband's connections may well now play against her.
Wolff's career in DTM was not stellar, but she was a good, solid performer in an exceptionally competitive field (much more so than GP2). She is far from being a bad driver.
Sadly, the Resource Restriction Agreement is going nowhere, and money matters in F1 more than ever.
On UKIP, I wonder if more emphasis (assuming this is their policy, of course) on an English Parliament and less uneven devolution might go down well. Treating all constituent parts of the country equally is fair and just, and an English Parliament would also answer the West Lothian Question.
Surely for UKIP to go mainstream, they have to talk less about constitutions and more about what direct impact they will have on your job/pension/school/hospital. Constitutional matters, though important, are a rather niche concern.
In 300 years of UK party politics, only one party has risen from the outside to the mainstream, and that did so by farming a part of the electorate that had only just received the franchise, and for which the existing parties were not all that well suited. They also had the good fortune that the party they were most likely to replace split repeatedly during Labour's first forty years (to the extent of fielding candidates against each other, not just internal squabbles).
For UKIP to go mainstream, they need to do something nigh-on unprecedent in centuries. That's not to say it can't - in some ways, the door is as far open as it has been for a generation - just to put into context the scale of the task.
But then UKIP doesn't need to go mainstream. It doesn't need the support of half the population to make an impact. It doesn't matter if 90% of the electorate either disapprove of them to a greater or lesser extend, or have no feelings at all on the matter. The remaining one in ten would be (and at the moment, is), quite sufficient to throw the mainstream into chaos.
I have lost my Labrookes account details so am playing small sums at BillyKnoll's gaff. With no access to a spread-account I have decided to - in effect - lay-the-draw for the Second Test.
Backing 2-1 funds on an England win (i.e. Oz win; better odds, half the stakes) I should have a minimum return of ~20% if we win (or a ~40% win if we lose). Looking at the weather forecast (and the respective teams) this should be free money (not least because I am funding it via my First Test winnings).
I am on with:
England: 5/6
Oz: 10/3
The draw is available at 9/4....
"The draw is available at 9/4"
Am I going mad or haven't you just laid the draw at 7/2?
For people to feel warm towards UKIP you have to not scare the horses and this is done by being boring and predictable on a range of issues whereby they can adopt a neutral view of you as a whole and single out the BOO issue as one to support.
Just having BOO means that people worry that you might be bonkers or little englanders.
As a single issue pressure group your strategy suffices; as a political party it doesn't.
Is it worth changing the name? I know BOO is the USP, but it also suggests a dangerous obsession.
The other question about policies is where UKIP seeks to take votes. Is the target disaffected Conservatives who feel the party has become too dominated by the metropolitan elite? Or is the WWC who feel immigration (both EU and non-EU) has been a negative for their prospects? Or is UKIP the party of Freedom (with a capital 'F'), in which case the target to a large extent will be Orange Book LibDemmers.
I think the danger for UKIP is seeing itself only as a party of protest (we speak truth to power!). With the big two-and-a-half being so similar in outlook, there is an opportunity for UKIP to develop a distinctive identity. But that requires some hard choices which will inevitably alienate some of its existing supporters - with the long-term benefit being a much more credible party.
Exactly.
Plus what does UKIP want to achieve? BOO? Fine. Then set up as an advocacy group or thinktank.
Political party of which BOO is but one policy? And not be utterly destroyed one fine morning at 8.10 because John Humphreys didn't mention Europe once?
Then time to start working on a credible manifesto.
At the last General Election, Buckingham was a best case scenario for UKIP to win a seat.
UKIP's best possible candidate, Nigel Farage, stood against the Speaker and there were no candidates from, Con, Lab or Lib Dem.
Buckingham is a right wing heartland, having had a Conservative County Council for 120 years and currently has six UKIP County Councillors.
However, UKIP did not even come second in the General Election, being beaten by an independent as well as Bercow.
Just shows how hard it is to break through at General Elections and to reach the 70,000 registered electors.
Without being mean, what do you think Nigel's plane crash would have had if it'd been a day or two earlier? IIRC, Kippers didn't fight a ground-war at all and relied on Nigel to do it all using the media puff.
At the last General Election, Buckingham was a best case scenario for UKIP to win a seat.
Buckingham *really* wasnt their best chance of a seat. That Nigel Farage thought it was is an indication of the problems they were labouring under back then. Tbf they seem to have improved significantly on this front now.
No, he's right, nobody's going to follow their detailed policies anyway. If they get into the top two they'll need enough to persuade people they'd be a plausible government, but they're nowhere near that point yet. Right now they need symbols, not substance.
The symbols need to be things that are a little bit surprising, and you wouldn't have associated with UKIP, but don't actually contradict their main message.
In my opinion it is mainly 40 or 50 something's who still think of themselves as anti establishment that think Grammar schools are outdated.. to young parents in their 20s and 30s who never had the chance to go to to one, I think the idea of selective education by ability would be a one that they would embrace for their children, and UKIP should shout out loud that they are the only party that support this type of education.
Accentuating the desire to trade with countries outside the EU could be a surprising antedote to the idea they are "Little Englanders".. UKIP could say the other parties are confining us to being part of Europe while UKIP want to be part of the whole world
At the last General Election, Buckingham was a best case scenario for UKIP to win a seat.
UKIP's best possible candidate, Nigel Farage, stood against the Speaker and there were no candidates from, Con, Lab or Lib Dem.
Buckingham is a right wing heartland, having had a Conservative County Council for 120 years and currently has six UKIP County Councillors.
However, UKIP did not even come second in the General Election, being beaten by an independent as well as Bercow.
Just shows how hard it is to break through at General Elections and to reach the 70,000 registered electors.
The voters like their guy to be speaker, the anti-Bercow stuff was for political obsessives. Farage was badly advised running there, not to mention thinking he should be spending campaigning time in a plane where the voters couldn't see him. I'm not sure who's responsible, but they seem to have learned a lot since then.
For people to feel warm towards UKIP you have to not scare the horses and this is done by being boring and predictable on a range of issues whereby they can adopt a neutral view of you as a whole and single out the BOO issue as one to support.
Just having BOO means that people worry that you might be bonkers or little englanders.
As a single issue pressure group your strategy suffices; as a political party it doesn't.
Is it worth changing the name? I know BOO is the USP, but it also suggests a dangerous obsession.
The other question about policies is where UKIP seeks to take votes. Is the target disaffected Conservatives who feel the party has become too dominated by the metropolitan elite? Or is the WWC who feel immigration (both EU and non-EU) has been a negative for their prospects? Or is UKIP the party of Freedom (with a capital 'F'), in which case the target to a large extent will be Orange Book LibDemmers.
I think the danger for UKIP is seeing itself only as a party of protest (we speak truth to power!). With the big two-and-a-half being so similar in outlook, there is an opportunity for UKIP to develop a distinctive identity. But that requires some hard choices which will inevitably alienate some of its existing supporters - with the long-term benefit being a much more credible party.
Thanks to Yougov, we have quite a lot of data on UKIP supporters. They tend to be low to middle income, 40+, with fairly socially conservative views, and fairly centrist views on economic subjects. My guess is that the party will move in a slightly leftward direction (left of the Conservatives that is) on economic issues, as that's where their support (and potential support) lies.
At the last General Election, Buckingham was a best case scenario for UKIP to win a seat.
UKIP's best possible candidate, Nigel Farage, stood against the Speaker and there were no candidates from, Con, Lab or Lib Dem.
Buckingham is a right wing heartland, having had a Conservative County Council for 120 years and currently has six UKIP County Councillors.
However, UKIP did not even come second in the General Election, being beaten by an independent as well as Bercow.
Just shows how hard it is to break through at General Elections and to reach the 70,000 registered electors.
At the last election, the Lib Dems were still a clean 'None Of The Above', the Tories were still an opposition able to hold a sizable electoral coalition together which was keen on kicking Labour, and particularly Gordon Brown, out of office, and UKIP was superfluous to the debate. Buckingham obviously had an unusual local lineup but reports were that Bercow was personally popular there and that was that.
At the next election, all three established parties will have been tainted with recent office and with either overseeing the recession or the austerity measures following it. Breakthroughs are tough but if it's going to happen anytime, now is it.
Am I going mad or haven't you just laid the draw at 7/2?
No - and Yes;
Read the post:
Limited betting-options
Questionable probabilities
So no "over-wot-nots" but just a bet that looks correct. If you feel that 9/4 offers value for a draw then bet against me.
Edited to add:
Billy's ain't a perfect market. 9/4-on against* a draw looks too short. Tempretures down** during the scheduled match (with some wind to aid swing) means that the two bets I have placed look to offer me a sensible return.
:instinct-not-knowledge:
* Assumes the inverse of 9/4 is 9/4-on (c.f. OGH's future bet-mathematics thread).... ** weather.com
"They tend to be low to middle income, 40+, with fairly socially conservative views, and fairly centrist views on economic subjects. My guess is that the party will move in a slightly leftward direction (left of the Conservatives that is) on economic issues, as that's where their support (and potential support) lies."
That sounds a lot like the current switchers from Labour. Sssh ... don't tell tim.
Am I going mad or haven't you just laid the draw at 7/2?
No - and Yes;
Read the post:
Limited betting-options
Questionable probabilities
So no "over-wot-nots" but just a bet that looks correct. If you feel that 9/4 offers value for a draw then bet against me.
I backed Australia at EVS on Sat night when they were 161-3, went to the shops and they were 166-6 when I came back! Also backed Brad Haddin at 11s for top Aussie bat in the first Inns and it copped in the 2nd!
So I think I'll stay away from any Test match bets for a while!
It's impressive that you can sense how the electorate is thinking in places like Boston. I visited last weekend, and brother and two nephews went to the local and took part in the pub quiz. We called ourselves the Quizlamic Extremists and it went down well (but we only came second).
The impression I got (anecdotes) would lead to be think Mark Simmonds has some work to do to hold off UKIP. Unless, of course, UKIP implodes before then. Currently, if Farage stood, I think he would win but I expect you know better. My anecdotes did suggest a good local UKIP performance last May and so it transpired, but I don't claim to be as prescient as Jack's ARSE.
I'm sure the woman on Question Time believes the lies she was peddling, people believe a lot of things that aren't true.
"Religion: we greatly overestimate the proportion of the population who are Muslims: on average we say 24%, compared with 5% in England and Wales. And we underestimate the proportion of Christians: we estimate 34% on average, compared with the actual proportion of 59% in England and Wales."
"Immigration and ethnicity: the public think that 31% of the population are immigrants, when the official figures are 13%. Even estimates that attempt to account for illegal immigration suggest a figure closer to 15%. There are similar misperceptions on ethnicity: the average estimate is that black and Asian people make up 30% of the population, when it is actually 11% (or 14% if we include mixed and other non-white ethnic groups)."
But on a political betting blog you'd expect a claim that there's hardly any locals left in Boston and the English are leaving to be challenged with the facts, no matter what the PB Tories and Kippers "believe".
Sometimes I'm at a loss to understand what the Scots want. They didn't much like Blair but then he was 'New' Labour. Seemingly they prefered Brown who was more traditional Labour. Then you have Ed Miliband who you would have thought the socialist Scots would quite like but no they prefered Gordon. Then you have the social democratic/neoliberal Alex Salmond.
"The problem for Mr Crow is that his solution of anti-capitalist, anti-aspiration, hardline communism is no solution at all. Working-class people utterly reject his response to the problem of Labour’s betrayal of the working class.
You see, Bob Crow has challenged the Labour Party for many years now. Formerly a member of the Communist Party of Britain, he joined forces with Arthur Scargill post-Clause Four to form the Socialist Labour Party in 1996. Crow and his band of supposed working-class heroes were steadfastly rejected by the electorate, receiving 0.17 per cent of the vote in the 1997 General Election. In the 2001 election, the SLP increased its number of candidates from 65 to 114. Embarrassingly, this almost doubling of candidates only increased their national vote share by 0.05 per cent. Hardly a revolution.
It is these cold hard facts that lay bare the lack of desire amongst the British working class, or any sizeable number of voters of any description, for the Bob Crow communist fantasy
I think the point that he ultimately missed however is that an alternative party that stands up for working people and challenges Labour already exists. It’s called Ukip.
Just look at South Shields in the North East of England, a place where Labour won 71 per cent of the vote in the 1997 General Election and a paltry 52 per cent in 2010. Ukip stood there for the first time earlier this year in the by-election caused by David Miliband’s resignation and went from a standing start to 24 per cent of the vote. By comparison, the Independent Socialist candidate received three per cent of the vote. Following the by-election, three local councillors joined Ukip and the party is now the official opposition on South Tyneside Council. Labour’s vice-like grip on voters in such areas is thankfully, finally being challenged... http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/michaelheaver/100226411/bob-crow-is-right-labour-has-betrayed-the-working-class-but-his-communist-fantasies-arent-the-answer/
"They tend to be low to middle income, 40+, with fairly socially conservative views, and fairly centrist views on economic subjects. My guess is that the party will move in a slightly leftward direction (left of the Conservatives that is) on economic issues, as that's where their support (and potential support) lies."
That sounds a lot like the current switchers from Labour.
Am I going mad or haven't you just laid the draw at 7/2?
No - and Yes;
Read the post:
Limited betting-options
Questionable probabilities
So no "over-wot-nots" but just a bet that looks correct. If you feel that 9/4 offers value for a draw then bet against me.
I backed Australia at EVS on Sat night when they were 161-3, went to the shops and they were 166-6 when I came back! Also backed Brad Haddin at 11s for top Aussie bat in the first Inns and it copped in the 2nd!
So I think I'll stay away from any Test match bets for a while!
Oz were evens as Jimmy began to run in for the final ball.
Great for trading are these test matches - just lump on the non favourite for the first 2 days.
It's impressive that you can sense how the electorate is thinking in places like Boston. I visited last weekend, and brother and two nephews went to the local and took part in the pub quiz. We called ourselves the Quizlamic Extremists and it went down well (but we only came second).
The impression I got (anecdotes) would lead to be think Mark Simmonds has some work to do to hold off UKIP. Unless, of course, UKIP implodes before then. Currently, if Farage stood, I think he would win but I expect you know better. My anecdotes did suggest a good local UKIP performance last May and so it transpired, but I don't claim to be as prescient as Jack's ARSE.
I'm sure the woman on Question Time believes the lies she was peddling, people believe a lot of things that aren't true.
"Religion: we greatly overestimate the proportion of the population who are Muslims: on average we say 24%, compared with 5% in England and Wales. And we underestimate the proportion of Christians: we estimate 34% on average, compared with the actual proportion of 59% in England and Wales."
"Immigration and ethnicity: the public think that 31% of the population are immigrants, when the official figures are 13%. Even estimates that attempt to account for illegal immigration suggest a figure closer to 15%. There are similar misperceptions on ethnicity: the average estimate is that black and Asian people make up 30% of the population, when it is actually 11% (or 14% if we include mixed and other non-white ethnic groups)."
But on a political betting blog you'd expect a claim that there's hardly any locals left in Boston and the English are leaving to be challenged with the facts, no matter what the PB Tories and Kippers "believe".
What are the lies she was peddling (or are you talking about Mary Beard?!)
What would you consider to be an accurate measure of cultural assimilation?
The stats from the census show a lot of white British people leaving Dagenham, the anecdotes and local knowledge point to it being due to immigration, but you wont accept that either. Isnt it true you wouldn't accept anything that shows mass immigration to be unpopular or negative, and would smear anybody who says so as racist, even if the immigrants were of the same race as them?
I backed Australia at EVS on Sat night when they were 161-3, went to the shops and they were 166-6 when I came back! Also backed Brad Haddin at 11s for top Aussie bat in the first Inns and it copped in the 2nd!
So I think I'll stay away from any Test match bets for a while!
Added more detail. I'm not a professional gambler: I work in software and system-analysis. The bet looks reasonable (despite a potential small loss against yesterday's winning).
Important point: Never bet more than you can lose.....
"LABOUR has turned to Tulip Siddiq to defend parliamentary ground in Hampstead and Kilburn following Glenda Jackson's decision to retire.
The Camden councillor, whose aunt is the Prime Minister of Bangladesh, won an internal vote of members in the hired hall at the Mazenod Social Club this afternoon."
"The private meeting had got off to the worst possible start when a clash outside led to police and an ambulance being called. Housing protesters had demanded to see Labour council leader Sarah Hayward, who had yet to arrive. It is then claimed a party member head-butted a demonstrator, who was wearing a UNITE union T-shirt, before later apologising."
tim - I don't think the figures for Christianity are that strange. After all few people attend christian services regularly and I think well under 59% claim to believe in God. However the estimates for immigrants and in particular the belief that 25% of the population is Muslim, is odd to say the least.
I'm sure the woman on Question Time believes the lies she was peddling, people believe a lot of things that aren't true.
"Religion: we greatly overestimate the proportion of the population who are Muslims: on average we say 24%, compared with 5% in England and Wales. And we underestimate the proportion of Christians: we estimate 34% on average, compared with the actual proportion of 59% in England and Wales."
"Immigration and ethnicity: the public think that 31% of the population are immigrants, when the official figures are 13%. Even estimates that attempt to account for illegal immigration suggest a figure closer to 15%. There are similar misperceptions on ethnicity: the average estimate is that black and Asian people make up 30% of the population, when it is actually 11% (or 14% if we include mixed and other non-white ethnic groups)."
But on a political betting blog you'd expect a claim that there's hardly any locals left in Boston and the English are leaving to be challenged with the facts, no matter what the PB Tories and Kippers "believe".
What are the lies she was peddling
"there are hardly any locals in Boston anymore" "everyone is moving away"
Number of English born People in Boston 2001 = 52,878 Number of English born People in Boston 2011 = 53,799
Yet you've posted that clip dozens of times without looking at the facts, because UKIP voting is a fact free state of mind
percentage of white brits in Boston 2001 & 2011?
What would you consider to be an accurate measure of cultural assimilation?
The stats from the census show a lot of white British people leaving Dagenham, the anecdotes and local knowledge point to it being due to immigration, but you wont accept that either. Isnt it true you wouldn't accept anything that shows mass immigration to be unpopular or negative, and would smear anybody who says so as racist, even if the immigrants were of the same race as them?
Labour's quest to be the party of family dynasties continues..
Am I misremembering or did Andrea recently post figures showing that there are more Tory MPs who are children of former MPs than there are Labour ones?
Sometimes I'm at a loss to understand what the Scots want. They didn't much like Blair but then he was 'New' Labour. Seemingly they prefered Brown who was more traditional Labour. Then you have Ed Miliband who you would have thought the socialist Scots would quite like but no they prefered Gordon. Then you have the social democratic/neoliberal Alex Salmond.
They like real old style Labour being left of centre without being too nutty , hence the popularity of the SNP and the state of Labour Party as it morphs into being identical to the Tories.
Labour's quest to be the party of family dynasties continues..
Am I misremembering or did Andrea recently post figures showing that there are more Tory MPs who are children of former MPs than there are Labour ones?
Is that not because the family members of Labour MPs have been crap at getting elected ?
"people believe a lot of things that aren't true."
Twas ever thus. Politics is about impressions not about facts. And that's why n one believes politicians. If the electorate's experience is different, and it usually is, because politicians put forward what they want to be true without much regard for the facts, they will ignore the other version of the "facts".
The famous aphorism ... "A man convinced against his will, retains his own conviction still" remains true
Is that not because the family members of Labour MPs have been crap at getting elected ?
I dunno but if it is true that there are more Tory MPs who are children of former Tory MPs then the "Labour family dynasty" line would look a little silly, wouldnt it?
Twas ever thus. Politics is about impressions not about facts. And that's why n one believes politicians. If the electorate's experience is different, and it usually is, because politicians put forward what they want to be true without much regard for the facts, they will ignore the other version of the "facts".
The famous aphorism ... "A man convinced against his will, retains his own conviction still" remains true
Which is why the public will believe things like 'Labour wants to make benefits a human right' when they hear about some idea floated far off in Wonkland. It plays to all their assumptions be they lefties or righties. Lefties will think - 'that's fair' and righties will throw up their hands in horror...
Labour's quest to be the party of family dynasties continues..
Am I misremembering or did Andrea recently post figures showing that there are more Tory MPs who are children of former MPs than there are Labour ones?
It maybe more difficult to identify these Labour children as there are fewer marriages and some fathers such as EdM fail to put their name on the birth certificate.
"people believe a lot of things that aren't true."
Twas ever thus. Politics is about impressions not about facts. And that's why n one believes politicians. If the electorate's experience is different, and it usually is, because politicians put forward what they want to be true without much regard for the facts, they will ignore the other version of the "facts".
The famous aphorism ... "A man convinced against his will, retains his own conviction still" remains true
Some people believe Obama is a Muslim, some people believe the locals have left Boston Lincs.
What you do about that is a different matter.
Some people use the number of English people in Boston 2001 & 2011 to support their argument without quoting the number of immigrants that arrived in the same period
The current MPs with a former MP as parent include:
James Arbuthnot CON Hilary Benn LAB John Cryer LAB Dominic Grieve CON Ben Gummer CON Bernard Jenkin CON Lindsay Hoyle LAB Nick Hurd CON Francis Maude CON Andrew Mitchell CON Ian Paisley DUP Mark Pawsey CON Laura Sandys CON Anas Sarwar LAB Robin Walker CON
The Tories wins in Sons (and a daughter) while they are behind in Siblings and Partners.
Labour's quest to be the party of family dynasties continues..
Am I misremembering or did Andrea recently post figures showing that there are more Tory MPs who are children of former MPs than there are Labour ones?
It maybe more difficult to identify these Labour children as there are fewer marriages and some fathers such as EdM fail to put their name on the birth certificate.
Sam Cam tweeted me to demand compulsory DNA testing for MPs!
The big problem is not statistics, they are accurate or inaccurate. It's the faulty interpretation of selective statistics that poisons the pond.
And that's where the press, politicians and political activists poo in the water.
No wonder no one believes them.
When MPs expenses were a hot topic - I recall the Mark Reckon's blog suggesting that safe seat MPs were more likely to be culprits. This got a lot of attention at the time/seemed plausible and it ended up being picked apart on R4's More or Less radio prog as there are simply too many variables in play.
It was a really good example of something that looked believable being statistically difficult to prove.
The current MPs with a former MP as parent include:
James Arbuthnot CON Hilary Benn LAB John Cryer LAB Dominic Grieve CON Ben Gummer CON Bernard Jenkin CON Lindsay Hoyle LAB Nick Hurd CON Francis Maude CON Andrew Mitchell CON Ian Paisley DUP Mark Pawsey CON Laura Sandys CON Anas Sarwar LAB Robin Walker CON
The Tories wins in Sons (and a daughter) while they are behind in Siblings and Partners.
It is the undisclosed illegitimates who worry me, Andrea.
The unwelcome transatlantic trend towards birth certificate fraud needs to be taken into account.
At least Tories are not afraid to register themselves as a child's parent.
Comments
Much of the intra-EU immigration falls into the latter category. (What might be called the Reverse Auf Wiedersein Pet.) I've just been through an expensive building project, where a large number of the workers were Poles. The vast majority (all but one) lived in shared rooms and had families back in Poland. They went back to Poland every other weekend, and were working here because there was plenty of opportunity to earn £100/day - and this was 2-3x what they'd get in Poland. These people have no great interest in assimilating, in much the same way Barry and Oz were never going to assimilate in Germany. (The Poles, in this respect, are the new Irish.)
It is, of course, worth remembering that Poland is growing nicely (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/poland/gdp-per-capita-ppp), and that as the wage gap with the UK narrows, then the economic incentive to work here will diminish.
The 6/1 is tempting but .... but ....
This seat is a minefield, looking like 05-10 all over again. LibDem very strong locally and in second place in the seat looking to squeeze the life out of the third placed party ..... and then look at 2010 - the Tory jumps from third place to win !!
What we need to change is for undecided voters to feel basically warm towards to UKIP, rather than having a vague feeling that we are 'extremist'.
A detailed, fully set of costed policies would be of interest only to our competitors and anoraks. That would be of negative value.
http://audioboo.fm/boos/1499845-len-mcclusky-s-speech-in-its-entirety-durham-miners-gala#t=13m32s
It goes to show how big scandals in the world of political nerds (Ian Oakley) often have minimal impact on the ground. I also thought Watford was going to fall to the Yellow Peril in 2010.
"I would think rEd to do well to match Gordo's performance in Scotland in 2015".
I reckon if Labour are in with a chance of getting rid of the Tories then they will do very well in Scotland, assuming the referendum has failed the majority of Scots will be vey content with an SNP govt in Holyrood and a Labour Government in Westminster. Labour's vote is also likely to benefit from the Lib Dems decline.
PS Don't you think the "rEd" thing is a bit school-playgroundy for a grownups forum?
The Scots might not like Ed Miliband as much as Gordon Brown, but they will probably dislike David Cameron more in 2015 than in 2010. That should be enough for Labour's purposes. If as seems most likely the independence referendum has been defeated in 2014, the SNP will be a sideshow for Westminster.
Sadly I just cannot see it. The Heathrow site has some fundamental problems that will not be easy - or feasible IMHO - to fix.
Also remember that Heathrow is already at capacity, so any third runway would only really be dealing with the current capacity problems, not future ones. A bandage rather than a cure.
Poor Gambler Betting Post
I have lost my Labrookes account details so am playing small sums at BillyKnoll's gaff. With no access to a spread-account I have decided to - in effect - lay-the-draw for the Second Test.
Backing 2-1 funds on an England win (i.e. Oz win; better odds, half the stakes) I should have a minimum return of ~20% if we win (or a ~40% win if we lose). Looking at the weather forecast (and the respective teams) this should be free money (not least because I am funding it via my First Test winnings).
I am on with:
- England: 5/6
- Oz: 10/3
The draw is available at 9/4....http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2363925/Little-rays-sunshine-Baby-flat-fish-appear-smiling-hit-aquarium-visitors.html
Having said that, I concur with antifrank's implied point that there don't seem to be many Scot Lab seats which look vulnerable. Maybe Ochil & South Perthshire at a push, Falkirk in a rout.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peteroborne/100115144/as-the-landscape-starts-to-shift-ukip-can-create-political-havoc/
It's rather good and I can't stand Oborne.
For people to feel warm towards UKIP you have to not scare the horses and this is done by being boring and predictable on a range of issues whereby they can adopt a neutral view of you as a whole and single out the BOO issue as one to support.
Just having BOO means that people worry that you might be bonkers or little englanders.
As a single issue pressure group your strategy suffices; as a political party it doesn't.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100226371/was-i-right-to-slag-off-henry-dimblebys-school-dinners-scheme/
They missed off *demand a judge-led inquiry*
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/23314591
Sirotkin's a Russian chap of 17 who is thought likely to become a driver (replacing Hulkenberg, about whom rumours of leaving were abundant even before today) next year.
Sauber's been in financial trouble for a while and this should help the outfit to survive. I hope Sirotkin and Gutierrez can be fairly competitive, though.
If I were Red Bull I'd go for Hulkenberg, but there's also a decent chance he could replace Grosjean (depending on his performance) or Massa. There's also a chance he could be left without a drive next year, which would be a shame as he's a very good driver.
The symbols need to be things that are a little bit surprising, and you wouldn't have associated with UKIP, but don't actually contradict their main message.
a tragic case:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-23314018
A pensioner is murdered whilst trying to protect his neighbour, a convicted paedophile. So much can be said about this, little of it good.
'Explain why the UKIP projection has gone from 5 to 2 over the last few weeks if it's not just embarrassment at the first figure plucked out of the air.'
JackW has a successful track record when it comes to predicting real election results,you don't.
.
The other question about policies is where UKIP seeks to take votes. Is the target disaffected Conservatives who feel the party has become too dominated by the metropolitan elite? Or is the WWC who feel immigration (both EU and non-EU) has been a negative for their prospects? Or is UKIP the party of Freedom (with a capital 'F'), in which case the target to a large extent will be Orange Book LibDemmers.
I think the danger for UKIP is seeing itself only as a party of protest (we speak truth to power!). With the big two-and-a-half being so similar in outlook, there is an opportunity for UKIP to develop a distinctive identity. But that requires some hard choices which will inevitably alienate some of its existing supporters - with the long-term benefit being a much more credible party.
Trying to buy a house. Mortgage company gets address wrong on offer. Solicitor can't find documents.
Grrr. #whatsthepoint
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/10179094/Morrisons-boss-in-call-for-online-sales-tax.html
I admit the funds would be useful - over the next month-or-so - regarding The Ashes. The problem with web-based betting-accounts (that require email-account verification) is that so many of us are - actually - vagrants.... *
* Fully gmailed now...!
Liam Byrne’s attack on the workless benefit cap this morning is interesting, because he’s trying to position himself as tougher than the Conservatives on out-of-work benefits. Labour’s shadow work and pensions secretary said:
‘The benefit cap is a good idea in principle but it’s already fallen apart in practice. Ministers have bodged the rules so the cap won’t affect Britain’s 4,000 largest families and it does nothing to stop people living a life on welfare. The government needs to go back to the drawing board, design a cap without holes and put a two-year limit on the time you can spend on the dole, like Labour’s compulsory jobs guarantee.’
In the early days of debate about the cap, Labour preferred to attack the cap on the basis that it hits larger families hardest (it is calculated by adding all the benefits the family is entitled to together, and only paying the housing benefit that makes the difference between the total benefit entitlement and the £26,000 cap, which means larger families receive a very small amount of rent money indeed) and that it made many areas unaffordable. Clearly the party has realised that this attack means nothing to voters, who if anything want a tougher cap. Instead, Byrne is focusing on those families who will fall through the holes in this cap. A parliamentary question from Labour found 4,000 out of work families will still receive more than £26,000 in benefits.
Whether Byrne can keep the tough Labour narrative going depends very much on whether his colleagues are able to restrain themselves from attacking the cap, given that’s what they’ve spent the past couple of years doing.
Weirdly, almost all my winning tips on F1 (such as they've been) this year have been with Ladbrokes, so the balance is fairly healthy, whereas my Betfair account is rather thin.
Incidentally, I rather enjoyed the Hunt Vs Lauda programme on the BBC last night. It's a shame Murray Walker can't still commentate. Top chap, he is.
The superlicences are there for a reason. There are much better-qualified (and possibly better) drivers out there, if you count for skill instead of potential income.
Indeed, I'd rather someone give Susie Wolff a punt, but again there are much more deserving drivers out there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIA_Super_Licence
I'm surprised Sauber couldn't get more sponsorship after their very good 2012 season.
Mr. Jonathan, perhaps, but with money tight there's not much scope for popular spending policies.
In addition, the Conservative Party has no interest in sponsoring a rival on the right. A pact would give credibility (and MPs) to UKIP that would be enormously to the latter's benefit in the long-run. It would be akin to what the Liberals did around the turn of the 20th Century. By entering a pact with the new Labour Party it signed its own death warrant.
It's impressive that you can sense how the electorate is thinking in places like Boston. I visited last weekend, and brother and two nephews went to the local and took part in the pub quiz. We called ourselves the Quizlamic Extremists and it went down well (but we only came second).
The impression I got (anecdotes) would lead to be think Mark Simmonds has some work to do to hold off UKIP. Unless, of course, UKIP implodes before then. Currently, if Farage stood, I think he would win but I expect you know better. My anecdotes did suggest a good local UKIP performance last May and so it transpired, but I don't claim to be as prescient as Jack's ARSE.
Wolff's career in DTM was not stellar, but she was a good, solid performer in an exceptionally competitive field (much more so than GP2). She is far from being a bad driver.
Sadly, the Resource Restriction Agreement is going nowhere, and money matters in F1 more than ever.
For UKIP to go mainstream, they need to do something nigh-on unprecedent in centuries. That's not to say it can't - in some ways, the door is as far open as it has been for a generation - just to put into context the scale of the task.
But then UKIP doesn't need to go mainstream. It doesn't need the support of half the population to make an impact. It doesn't matter if 90% of the electorate either disapprove of them to a greater or lesser extend, or have no feelings at all on the matter. The remaining one in ten would be (and at the moment, is), quite sufficient to throw the mainstream into chaos.
Am I going mad or haven't you just laid the draw at 7/2?
http://www.tuc.org.uk/economy/tuc-22358-f0.cfm
"the Quizlamic Extremists"
Excellent punnery
UKIP's best possible candidate, Nigel Farage, stood against the Speaker and there were no candidates from, Con, Lab or Lib Dem.
Buckingham is a right wing heartland, having had a Conservative County Council for 120 years and currently has six UKIP County Councillors.
However, UKIP did not even come second in the General Election, being beaten by an independent as well as Bercow.
Just shows how hard it is to break through at General Elections and to reach the 70,000 registered electors.
Plus what does UKIP want to achieve? BOO? Fine. Then set up as an advocacy group or thinktank.
Political party of which BOO is but one policy? And not be utterly destroyed one fine morning at 8.10 because John Humphreys didn't mention Europe once?
Then time to start working on a credible manifesto.
I hope Plato doesn't see this. Especially one of the comments - "I love cats, they taste so good."
The symbols need to be things that are a little bit surprising, and you wouldn't have associated with UKIP, but don't actually contradict their main message.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In my opinion it is mainly 40 or 50 something's who still think of themselves as anti establishment that think Grammar schools are outdated.. to young parents in their 20s and 30s who never had the chance to go to to one, I think the idea of selective education by ability would be a one that they would embrace for their children, and UKIP should shout out loud that they are the only party that support this type of education.
Accentuating the desire to trade with countries outside the EU could be a surprising antedote to the idea they are "Little Englanders".. UKIP could say the other parties are confining us to being part of Europe while UKIP want to be part of the whole world
"I hope Plato doesn't see this. Especially one of the comments - "I love cats, they taste so good."
I'd always expected cats to be rather like large chicken wings - lots of bone and not much else - though a tomcat's hind leg looks promising :^ )
At the next election, all three established parties will have been tainted with recent office and with either overseeing the recession or the austerity measures following it. Breakthroughs are tough but if it's going to happen anytime, now is it.
Read the post:
- Limited betting-options
- Questionable probabilities
So no "over-wot-nots" but just a bet that looks correct. If you feel that 9/4 offers value for a draw then bet against me.Edited to add:
Billy's ain't a perfect market. 9/4-on against* a draw looks too short. Tempretures down** during the scheduled match (with some wind to aid swing) means that the two bets I have placed look to offer me a sensible return.
:instinct-not-knowledge:
* Assumes the inverse of 9/4 is 9/4-on (c.f. OGH's future bet-mathematics thread)....
** weather.com
"They tend to be low to middle income, 40+, with fairly socially conservative views, and fairly centrist views on economic subjects. My guess is that the party will move in a slightly leftward direction (left of the Conservatives that is) on economic issues, as that's where their support (and potential support) lies."
That sounds a lot like the current switchers from Labour. Sssh ... don't tell tim.
So I think I'll stay away from any Test match bets for a while!
"The problem for Mr Crow is that his solution of anti-capitalist, anti-aspiration, hardline communism is no solution at all. Working-class people utterly reject his response to the problem of Labour’s betrayal of the working class.
You see, Bob Crow has challenged the Labour Party for many years now. Formerly a member of the Communist Party of Britain, he joined forces with Arthur Scargill post-Clause Four to form the Socialist Labour Party in 1996. Crow and his band of supposed working-class heroes were steadfastly rejected by the electorate, receiving 0.17 per cent of the vote in the 1997 General Election. In the 2001 election, the SLP increased its number of candidates from 65 to 114. Embarrassingly, this almost doubling of candidates only increased their national vote share by 0.05 per cent. Hardly a revolution.
It is these cold hard facts that lay bare the lack of desire amongst the British working class, or any sizeable number of voters of any description, for the Bob Crow communist fantasy
I think the point that he ultimately missed however is that an alternative party that stands up for working people and challenges Labour already exists. It’s called Ukip.
Just look at South Shields in the North East of England, a place where Labour won 71 per cent of the vote in the 1997 General Election and a paltry 52 per cent in 2010. Ukip stood there for the first time earlier this year in the by-election caused by David Miliband’s resignation and went from a standing start to 24 per cent of the vote. By comparison, the Independent Socialist candidate received three per cent of the vote. Following the by-election, three local councillors joined Ukip and the party is now the official opposition on South Tyneside Council. Labour’s vice-like grip on voters in such areas is thankfully, finally being challenged... http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/michaelheaver/100226411/bob-crow-is-right-labour-has-betrayed-the-working-class-but-his-communist-fantasies-arent-the-answer/
Oz were evens as Jimmy began to run in for the final ball.
Great for trading are these test matches - just lump on the non favourite for the first 2 days.
What would you consider to be an accurate measure of cultural assimilation?
The stats from the census show a lot of white British people leaving Dagenham, the anecdotes and local knowledge point to it being due to immigration, but you wont accept that either. Isnt it true you wouldn't accept anything that shows mass immigration to be unpopular or negative, and would smear anybody who says so as racist, even if the immigrants were of the same race as them?
Important point: Never bet more than you can lose.....
http://www.camdennewjournal.com/news/2013/jul/tulip-siddiq-picked-stand-labour-glenda-jacksons-hampstead-and-kilburn-constituency
"LABOUR has turned to Tulip Siddiq to defend parliamentary ground in Hampstead and Kilburn following Glenda Jackson's decision to retire.
The Camden councillor, whose aunt is the Prime Minister of Bangladesh, won an internal vote of members in the hired hall at the Mazenod Social Club this afternoon."
"The private meeting had got off to the worst possible start when a clash outside led to police and an ambulance being called. Housing protesters had demanded to see Labour council leader Sarah Hayward, who had yet to arrive. It is then claimed a party member head-butted a demonstrator, who was wearing a UNITE union T-shirt, before later apologising."
Hilary Benn and Mr Harman bucking the trend.
"people believe a lot of things that aren't true."
Twas ever thus. Politics is about impressions not about facts. And that's why n one believes politicians. If the electorate's experience is different, and it usually is, because politicians put forward what they want to be true without much regard for the facts, they will ignore the other version of the "facts".
The famous aphorism ... "A man convinced against his will, retains his own conviction still" remains true
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-20678080
No wonder the people of Boston are so happy
Have had a slight tickle on Trott to be top series batsman on betfair at 8.8s - long series ahead and Bell only 80 odd ahead.
Also he will be fuming after that DRS decision.
I doubt either of those issues will have put our Andrea off the scent.
James Arbuthnot CON
Hilary Benn LAB
John Cryer LAB
Dominic Grieve CON
Ben Gummer CON
Bernard Jenkin CON
Lindsay Hoyle LAB
Nick Hurd CON
Francis Maude CON
Andrew Mitchell CON
Ian Paisley DUP
Mark Pawsey CON
Laura Sandys CON
Anas Sarwar LAB
Robin Walker CON
The Tories wins in Sons (and a daughter) while they are behind in Siblings and Partners.
tim,
The big problem is not statistics, they are accurate or inaccurate. It's the faulty interpretation of selective statistics that poisons the pond.
And that's where the press, politicians and political activists poo in the water.
No wonder no one believes them.
Thanks for that, it might put an end to that particular meme for a little while but it probably wont.
Who have you got your eyes on Andrea now that Hunky Dinky Dunky is taken ??
It was a really good example of something that looked believable being statistically difficult to prove.
The unwelcome transatlantic trend towards birth certificate fraud needs to be taken into account.
At least Tories are not afraid to register themselves as a child's parent.