Though we had corruption long before we ever had a boom I recently read a book about the history of corruption in Ireland since independence. It was a long book
Sun Politics Tweets: "YouGov/Sun poll tonight: CON 32%, LAB 38%, LDEM 10%, UKIP 12%. It's smaller than 6 months ago, but Lab still have a 6 point lead."
Right. I know you've all been eagerly awaiting an update on my royal baby name bettings, so after a decent few days trading my net position is now:
Alexandra +-£0
Dorothy, Edith, Constance or Olivia +~£300
Any other girls name +£705
Any boys name = +£608
TBH, I'd rather have not greened out on my 'alexandra' lays but needed my float for other more profitable purposes. The name is still way overpriced IMO, even at 3/1. I've traded enough novelty markets to have a decent hunch of whether insider money is flooding in - and I think the royal baby name market (at least) is largely clean. Of course, I may be wrong.
Just when the Spanish economy looked to be turning he is caught with his hands in the till.
They've all had their hands in the till though so they will let him carry on as PM for a while yet. The court case is better than pro wrestling though. And I used to think Ireland was the most corrupt country in western Europe...
Construction booms, excessive leverage and corruption tend to go hand in hand. (See Ireland, Cyprus and Spain)
It is when you add golf to construction booms and excessive leverage that corruption really takes hold.
Sun Politics Tweets: "YouGov/Sun poll tonight: CON 32%, LAB 38%, LDEM 10%, UKIP 12%. It's smaller than 6 months ago, but Lab still have a 6 point lead."
Cue posts 'Tory vote collapses from ICM poll'....
Everything pointing to a narrowing gap.
We could dismiss ICM as an early swallow but sumer is icumen in.
Right. I know you've all been eagerly awaiting an update on my royal baby name bettings, so after a decent few days trading my net position is now:
Alexandra +-£0
Dorothy, Edith, Constance or Olivia +~£300
Any other girls name +£705
Any boys name = +£608
TBH, I'd rather have not greened out on my 'alexandra' lays but needed my float for other more profitable purposes. The name is still way overpriced IMO, even at 3/1. I've traded enough novelty markets to have a decent hunch of whether insider money is flooding in - and I think the royal baby name market (at least) is largely clean. Of course, I may be wrong.
How are you going to handle the stream of names given to Royals. Often the name used in public is not the first listed and neither is it the name used by the family, e.g. David for Edward VIII?
Sun Politics Tweets: "YouGov/Sun poll tonight: CON 32%, LAB 38%, LDEM 10%, UKIP 12%. It's smaller than 6 months ago, but Lab still have a 6 point lead."
Cue posts 'Tory vote collapses from ICM poll'....
Everything pointing to a narrowing gap.
We could dismiss ICM as an early swallow but sumer is icumen in.
You forget about the Rowena boom that Labour will benefit from shortly.
Sun Politics Tweets: "YouGov/Sun poll tonight: CON 32%, LAB 38%, LDEM 10%, UKIP 12%. It's smaller than 6 months ago, but Lab still have a 6 point lead."
Cue posts 'Tory vote collapses from ICM poll'....
Everything pointing to a narrowing gap.
We could dismiss ICM as an early swallow but sumer is icumen in.
You forget about the Rowena boom that Labour will benefit from shortly.
Peter Kellner: "If we compare YouGov and ICM on a like-with-like basis, the differences are not that great. We have Labour on 40% and the Conservatives on 31%. ICM’s ‘raw’ numbers are Labour 38%, Conservatives 33%."
Had ICM reported a five point lead, its poll would have passed virtually unnoticed. But, as usual, it made two adjustments. First, it counted only those whom they think will actually vote. Its Labour respondents were less likely than its Tory respondents to say they will actually vote. By adjusting for this, ICM reduced Labour’s lead from five points to two: 37-35%.
ICM then made a further adjustment. It looked at those respondents who said “don’t know”. Using information about how these people say they voted last time, ICM reckoned that this group contained more people who would, in practice, vote Conservative than Labour. This adjustment brought the two parties level, at 36% each."
I would like to make one more adjustment which ICM did not make. If all Labour voters thus reduced voted Tory, then the poll result will be: 72 - 0. Tory landslide ! But given the Tory organisation, I wouldn't bet on it.
Kellner may raise eyebrows at ICM, but the fact is, ICM's "adjustments" is what have made them so successful - And why for general elections they are regarded as the "gold standard" pollster.
Right. I know you've all been eagerly awaiting an update on my royal baby name bettings, so after a decent few days trading my net position is now:
Alexandra +-£0
Dorothy, Edith, Constance or Olivia +~£300
Any other girls name +£705
Any boys name = +£608
TBH, I'd rather have not greened out on my 'alexandra' lays but needed my float for other more profitable purposes. The name is still way overpriced IMO, even at 3/1. I've traded enough novelty markets to have a decent hunch of whether insider money is flooding in - and I think the royal baby name market (at least) is largely clean. Of course, I may be wrong.
How are you going to handle the stream of names given to Royals. Often the name used in public is not the first listed and neither is it the name used by the family, e.g. David for Edward VIII?
For me, what's important is that betfair are clear in their rules, and they are - "This market will be settled on the exact spelling of the first given name. Any selection that does not exactly match the name in the official announcement will be settled as a loser."
Still room for argument if they name it "U V W X Y Z Cambridge" (presumably?), then announce to the world as "prince/princess W of Cambridge" But more of a problem for bookies than for me.
The Today programme will be fun from now on, with Mishal Husain joining John Humphreys. Humphreys asked Husain on Mastermind a few years ago whether she only got her job as a BBC newsreader because of her good looks.
Peter Kellner: "If we compare YouGov and ICM on a like-with-like basis, the differences are not that great. We have Labour on 40% and the Conservatives on 31%. ICM’s ‘raw’ numbers are Labour 38%, Conservatives 33%."
Had ICM reported a five point lead, its poll would have passed virtually unnoticed. But, as usual, it made two adjustments. First, it counted only those whom they think will actually vote. Its Labour respondents were less likely than its Tory respondents to say they will actually vote. By adjusting for this, ICM reduced Labour’s lead from five points to two: 37-35%.
ICM then made a further adjustment. It looked at those respondents who said “don’t know”. Using information about how these people say they voted last time, ICM reckoned that this group contained more people who would, in practice, vote Conservative than Labour. This adjustment brought the two parties level, at 36% each."
I would like to make one more adjustment which ICM did not make. If all Labour voters thus reduced voted Tory, then the poll result will be: 72 - 0. Tory landslide ! But given the Tory organisation, I wouldn't bet on it.
TBF the Kellner write-up makes the adjustment they do with the don't-know voters sound a bit arbitrary, but if it's their normal "half the don't knows will probably do what they did last time" it's quite plausible, and has shown good results in the past.
The other side of this is that Labour probably shouldn't worry too much about certainty to vote dropping off a bit. They're doing some necessary things - lowering expectations, cleaning out positions that won't stand up in the general election, slapping around the unions to reassure centrists who are worried they have too much power - that will tend to demotivate the core. They should be able to get them to perk up as the election gets closer and the discussion focuses on the two or three symbolic things that they'll end up arguing with the Tories about in the campaign.
@currystar In the absence of any evidence to the contrary the NHS remains a good issue for LAB and the LDs while a bad issue for the Tories.
The best strategy for the blues is to focus on areas where it is perceived to be strong where it has a message that resonates.
Surely the most important thing for the tories to try and do is resolve the problems with the NHS, which they are trying to do.
This situation really sums up labour for me. Throw wads of money at something and then produce statistics to show that the results are fantastic and its all down to labour, the reality is of no importance to them, public perception is. Thats what tomorrows debate is about, they want to spend three hours blaming the tories, They don't care whether the recommendations of this report are introduced, to them its all about the blame game and they have to persuade the public its the tories fault. Simple.
I agree that Crosby should have learned from Oz approach and not copied things which short term look ok but long term come back to bite. "It's the polls and focus group results" is not always an answer.
Comments
Though we had corruption long before we ever had a boom
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/357266486089367552/photo/1
Cue posts 'Tory vote collapses from ICM poll'....
Alexandra +-£0
Dorothy, Edith, Constance or Olivia +~£300
Any other girls name +£705
Any boys name = +£608
TBH, I'd rather have not greened out on my 'alexandra' lays but needed my float for other more profitable purposes. The name is still way overpriced IMO, even at 3/1. I've traded enough novelty markets to have a decent hunch of whether insider money is flooding in - and I think the royal baby name market (at least) is largely clean. Of course, I may be wrong.
It is why UKIP is so dangerous.
We could dismiss ICM as an early swallow but sumer is icumen in.
@DPJHodges
NHS debate again exposing how Labour does tactics not strategy. By my count just committed to hire about 2 million additional nurses
I have ring-fenced Rowenna.
Still room for argument if they name it "U V W X Y Z Cambridge" (presumably?), then announce to the world as "prince/princess W of Cambridge" But more of a problem for bookies than for me.
Forthcoming Labour selections:
18th July: South Ribble
20th July: Battersea
20th July: Brighton Pavilion
20th July: Erewash
21st July: Croydon Central
21st July: Gravesham
25th July: Morecambe & Lunesdale
26th July: Burnley
26th July: Lancaster & Fleetwood
26th July: Norfolk South
26th July: Thanet South
27th July: Amber Valley
27th July: Blackpool North
27th July: Cambridgeshire SE
27th July: Chelmsford
27th July: Leeds NW
27th July: Rochford & Southend East
28th July: Forest of Dean
28th July: Norfolk North
28th July: Sittingbourne & Sheppey
3rd August: Broxtowe
10th August: Huntingdon
19th August: Edinburgh West
1st September: Dumfriesshire
1st September: Finchley & Golders Green
1st September: Rossendale & Darwen
2nd September: Dunbartonshire East
5th September: Chippenham
7th September: Argyll & Bute
7th September: Carmarthen West
7th September: St Ives
8th September: Elmet & Rothwell
8th September: Pudsey
15th September: Pendle
http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/2643743
The other side of this is that Labour probably shouldn't worry too much about certainty to vote dropping off a bit. They're doing some necessary things - lowering expectations, cleaning out positions that won't stand up in the general election, slapping around the unions to reassure centrists who are worried they have too much power - that will tend to demotivate the core. They should be able to get them to perk up as the election gets closer and the discussion focuses on the two or three symbolic things that they'll end up arguing with the Tories about in the campaign.
How long have you been living in Tokyo now, IYDMMA?