I agree that Labour have probably reached a floor. Humans are very reluctant to change their minds, and also surprisingly uninterested in politics. This story - amusing though it is - will barely register with 90% of voters, and will change almost no votes. That said, there must be a stage at which, hypothetically, a party collapses. Most remaining Labour votes are with Labour because they are viewed by those voters as the preferable option between Labour and Tory, rather than out of any love for the Labour Party. (The reverse is also true.) There must come a point at which Labour voters who are primarily with the party because they want a non-Tory option perceive that another party (presumably the Lib Dems) is better placed to fulfil the role of primary opposition to the Tories. I'm not saying we are anywhere near that point, but if we start to get close to it we could very quickly accelerate past it.
@PolhomeEditor: Shami Chakrabarti: "Labour is the party of both equality and natural justice."
..... for anti-Semites and conspiracy fruitloops.
The smaller Labour's remaining voter core becomes, the greater the proportion of it is Muslim - and not all of them are terribly enamoured with Jews. The total number of Jewish votes available is more modest, and most of them (if I remember the data from the post-GE analysis in 2015 correctly) have already swung behind the Tories.
I wonder if the NEC got their calculators out and computed the potential net voter movements before settling on this verdict?
Labour are now little more than a mixture of Respect, the SWP and STW.
Those MPs complaining tonight need to find their moral backbones and act rather than just speak.
But as Mr Meeks says they are either too frit, too full of misplaced loyalty or just lack moral courage. The shit which Livingstone has brought into the Labour living room will end up sticking to their shoes too. And that smell will not disappear no matter how many tweets they issue.
Yes, see the recent council by-election in Kersal, Salford. There are probably a small but interesting number of Labour seats vulnerable to Jewish discontent (Bury South and Leeds North East spring to mind - there may be some in London too).
Was the Easter egg squirrel a planned distraction from a climb down on getting a free trade deal within the A50 negotiations? Now they're floating the prospect of continuing free movement during the transition.
It was never realistic to get it in 2 years, Canada took much longer, at best it will be a few bilateral agreements with the EU in a few key sectors before Brexit
We have a deal. It's been negotiated and implemented over decades.
The question is which bits of it do they wish to tear up and which barriers do they wish to construct because we will not allow unfettered free movement?
The Canada deal provides some valuable insight into the areas they usually consider. Unfortunately for the EU, the things they usually choose are acts of self flagellation if they try to apply them in their relationship with us.
I agree that Labour have probably reached a floor. Humans are very reluctant to change their minds, and also surprisingly uninterested in politics. This story - amusing though it is - will barely register with 90% of voters, and will change almost no votes. That said, there must be a stage at which, hypothetically, a party collapses. Most remaining Labour votes are with Labour because they are viewed by those voters as the preferable option between Labour and Tory, rather than out of any love for the Labour Party. (The reverse is also true.) There must come a point at which Labour voters who are primarily with the party because they want a non-Tory option perceive that another party (presumably the Lib Dems) is better placed to fulfil the role of primary opposition to the Tories. I'm not saying we are anywhere near that point, but if we start to get close to it we could very quickly accelerate past it.
Well the collapse in Scotland, though foreshadowed perhaps, certainly happened all at once when the moment did come, and if it were to occur I imagine it would be similar, though with many predictions of it coming before it finally does.
But the LDs aren't going to overtake Lab, at best they might swiftly recover to their previous position, so 25% is probably too low following what might be a poor few years for May (economically and politically there are pitfalls for her).
Having been reading this site since the Brown years, I'm playing with Betfair for the first time.
Having listened to various people on here, I'm in a position where I make reasonable money on Macron, Fillon or Melanchon winning and only lose a few pounds if anything else happens. If I lay Macron I can get to the point where whatever happens I make a return of about 200% on the total money I have bet. But then if I don't lay I make more money if Macron wins.
So is it better to lay Macron now and lock in a good outcome, or to leave it till later when I might squeeze a bit more out - but if something goes wrong (Russians etc) then I might not get the chance again.
Its really the principles I'm curious about as I'm working this out as I go along and wondered if there were standard strategies / things to avoid.
Now back to reading about Corbyn being crap! (aren't all posts fundamentally about this...)
Having been reading this site since the Brown years, I'm playing with Betfair for the first time.
Having listened to various people on here, I'm in a position where I make reasonable money on Macron, Fillon or Melanchon winning and only lose a few pounds if anything else happens. If I lay Macron I can get to the point where whatever happens I make a return of about 200% on the total money I have bet. But then if I don't lay I make more money if Macron wins.
So is it better to lay Macron now and lock in a good outcome, or to leave it till later when I might squeeze a bit more out - but if something goes wrong (Russians etc) then I might not get the chance again.
Its really the principles I'm curious about as I'm working this out as I go along and wondered if there were standard strategies / things to avoid.
Now back to reading about Corbyn being crap! (aren't all posts fundamentally about this...)
Having been reading this site since the Brown years, I'm playing with Betfair for the first time.
Having listened to various people on here, I'm in a position where I make reasonable money on Macron, Fillon or Melanchon winning and only lose a few pounds if anything else happens. If I lay Macron I can get to the point where whatever happens I make a return of about 200% on the total money I have bet. But then if I don't lay I make more money if Macron wins.
So is it better to lay Macron now and lock in a good outcome, or to leave it till later when I might squeeze a bit more out - but if something goes wrong (Russians etc) then I might not get the chance again.
Its really the principles I'm curious about as I'm working this out as I go along and wondered if there were standard strategies / things to avoid.
Now back to reading about Corbyn being crap! (aren't all posts fundamentally about this...)
:-)
The principles really ought to be how much you think the candidates are over/underpriced compared to current market value.
Personally, I wouldn't lay Macron right now because I'm already green on him and I think he's nailed on to win. If anything, I think he's a little underpriced and if I didn't want to go red on the other candidates I'd be betting more on him. But the fact that his support is relatively soft in the polling compared to the other candidates worries me.
At the moment, I'm green on all except Fillon so, like you, only lose money in one specific outcome, but gain to a greater or lesser extent on all the rest. I'm quite happy with that as a bet, so am holding my position for now. Although I do think the smart, albeit slightly more risky move, is to bet more on Macron.
I agree that Labour have probably reached a floor. Humans are very reluctant to change their minds, and also surprisingly uninterested in politics. This story - amusing though it is - will barely register with 90% of voters, and will change almost no votes. That said, there must be a stage at which, hypothetically, a party collapses. Most remaining Labour votes are with Labour because they are viewed by those voters as the preferable option between Labour and Tory, rather than out of any love for the Labour Party. (The reverse is also true.) There must come a point at which Labour voters who are primarily with the party because they want a non-Tory option perceive that another party (presumably the Lib Dems) is better placed to fulfil the role of primary opposition to the Tories. I'm not saying we are anywhere near that point, but if we start to get close to it we could very quickly accelerate past it.
Well the collapse in Scotland, though foreshadowed perhaps, certainly happened all at once when the moment did come, and if it were to occur I imagine it would be similar, though with many predictions of it coming before it finally does.
But the LDs aren't going to overtake Lab, at best they might swiftly recover to their previous position, so 25% is probably too low following what might be a poor few years for May (economically and politically there are pitfalls for her).
Yes, exactly. In Scotland, the SNP very quickly became the natural party for those voters whose primary motivation was 'not the Tories' - this makes up a far higher proportion of Labour's voters than those who actively like the Labour party. (Again, I should stress, Labour aren't unique in this.
And I agree about the LDs - we're not really close to a crossover; despite signs of life in the media and in local council elections, the LDs are still beached a good 15% below Labour (alternatively, with less than half the proportion of voters supporting them) - suggesting that crossover is imminent is like suggesting Tory/Labour crossover was imminent in 1999. But it's not inconceivable that this will change; if Labour still have Corbyn or his ilk in charge when it does, the party will disappear into fringe pointlessness. The only thing keeping them from this is inertia.
Was the Easter egg squirrel a planned distraction from a climb down on getting a free trade deal within the A50 negotiations? Now they're floating the prospect of continuing free movement during the transition.
I agree that Labour have probably reached a floor. Humans are very reluctant to change their minds, and also surprisingly uninterested in politics. This story - amusing though it is - will barely register with 90% of voters, and will change almost no votes. That said, there must be a stage at which, hypothetically, a party collapses. Most remaining Labour votes are with Labour because they are viewed by those voters as the preferable option between Labour and Tory, rather than out of any love for the Labour Party. (The reverse is also true.) There must come a point at which Labour voters who are primarily with the party because they want a non-Tory option perceive that another party (presumably the Lib Dems) is better placed to fulfil the role of primary opposition to the Tories. I'm not saying we are anywhere near that point, but if we start to get close to it we could very quickly accelerate past it.
Labour doesn't have a God-given right to exist, but it does still have a whole string of advantages and remaining core support groups:
* First-past-the-post, with enormous majorities in many of Labour's remaining seats making them extremely difficult for any other party to capture, no matter how low their support drops elsewhere * Committed support from voters who really like (or at least willing seriously to entertain) a Far Left option, perhaps 10-15% of the electorate * The habit/cultural identity vote * Workers in the remaining heavily unionised sectors of the economy, principally NHS, teachers and other state employees, and the railways * People of working age who are wholly or largely long-term benefit dependent * Poorer BAME groups who either like the current leadership's positioning with regard to e.g. Middle East policy, or belong to that fraction of working class voters who wouldn't consider the Tories but recoil from following their white peers into defection to Ukip * A substantial section of opinion amongst the under 30s, who despair of the economic future under the current system and/or are very idealistic, and naive about the Far Left
If Labour splits then it might initiate a process of more rapid disintegration and renewal. If it doesn't, then it could continue as a 'too weak to win, too strong to die' blocking minority in our politics, preventing the emergence of a viable alternative Government - possibly for a very long time.
Was the Easter egg squirrel a planned distraction from a climb down on getting a free trade deal within the A50 negotiations? Now they're floating the prospect of continuing free movement during the transition.
There wasn't a labour problem with anti-semitism until anti-Corbyn Labour MPs raised this issue last year? It's all part of their plan to topple Jeremy.
@PolhomeEditor: Shami Chakrabarti: "Labour is the party of both equality and natural justice."
..... for anti-Semites and conspiracy fruitloops.
The smaller Labour's remaining voter core becomes, the greater the proportion of it is Muslim - and not all of them are terribly enamoured with Jews. The total number of Jewish votes available is more modest, and most of them (if I remember the data from the post-GE analysis in 2015 correctly) have already swung behind the Tories.
I wonder if the NEC got their calculators out and computed the potential net voter movements before settling on this verdict?
Labour are now little more than a mixture of Respect, the SWP and STW.
Those MPs complaining tonight need to find their moral backbones and act rather than just speak.
But as Mr Meeks says they are either too frit, too full of misplaced loyalty or just lack moral courage. The shit which Livingstone has brought into the Labour living room will end up sticking to their shoes too. And that smell will not disappear no matter how many tweets they issue.
Waiting it out until they get their Labour Party back, or the opportunity to wrest it back, is a strategy I can understand from Lab MPs.
@PolhomeEditor: Shami Chakrabarti: "Labour is the party of both equality and natural justice."
..... for anti-Semites and conspiracy fruitloops.
The smaller Labour's remaining voter core becomes, the greater the proportion of it is Muslim - and not all of them are terribly enamoured with Jews. The total number of Jewish votes available is more modest, and most of them (if I remember the data from the post-GE analysis in 2015 correctly) have already swung behind the Tories.
I wonder if the NEC got their calculators out and computed the potential net voter movements before settling on this verdict?
Labour are now little more than a mixture of Respect, the SWP and STW.
Those MPs complaining tonight need to find their moral backbones and act rather than just speak.
But as Mr Meeks says they are either too frit, too full of misplaced loyalty or just lack moral courage. The shit which Livingstone has brought into the Labour living room will end up sticking to their shoes too. And that smell will not disappear no matter how many tweets they issue.
Waiting it out until they get their Labour Party back, or the opportunity to wrest it back, is a strategy I can understand from Lab MPs.
Waiting it out surely only works if you are sure those attacking you will die off on their own. So presumably they are waiting for Corbyn to become so weak that they will gain an opportunity to take him down at least. Still disheartening that they clearly know Corbyn is more popular in the party than any of them.
Was the Easter egg squirrel a planned distraction from a climb down on getting a free trade deal within the A50 negotiations? Now they're floating the prospect of continuing free movement during the transition.
Having been reading this site since the Brown years, I'm playing with Betfair for the first time.
Having listened to various people on here, I'm in a position where I make reasonable money on Macron, Fillon or Melanchon winning and only lose a few pounds if anything else happens. If I lay Macron I can get to the point where whatever happens I make a return of about 200% on the total money I have bet. But then if I don't lay I make more money if Macron wins.
So is it better to lay Macron now and lock in a good outcome, or to leave it till later when I might squeeze a bit more out - but if something goes wrong (Russians etc) then I might not get the chance again.
Its really the principles I'm curious about as I'm working this out as I go along and wondered if there were standard strategies / things to avoid.
Now back to reading about Corbyn being crap! (aren't all posts fundamentally about this...)
:-)
I love questions like this.
Here's what i would do;
1. completely forget betfair for a minute.
2. Get a pen/paper/calculator or open excel - and assign a percentage chance to each of the candidates. This MUST add up to 100%
EG,
Macron 50% MLP 25% Fillon 5% Melenchon 5% Other 15%
(insert your own %ages, mine are pretty random)
3. Go to betfair and take the reciprocal of each candidates odds (eg, for MLP, 1/4.6) that will give you the implied chance.
4. Compare your own assessment and the betfair market assessment.
Where your assessment is higher than the market, back that candidate. Where it is lower, lay them. Where it is the same, green out. The bigger the difference between those two percentages, the more you should stake.
The thing to avoid is fearing a *loss* of your current potential profit, or anticipating a potential £££ gain. The market doesn't care about your current betting position, or your P/L.
The only thing that should matter is whether there is currently *value* in the market in your eyes.
---
This advice may seem really simple. Apologies if so.
@PolhomeEditor: Shami Chakrabarti: "Labour is the party of both equality and natural justice."
..... for anti-Semites and conspiracy fruitloops.
The smaller Labour's remaining voter core becomes, the greater the proportion of it is Muslim - and not all of them are terribly enamoured with Jews. The total number of Jewish votes available is more modest, and most of them (if I remember the data from the post-GE analysis in 2015 correctly) have already swung behind the Tories.
I wonder if the NEC got their calculators out and computed the potential net voter movements before settling on this verdict?
Labour are now little more than a mixture of Respect, the SWP and STW.
Those MPs complaining tonight need to find their moral backbones and act rather than just speak.
But as Mr Meeks says they are either too frit, too full of misplaced loyalty or just lack moral courage. The shit which Livingstone has brought into the Labour living room will end up sticking to their shoes too. And that smell will not disappear no matter how many tweets they issue.
Waiting it out until they get their Labour Party back, or the opportunity to wrest it back, is a strategy I can understand from Lab MPs.
Waiting it out surely only works if you are sure those attacking you will die off on their own. So presumably they are waiting for Corbyn to become so weak that they will gain an opportunity to take him down at least. Still disheartening that they clearly know Corbyn is more popular in the party than any of them.
Yes among members. And yes depressing. But the Labour Party brand is strong and they are presumably banking on its resurgence after this hiatus.
Was the Easter egg squirrel a planned distraction from a climb down on getting a free trade deal within the A50 negotiations? Now they're floating the prospect of continuing free movement during the transition.
It was never realistic to get it in 2 years, Canada took much longer, at best it will be a few bilateral agreements with the EU in a few key sectors before Brexit
We have a deal. It's been negotiated and implemented over decades.
The question is which bits of it do they wish to tear up and which barriers do they wish to construct because we will not allow unfettered free movement?
The Canada deal provides some valuable insight into the areas they usually consider. Unfortunately for the EU, the things they usually choose are acts of self flagellation if they try to apply them in their relationship with us.
They are in a bit of a pickle.
The EU would not allow us to stay in the single market and control free movement so at best it will be some variant of the Canada deal, once as you say they have decided what is politically expedient or not
However, a spokesman for Berlin city government said the mayor had decided it would do this only in response to attacks in "partner cities". St Petersburg, where at least 14 people were killed in an attack on the metro on Monday, is not one.
Critics argued that authorities lit up the Gate in rainbow colors last year after a gunman killed 49 people at a night club in Orlando, Florida, and also in the Israeli colors after an attack in Jerusalem. They are not partner cities.
What a crap excuse, not that that the gesture itself is actually worth anything.
The media might well be biased and all the rest of it, but it seems pretty reasonable to me to write up Ken's verbatim quote "Hitler supported Zionism" as "Hitler was a Zionist".
However, a spokesman for Berlin city government said the mayor had decided it would do this only in response to attacks in "partner cities". St Petersburg, where at least 14 people were killed in an attack on the metro on Monday, is not one.
Critics argued that authorities lit up the Gate in rainbow colors last year after a gunman killed 49 people at a night club in Orlando, Florida, and also in the Israeli colors after an attack in Jerusalem. They are not partner cities.
What a crap excuse, not that that the gesture itself is actually worth anything.
I agree that Labour have probably reached a floor. Humans are very reluctant to change their minds, and also surprisingly uninterested in politics. This story - amusing though it is - will barely register with 90% of voters, and will change almost no votes. That said, there must be a stage at which, hypothetically, a party collapses. Most remaining Labour votes are with Labour because they are viewed by those voters as the preferable option between Labour and Tory, rather than out of any love for the Labour Party. (The reverse is also true.) There must come a point at which Labour voters who are primarily with the party because they want a non-Tory option perceive that another party (presumably the Lib Dems) is better placed to fulfil the role of primary opposition to the Tories. I'm not saying we are anywhere near that point, but if we start to get close to it we could very quickly accelerate past it.
Can I suggest that it might have a big impact on their activists? The sort of people who deliver the leaflets, do the canvassing and fight the ground war. These are the people who are going to give up. Not in vast numbers, but when May comes they won't bother taking their annual holiday, they will go and visit relatives at the weekend and otherwise find themselves to be "a bit too busy" to help out like they did last time. Why would they bother going in to battle for a Party where the senior members seem to be at war with each other, and for a leader who by all accounts is pretty toxic on the doorstep. That's why things like this matter, and that's what will do the damage to the Labour vote.
The media might well be biased and all the rest of it, but it seems pretty reasonable to me to write up Ken's verbatim quote "Hitler supported Zionism" as "Hitler was a Zionist".
Does it? I can support something without being it.
However, a spokesman for Berlin city government said the mayor had decided it would do this only in response to attacks in "partner cities". St Petersburg, where at least 14 people were killed in an attack on the metro on Monday, is not one.
Critics argued that authorities lit up the Gate in rainbow colors last year after a gunman killed 49 people at a night club in Orlando, Florida, and also in the Israeli colors after an attack in Jerusalem. They are not partner cities.
What a crap excuse, not that that the gesture itself is actually worth anything.
1945 and all that?
They lit it up in the Union Jack after the Westminster attack!
Con+Ukip > Lab; with this being a single vote in a single constituency, and allowing both for defections (Ukip to Con and Lab to LD) and perhaps a higher rate of absenteeism amongst remaining Labour supporters than those of other parties, I begin to see why Prof Curtice thinks that Labour might not have this one in the bag yet - although they are clearly still the favourites.
The media might well be biased and all the rest of it, but it seems pretty reasonable to me to write up Ken's verbatim quote "Hitler supported Zionism" as "Hitler was a Zionist".
Does it? I can support something without being it.
It's not unreasonable to draw association in that situation though, with that kind of careful wording, as it can be a pretty fine distinction.
However, a spokesman for Berlin city government said the mayor had decided it would do this only in response to attacks in "partner cities". St Petersburg, where at least 14 people were killed in an attack on the metro on Monday, is not one.
Critics argued that authorities lit up the Gate in rainbow colors last year after a gunman killed 49 people at a night club in Orlando, Florida, and also in the Israeli colors after an attack in Jerusalem. They are not partner cities.
What a crap excuse, not that that the gesture itself is actually worth anything.
1945 and all that?
They lit it up in the Union Jack after the Westminster attack!
Um, yes! But the Russians were the ones wot raped and pillaged eastern Germany!
Having been reading this site since the Brown years, I'm playing with Betfair for the first time.
Having listened to various people on here, I'm in a position where I make reasonable money on Macron, Fillon or Melanchon winning and only lose a few pounds if anything else happens. If I lay Macron I can get to the point where whatever happens I make a return of about 200% on the total money I have bet. But then if I don't lay I make more money if Macron wins.
So is it better to lay Macron now and lock in a good outcome, or to leave it till later when I might squeeze a bit more out - but if something goes wrong (Russians etc) then I might not get the chance again.
Its really the principles I'm curious about as I'm working this out as I go along and wondered if there were standard strategies / things to avoid.
Now back to reading about Corbyn being crap! (aren't all posts fundamentally about this...)
Never - and I mean NEVER - apologise for a betting-related post. Despite its current configuration as www.brexiteerswanking.com, PB is actually a betting site.
As to your question, I have two quotes: * "Nobody ever went broke locking in a profit" - a fund manager whose name I forget * "Leave a piece for the others at the beginning, and a piece for the others at the end" - Charles/RCS1000, I forget which
You are not smart enough to call the top or the bottom of the market, because nobody is. But if you cash out while the market still has - by your judgement - a little way to go, you stand a better chance to make a profit.
Torturing yourself because you didn't make enough profit is a different pain to torturing yourself because you made a loss.
No - I am not going to let that stand. If someone wants to criticise what the Israeli government does or does not do, they can say so by using the phrase "Israeli government". There is absolutely no need to use the word Zionism. What is transparent is the tactic used by those who dislike Jews but don't want to say so obviously and latch onto the word Zionist as a way of criticising Jews and, if challenged, then claiming disingenuously that they only meant Israel. You can see this all the time if you read or listen to the outpourings of the sorts of people befriended by the likes of Ken or Corbyn or too many others in Labour.
Of course, one can criticise the policies of a particular government, including Israel. But it is curious how only in the case of Israel, a state established as a result of a vote by the United Nations, do so many of its critics think that policies they disagree with justify the state not existing at all. With no other country - no matter how vile its policies (let's take some examples: China, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Iran) - does criticism ever turn into a demand that the state be destroyed and its people obliterated or removed or killed. And yet that does happen with Israel and the Jews. There is something determined and obsessive about the insistence that Israel is uniquely evil amongst all the states of this world and that this country, uniquely, does not deserve to exist. Why? A lack of a sense of proportion or, possibly, something more sinister. Too many of Ken and Corbyn's friends and allies give the impression and worse that the only thing wrong with the Holocaust is that it did not kill enough Jews. Too many of them recycle well-worn and ancient anti-semitic tropes. We should call out this vileness for what it is.
The attitude of Hitler and the Nazi party to the Jews was clear from the start. It was one of unremitting hatred and contempt leading to vileness, persecution and genocidal murder. This was not accidental or an afterthought. It was inherent in Nazi ideology. Ken is no different from the David Irvings of this world. No decent party would give David Irving or people like him house room. So why is Ken indulged? The answer is wholly unflattering to Labour. It has lost its moral compass.
No-one should be afraid to criticise the Israeli government. But I think that we need to realise that a lot of people who dislike or hate Jews, a lot of people who are anti-Semites use phrases such as Zionism and Zionist because it is an easy way of allowing them to express their hatred of Jews under a disguised and utterly disingenuous claim to be criticising only the Israeli government.
Its really the principles I'm curious about as I'm working this out as I go along and wondered if there were standard strategies / things to avoid.
You are thinking about this the right way, and doing a lot that's right. One of the most difficult problems, as you imply, is figuring out whether to take profits or stick with your position
In principle, this isn't a hard decision. At any time, if you back an eventuality where the odds are longer than the 'true' probability, you are improving your net likely profit. Conversely, if the odds have shortened more than the probability of that eventuality indicate, you should lay. Any existing position is, strictly speaking, irrelevant to the decision you have to take now.
However, it's not quite so simple. The biggest issue is the obvious one: you don't actually know the 'true' probability (if indeed there is any such thing - a philosophical question for another day). The second, related, issue is that you need to assess your tolerance of risk. You may think, for example that Marine Le Pen has less than the 22% chance of winning which the Betfair odds currently imply, and that maybe it should be 15%. If so, you might think that's an obvious lay. So do you risk £100 on that proposition? £500? £10,000? How confident are you - how confident can you be? - that your assessment of the probabilities is right and the market's is wrong? And even if you are exactly right and the market is wrong, how much can you afford to risk on the 15% probability that the bet goes the other way?
All of this is, at the end of the day, a judgement call. If you think the market is wrong, you should back your judgement to the extent that you are comfortable with the risks you are taking. If you are not sure, then it makes more sense to lay off existing profits while your are ahead.
I agree that Labour have probably reached a floor. Humans are very reluctant to change their minds, and also surprisingly uninterested in politics. This story - amusing though it is - will barely register with 90% of voters, and will change almost no votes. That said, there must be a stage at which, hypothetically, a party collapses. Most remaining Labour votes are with Labour because they are viewed by those voters as the preferable option between Labour and Tory, rather than out of any love for the Labour Party. (The reverse is also true.) There must come a point at which Labour voters who are primarily with the party because they want a non-Tory option perceive that another party (presumably the Lib Dems) is better placed to fulfil the role of primary opposition to the Tories. I'm not saying we are anywhere near that point, but if we start to get close to it we could very quickly accelerate past it.
Can I suggest that it might have a big impact on their activists? The sort of people who deliver the leaflets, do the canvassing and fight the ground war. These are the people who are going to give up. Not in vast numbers, but when May comes they won't bother taking their annual holiday, they will go and visit relatives at the weekend and otherwise find themselves to be "a bit too busy" to help out like they did last time. Why would they bother going in to battle for a Party where the senior members seem to be at war with each other, and for a leader who by all accounts is pretty toxic on the doorstep. That's why things like this matter, and that's what will do the damage to the Labour vote.
I do wonder if it would be reasonable for me to inquire of any canvassers I might or might not get (betting on not) what their views of their respective national leaders is. As we all know local government can hide some weirdos shunned by mainstream parties but also islands of sensible governance away from the spotlight, and the national situation may not be entirely relevant to my own county, but as a reflection of what sort of person they are if they support May or Corbyn etc, I wonder if it is worth asking.
It has been commonplace to call pro-Zionist non-Jewish holders of influential positions "Zionists". For example, the Jewish Chronicle last year called Harold Wilson a Zionist. Anyone going to complain?
No - I am not going to let that stand. If someone wants to criticise what the Israeli government does or does not do, they can say so by using the phrase "Israeli government". . Indeed so, and there's much to criticise about it. It's curious that many assume if one criticises this sort of thing, it must be a cover to disallow criticism of Israeli policies, even when the critic is happy to criticise those things too.
Why, let us see the poison that infects the Labour party.
You support the disabled killing party don't you?
I really don't know why the Electoral Commission allowed "The Disabled Killing Party" through as a registered party name, I mean it seems like an obvious red flag to me.
No - I am not going to let that stand. If someone wants to criticise what the Israeli government does or does not do, they can say so by using the phrase "Israeli government". There is absolutely no need to use the word Zionism. What is transparent is the tactic used by those who dislike Jews but don't want to say so obviously and latch onto the word Zionist as a way of criticising Jews and, if challenged, then claiming disingenuously that they only meant Israel. You can see this all the time if you read or listen to the outpourings of the sorts of people befriended by the likes of Ken or Corbyn or too many others in Labour.
Of course, one can criticise the policies of a particular government, including Israel. But it is curious how only in the case of Israel, a state established as a result of a vote by the United Nations, do so many of its critics think that policies they disagree with justify the state not existing at all. With no other country - no matter how vile its policies (let's take some examplSNIP ly, something more sinister. Too many of Ken and Corbyn's friends and allies give the impression and worse that the only thing wrong with the Holocaust is that it did not kill enough Jews. Too many of them recycle well-worn and ancient anti-semitic tropes. We should call out this vileness for what it is.
The attitude of Hitler and the Nazi party to the Jews was clear from the start. It was one of unremitting hatred and contempt leading to vileness, persecution and genocidal murder. This was not accidental or an afterthought. It was inherent in Nazi ideology. Ken is no different from the David Irvings of this world. No decent party would give David Irving or people like him house room. So why is Ken indulged? The answer is wholly unflattering to Labour. It has lost its moral compass.
No-one should be afraid to criticise the Israeli government. But I think that we need to realise that a lot of people who dislike or hate Jews, a lot of people who are anti-Semites use phrases such as Zionism and Zionist because it is an easy way of allowing them to express their hatred of Jews under a disguised and utterly disingenuous claim to be criticising only the Israeli government.
I agree that Labour have probably reached a floor. Humans are very reluctant to change their minds, and also surprisingly uninterested in politics. This story - amusing though it is - will barely register with 90% of voters, and will change almost no votes. That said, there must be a stage at which, hypothetically, a party collapses. Most remaining Labour votes are with Labour because they are viewed by those voters as the preferable option between Labour and Tory, rather than out of any love for the Labour Party. (The reverse is also true.) There must come a point at which Labour voters who are primarily with the party because they want a non-Tory option perceive that another party (presumably the Lib Dems) is better placed to fulfil the role of primary opposition to the Tories. I'm not saying we are anywhere near that point, but if we start to get close to it we could very quickly accelerate past it.
Can I suggest that it might have a big impact on their activists? The sort of people who deliver the leaflets, do the canvassing and fight the ground war. These are the people who are going to give up. Not in vast numbers, but when May comes they won't bother taking their annual holiday, they will go and visit relatives at the weekend and otherwise find themselves to be "a bit too busy" to help out like they did last time. Why would they bother going in to battle for a Party where the senior members seem to be at war with each other, and for a leader who by all accounts is pretty toxic on the doorstep. That's why things like this matter, and that's what will do the damage to the Labour vote.
I do wonder if it would be reasonable for me to inquire of any canvassers I might or might not get (betting on not) what their views of their respective national leaders is. As we all know local government can hide some weirdos shunned by mainstream parties but also islands of sensible governance away from the spotlight, and the national situation may not be entirely relevant to my own county, but as a reflection of what sort of person they are if they support May or Corbyn etc, I wonder if it is worth asking.
It might be, but the trouble is that activists are usually astute enough to know that they shouldn't criticise their "elders and betters" outside of a strictly controlled party environment, and certainly not say anything untoward to a non-Member. They will all profess unswerving loyalty, or else quietly remove themselves from the fight. The only other possibility is that they might say, "Well, it's not about our Leader in Westminster, it's all about getting Councillor Spart re-elected in Gas Works Ward so that we can get the bins emptied."
But please try - I would be interested to hear what they might have to say.
However, a spokesman for Berlin city government said the mayor had decided it would do this only in response to attacks in "partner cities". St Petersburg, where at least 14 people were killed in an attack on the metro on Monday, is not one.
Critics argued that authorities lit up the Gate in rainbow colors last year after a gunman killed 49 people at a night club in Orlando, Florida, and also in the Israeli colors after an attack in Jerusalem. They are not partner cities.
What a crap excuse, not that that the gesture itself is actually worth anything.
1945 and all that?
They lit it up in the Union Jack after the Westminster attack!
Um, yes! But the Russians were the ones wot raped and pillaged eastern Germany!
And the Germans were the ones that invaded Russia with the explicit aim of occupying Western Russia, sending the crops back to the Reich, and letting the indigenes starve to death to save bullets. And the British and Americans were the ones who launched thousand bomber raids that burned and asphyxiated entire city populations to death. And the Romanians, and the Hungarians, and the Japanese, and the Koreans, and the, and the, and the,...
Small gestures can count for a lot. Switch the bloody lights on
I agree that Labour have probably reached a floor. Humans are very reluctant to change their minds, and also surprisingly uninterested in politics. This story - amusing though it is - will barely register with 90% of voters, and will change almost no votes. That said, there must be a stage at which, hypothetically, a party collapses. Most remaining Labour votes are with Labour because they are viewed by those voters as the preferable option between Labour and Tory, rather than out of any love for the Labour Party. (The reverse is also true.) There must come a point at which Labour voters who are primarily with the party because they want a non-Tory option perceive that another party (presumably the Lib Dems) is better placed to fulfil the role of primary opposition to the Tories. I'm not saying we are anywhere near that point, but if we start to get close to it we could very quickly accelerate past it.
Can I suggest that it might have a ur vote.
I do wonder if it would be reasonable for me to inquire of any canvassers I might or might not get (betting on not) what their views of their respective national leaders is. As we all know local government can hide some weirdos shunned by mainstream parties but also islands of sensible governance away from the spotlight, and the national situation may not be entirely relevant to my own county, but as a reflection of what sort of person they are if they support May or Corbyn etc, I wonder if it is worth asking.
It might be, but the trouble is that activists are usually astute enough to know that they shouldn't criticise their "elders and betters" outside of a strictly controlled party environment, and certainly not say anything untoward to a non-Member. They will all profess unswerving loyalty, or else quietly remove themselves from the fight. The only other possibility is that they might say, "Well, it's not about our Leader in Westminster, it's all about getting Councillor Spart re-elected in Gas Works Ward so that we can get the bins emptied."
But please try - I would be interested to hear what they might have to say.
I am expecting either effusive support - I believe the local party was very excited by Corbyn's election, and had a modest swelling of its ranks - or a deflection such as you suggest. Either will tell me much. I know some Lab, LD and Con local politicos, and many to be respected on all sides for their local work regardless of national politics, but as a base piece of info to consider, it feels necessary.
No - I am not going to let that stand. If someone wants to criticise what the Israeli government does or does not do, they can say so by using the phrase "Israeli government". There is absolutely no need to use the word Zionism. What is transparent is the tactic used by those who dislike Jews but don't want to say so obviously and latch onto the word Zionist as a way of criticising Jews and, if challenged, then claiming disingenuously that they only meant Israel. You can see this all the time if you read or listen to the outpourings of the sorts of people befriended by the likes of Ken or Corbyn or too many others in Labour.
Too many of Ken and Corbyn's friends and allies give the impression and worse that the only thing wrong with the Holocaust is that it did not kill enough Jews. Too many of them recycle well-worn and ancient anti-semitic tropes. We should call out this vileness for what it is.
No-one should be afraid to criticise the Israeli government. But I think that we need to realise that a lot of people who dislike or hate Jews, a lot of people who are anti-Semites use phrases such as Zionism and Zionist because it is an easy way of allowing them to express their hatred of Jews under a disguised and utterly disingenuous claim to be criticising only the Israeli government.
Try to relate what you said to the Livingstone quotes:
He doesn't actually criticise Zionists, he criticises the Israeli government policies. And he repeatedly makes the point about conflating antisemitism with criticising the Israeli government policies - which is what you are doing.
"Too many of Ken and Corbyn's friends and allies give the impression and worse that the only thing wrong with the Holocaust is that it did not kill enough Jews."
Come on Cyclefree. You are better than that I know.
However, a spokesman for Berlin city government said the mayor had decided it would do this only in response to attacks in "partner cities". St Petersburg, where at least 14 people were killed in an attack on the metro on Monday, is not one.
Critics argued that authorities lit up the Gate in rainbow colors last year after a gunman killed 49 people at a night club in Orlando, Florida, and also in the Israeli colors after an attack in Jerusalem. They are not partner cities.
What a crap excuse, not that that the gesture itself is actually worth anything.
1945 and all that?
They lit it up in the Union Jack after the Westminster attack!
Um, yes! But the Russians were the ones wot raped and pillaged eastern Germany!
And the Germans were the ones that invaded Russia with the explicit aim of occupying Western Russia, sending the crops back to the Reich, and letting the indigenes starve to death to save bullets. And the British and Americans were the ones who launched thousand bomber raids that burned and asphyxiated entire city populations to death. And the Romanians, and the Hungarians, and the Japanese, and the Koreans, and the, and the, and the,...
Small gestures can count for a lot. Switch the bloody lights on
Send PA474 over a 50 feet. A couple of lights pointing down to illuminate the gate as she flies over....
The attitude of Hitler and the Nazi party to the Jews was clear from the start. It was one of unremitting hatred and contempt leading to vileness, persecution and genocidal murder. This was not accidental or an afterthought. It was inherent in Nazi ideology. Ken is no different from the David Irvings of this world. No decent party would give David Irving or people like him house room. So why is Ken indulged? The answer is wholly unflattering to Labour. It has lost its moral compass.
No-one should be afraid to criticise the Israeli government. But I think that we need to realise that a lot of people who dislike or hate Jews, a lot of people who are anti-Semites use phrases such as Zionism and Zionist because it is an easy way of allowing them to express their hatred of Jews under a disguised and utterly disingenuous claim to be criticising only the Israeli government.
Exhibit (a) - Hamas. Oh, and look who's been talking about them...
@rose_mary_jane: The year is 2050. Ken Livingstone funeral is held up by Labour talks over whether to expel him. From the coffin, a muffled cry: "Hitler..."
A statement released by [Ken's] office said he would be launching a campaign to overturn the suspension, adding that the hearing "was not in accord with natural justice" because it was held in private.
That's it, Ken? I'm sure that would have been a rollercoaster to watch, but I'd have thought in most instances it'd take more than merely being held in private to be a breach of natural justice, in the sense of requiring the right to be heard, and be heard fairly without bias.
The attitude of Hitler and the Nazi party to the Jews was clear from the start. It was one of unremitting hatred and contempt leading to vileness, persecution and genocidal murder. This was not accidental or an afterthought. It was inherent in Nazi ideology. Ken is no different from the David Irvings of this world. No decent party would give David Irving or people like him house room. So why is Ken indulged? The answer is wholly unflattering to Labour. It has lost its moral compass.
No-one should be afraid to criticise the Israeli government. But I think that we need to realise that a lot of people who dislike or hate Jews, a lot of people who are anti-Semites use phrases such as Zionism and Zionist because it is an easy way of allowing them to express their hatred of Jews under a disguised and utterly disingenuous claim to be criticising only the Israeli government.
Exhibit (a) - Hamas. Oh, and look who's been talking about them...
I made an error in 2015. All the attack lines on Ed Miliband I assumed were baked into the polling/scores already.
Remind yourself come 2020 - the polling effect for attack lines on Corbyn are NOT baked in. And boy are there alot more of them than there ever were for that nice Jewish boy Edward Samuel Miliband.
I am expecting either effusive support - I believe the local party was very excited by Corbyn's election, and had a modest swelling of its ranks - or a deflection such as you suggest. Either will tell me much. I know some Lab, LD and Con local politicos, and many to be respected on all sides for their local work regardless of national politics, but as a base piece of info to consider, it feels necessary.
Unfortunately for the Labour Party, I don't think it is the Corbynistas who are going to deliver the leaflets or do the canvassing or sit in the rain outside the Polling Booths. So the Executive Committee may have been enthusiastic back then, but where have all the trustworthy types who can be relied on to go out and represent the Party gone now?
Never ever used the Z word myself but have to admit far too many Lefties seem obsessed. Just don't get it TBH
Imagine apartheid South Africa causing five million people to live as refugees, sending in their tanks and airforce against the bantustans, revelling in having had hundreds of parliamentarians in big parties of "left" and "right" in leading western countries sign up as their "friends", attacking peace flotillas, and so on, while shouting as loud as they can that their critics are like Hitler and ethnically prejudiced against them. Then imagine talkers talking about the difference between being apartheidist and pro-apartheidist and the importance of what happened in the Boer Wars to what position one should take in respect of apartheid now.
Labour MPs: I know. It's all wrong. By rights we shouldn't even be here. But we are. It's like in the great campaigns, comrade. The ones that really mattered. Full of darkness and danger they were, and Ken livingstone too. And sometimes you didn't want to know the result of the election or disciplinary hearing. Because how could the result be happy.
How could the party go back to the way it was when so much bad had happened? But in the end, it's only a passing thing, this shadow. Even darkness must pass. A new day will come. And when the sun shines it will shine out the clearer with a stonking great labour majority..
Those were the campaigns that stayed with you. That meant something. Even if you were too smothered by a tory majority to understand why. But I think, comrade, I do understand. I know now. The party in those campaigns had lots of chances of turning back and defecting only they didn't. They kept going. Because they were holding on to something.
Labour waverers: What are we holding on to?
Labour MPs: That there's some good in this party, comrade. And it's worth fighting for.
However, a spokesman for Berlin city government said the mayor had decided it would do this only in response to attacks in "partner cities". St Petersburg, where at least 14 people were killed in an attack on the metro on Monday, is not one.
Critics argued that authorities lit up the Gate in rainbow colors last year after a gunman killed 49 people at a night club in Orlando, Florida, and also in the Israeli colors after an attack in Jerusalem. They are not partner cities.
What a crap excuse, not that that the gesture itself is actually worth anything.
1945 and all that?
They lit it up in the Union Jack after the Westminster attack!
Um, yes! But the Russians were the ones wot raped and pillaged eastern Germany!
And the Germans were the ones that invaded Russia with the explicit aim of occupying Western Russia, sending the crops back to the Reich, and letting the indigenes starve to death to save bullets. And the British and Americans were the ones who launched thousand bomber raids that burned and asphyxiated entire city populations to death. And the Romanians, and the Hungarians, and the Japanese, and the Koreans, and the, and the, and the,...
Small gestures can count for a lot. Switch the bloody lights on
I wasn't defending the Germans, just trying to think of a reason why they might not want to turn them on.
Comments
That said, there must be a stage at which, hypothetically, a party collapses. Most remaining Labour votes are with Labour because they are viewed by those voters as the preferable option between Labour and Tory, rather than out of any love for the Labour Party. (The reverse is also true.) There must come a point at which Labour voters who are primarily with the party because they want a non-Tory option perceive that another party (presumably the Lib Dems) is better placed to fulfil the role of primary opposition to the Tories. I'm not saying we are anywhere near that point, but if we start to get close to it we could very quickly accelerate past it.
Those MPs complaining tonight need to find their moral backbones and act rather than just speak.
But as Mr Meeks says they are either too frit, too full of misplaced loyalty or just lack moral courage. The shit which Livingstone has brought into the Labour living room will end up sticking to their shoes too. And that smell will not disappear no matter how many tweets they issue.
The question is which bits of it do they wish to tear up and which barriers do they wish to construct because we will not allow unfettered free movement?
The Canada deal provides some valuable insight into the areas they usually consider. Unfortunately for the EU, the things they usually choose are acts of self flagellation if they try to apply them in their relationship with us.
They are in a bit of a pickle.
But the LDs aren't going to overtake Lab, at best they might swiftly recover to their previous position, so 25% is probably too low following what might be a poor few years for May (economically and politically there are pitfalls for her).
Request for betting advice / strategy.
Having been reading this site since the Brown years, I'm playing with Betfair for the first time.
Having listened to various people on here, I'm in a position where I make reasonable money on Macron, Fillon or Melanchon winning and only lose a few pounds if anything else happens. If I lay Macron I can get to the point where whatever happens I make a return of about 200% on the total money I have bet. But then if I don't lay I make more money if Macron wins.
So is it better to lay Macron now and lock in a good outcome, or to leave it till later when I might squeeze a bit more out - but if something goes wrong (Russians etc) then I might not get the chance again.
Its really the principles I'm curious about as I'm working this out as I go along and wondered if there were standard strategies / things to avoid.
Now back to reading about Corbyn being crap! (aren't all posts fundamentally about this...)
:-)
and repeats his 'supporting Zionism claim before he went mad...'
If Sunderland Central is struggling to declare 1st because it's gone to a recount, what happens to Lab most seats price
6..
Personally, I wouldn't lay Macron right now because I'm already green on him and I think he's nailed on to win. If anything, I think he's a little underpriced and if I didn't want to go red on the other candidates I'd be betting more on him. But the fact that his support is relatively soft in the polling compared to the other candidates worries me.
At the moment, I'm green on all except Fillon so, like you, only lose money in one specific outcome, but gain to a greater or lesser extent on all the rest. I'm quite happy with that as a bet, so am holding my position for now. Although I do think the smart, albeit slightly more risky move, is to bet more on Macron.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCUfkMkVbwo
https://twitter.com/Psephography/status/842812797872496640
Could Corbyn survive that ?
9.
https://twitter.com/wallaceme/status/849375999557070849
https://twitter.com/wallaceme/status/849375726553968640
And I agree about the LDs - we're not really close to a crossover; despite signs of life in the media and in local council elections, the LDs are still beached a good 15% below Labour (alternatively, with less than half the proportion of voters supporting them) - suggesting that crossover is imminent is like suggesting Tory/Labour crossover was imminent in 1999. But it's not inconceivable that this will change; if Labour still have Corbyn or his ilk in charge when it does, the party will disappear into fringe pointlessness. The only thing keeping them from this is inertia.
ie you win your bet and no right minded person could say we will have left. Hence I can't see there being a transition period.
* First-past-the-post, with enormous majorities in many of Labour's remaining seats making them extremely difficult for any other party to capture, no matter how low their support drops elsewhere
* Committed support from voters who really like (or at least willing seriously to entertain) a Far Left option, perhaps 10-15% of the electorate
* The habit/cultural identity vote
* Workers in the remaining heavily unionised sectors of the economy, principally NHS, teachers and other state employees, and the railways
* People of working age who are wholly or largely long-term benefit dependent
* Poorer BAME groups who either like the current leadership's positioning with regard to e.g. Middle East policy, or belong to that fraction of working class voters who wouldn't consider the Tories but recoil from following their white peers into defection to Ukip
* A substantial section of opinion amongst the under 30s, who despair of the economic future under the current system and/or are very idealistic, and naive about the Far Left
If Labour splits then it might initiate a process of more rapid disintegration and renewal. If it doesn't, then it could continue as a 'too weak to win, too strong to die' blocking minority in our politics, preventing the emergence of a viable alternative Government - possibly for a very long time.
If SPIN were doing seat spreads on the next general election, what do you think the mid point would be for Con, Lab, Lib Dem, and SNP?
(Assuming a 650 seat parliament)
Why didn't the Labour Party make Ken Livingstone's suspension conditional on him not doing any interviews tonight? #AmateurHour"
https://twitter.com/IainDale/status/849378730644582403
"I don't even criticise Hitler's deal to transport Jews to Palestine"
Here's what i would do;
1. completely forget betfair for a minute.
2. Get a pen/paper/calculator or open excel - and assign a percentage chance to each of the candidates. This MUST add up to 100%
EG,
Macron 50%
MLP 25%
Fillon 5%
Melenchon 5%
Other 15%
(insert your own %ages, mine are pretty random)
3. Go to betfair and take the reciprocal of each candidates odds (eg, for MLP, 1/4.6) that will give you the implied chance.
4. Compare your own assessment and the betfair market assessment.
Where your assessment is higher than the market, back that candidate. Where it is lower, lay them. Where it is the same, green out. The bigger the difference between those two percentages, the more you should stake.
The thing to avoid is fearing a *loss* of your current potential profit, or anticipating a potential £££ gain. The market doesn't care about your current betting position, or your P/L.
The only thing that should matter is whether there is currently *value* in the market in your eyes.
---
This advice may seem really simple. Apologies if so.
https://twitter.com/reutersworld/status/849338810311868416
Critics argued that authorities lit up the Gate in rainbow colors last year after a gunman killed 49 people at a night club in Orlando, Florida, and also in the Israeli colors after an attack in Jerusalem. They are not partner cities.
What a crap excuse, not that that the gesture itself is actually worth anything.
General 2: ...The Labour Party has suspended you for one year!
Ken: That was an order! The expulsion attack was an order!
As to your question, I have two quotes:
* "Nobody ever went broke locking in a profit" - a fund manager whose name I forget
* "Leave a piece for the others at the beginning, and a piece for the others at the end" - Charles/RCS1000, I forget which
You are not smart enough to call the top or the bottom of the market, because nobody is. But if you cash out while the market still has - by your judgement - a little way to go, you stand a better chance to make a profit.
Torturing yourself because you didn't make enough profit is a different pain to torturing yourself because you made a loss.
Of course, one can criticise the policies of a particular government, including Israel. But it is curious how only in the case of Israel, a state established as a result of a vote by the United Nations, do so many of its critics think that policies they disagree with justify the state not existing at all. With no other country - no matter how vile its policies (let's take some examples: China, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Iran) - does criticism ever turn into a demand that the state be destroyed and its people obliterated or removed or killed. And yet that does happen with Israel and the Jews. There is something determined and obsessive about the insistence that Israel is uniquely evil amongst all the states of this world and that this country, uniquely, does not deserve to exist. Why? A lack of a sense of proportion or, possibly, something more sinister. Too many of Ken and Corbyn's friends and allies give the impression and worse that the only thing wrong with the Holocaust is that it did not kill enough Jews. Too many of them recycle well-worn and ancient anti-semitic tropes. We should call out this vileness for what it is.
The attitude of Hitler and the Nazi party to the Jews was clear from the start. It was one of unremitting hatred and contempt leading to vileness, persecution and genocidal murder. This was not accidental or an afterthought. It was inherent in Nazi ideology. Ken is no different from the David Irvings of this world. No decent party would give David Irving or people like him house room. So why is Ken indulged? The answer is wholly unflattering to Labour. It has lost its moral compass.
No-one should be afraid to criticise the Israeli government. But I think that we need to realise that a lot of people who dislike or hate Jews, a lot of people who are anti-Semites use phrases such as Zionism and Zionist because it is an easy way of allowing them to express their hatred of Jews under a disguised and utterly disingenuous claim to be criticising only the Israeli government.
In principle, this isn't a hard decision. At any time, if you back an eventuality where the odds are longer than the 'true' probability, you are improving your net likely profit. Conversely, if the odds have shortened more than the probability of that eventuality indicate, you should lay. Any existing position is, strictly speaking, irrelevant to the decision you have to take now.
However, it's not quite so simple. The biggest issue is the obvious one: you don't actually know the 'true' probability (if indeed there is any such thing - a philosophical question for another day). The second, related, issue is that you need to assess your tolerance of risk. You may think, for example that Marine Le Pen has less than the 22% chance of winning which the Betfair odds currently imply, and that maybe it should be 15%. If so, you might think that's an obvious lay. So do you risk £100 on that proposition? £500? £10,000? How confident are you - how confident can you be? - that your assessment of the probabilities is right and the market's is wrong? And even if you are exactly right and the market is wrong, how much can you afford to risk on the 15% probability that the bet goes the other way?
All of this is, at the end of the day, a judgement call. If you think the market is wrong, you should back your judgement to the extent that you are comfortable with the risks you are taking. If you are not sure, then it makes more sense to lay off existing profits while your are ahead.
Good luck!
Indeed so, and there's much to criticise about it. It's curious that many assume if one criticises this sort of thing, it must be a cover to disallow criticism of Israeli policies, even when the critic is happy to criticise those things too.
I don't support any party, I have voted for several parties and even sat out several elections.
You can be sure though that I am more likely to vote monster loony party than Labour though.
If you want to sup with that filth that's your call.
https://twitter.com/cnnpolitics/status/849382684686254086
But please try - I would be interested to hear what they might have to say.
Small gestures can count for a lot. Switch the bloody lights on
Never ever used the Z word myself but have to admit far too many Lefties seem obsessed. Just don't get it TBH
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-anti-semitism-row-full-transcript-of-ken-livingstones-interviews-a7005311.html
He doesn't actually criticise Zionists, he criticises the Israeli government policies. And he repeatedly makes the point about conflating antisemitism with criticising the Israeli government policies - which is what you are doing.
"Too many of Ken and Corbyn's friends and allies give the impression and worse that the only thing wrong with the Holocaust is that it did not kill enough Jews."
Come on Cyclefree. You are better than that I know.
Quite the opposite in fact.
https://twitter.com/SnoozeInBrief/status/849366233514422276
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/feb/17/eugenics-skeleton-rattles-loudest-closet-left
That's it, Ken? I'm sure that would have been a rollercoaster to watch, but I'd have thought in most instances it'd take more than merely being held in private to be a breach of natural justice, in the sense of requiring the right to be heard, and be heard fairly without bias.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39498275
Remind yourself come 2020 - the polling effect for attack lines on Corbyn are NOT baked in. And boy are there alot more of them than there ever were for that nice Jewish boy Edward Samuel Miliband.
I am expecting either effusive support - I believe the local party was very excited by Corbyn's election, and had a modest swelling of its ranks - or a deflection such as you suggest. Either will tell me much. I know some Lab, LD and Con local politicos, and many to be respected on all sides for their local work regardless of national politics, but as a base piece of info to consider, it feels necessary.
Unfortunately for the Labour Party, I don't think it is the Corbynistas who are going to deliver the leaflets or do the canvassing or sit in the rain outside the Polling Booths. So the Executive Committee may have been enthusiastic back then, but where have all the trustworthy types who can be relied on to go out and represent the Party gone now?
Lab 180-190
LD 16-20
SNP 48-52
Or thereabouts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6C8SX0mWP0
Labour waverers: I can't do this, guys
Labour MPs: I know. It's all wrong. By rights we shouldn't even be here. But we are. It's like in the great campaigns, comrade. The ones that really mattered. Full of darkness and danger they were, and Ken livingstone too. And sometimes you didn't want to know the result of the election or disciplinary hearing. Because how could the result be happy.
How could the party go back to the way it was when so much bad had happened? But in the end, it's only a passing thing, this shadow. Even darkness must pass. A new day will come. And when the sun shines it will shine out the clearer with a stonking great labour majority..
Those were the campaigns that stayed with you. That meant something. Even if you were too smothered by a tory majority to understand why. But I think, comrade, I do understand. I know now. The party in those campaigns had lots of chances of turning back and defecting only they didn't. They kept going. Because they were holding on to something.
Labour waverers: What are we holding on to?
Labour MPs: That there's some good in this party, comrade. And it's worth fighting for.