If the Tories get over 50%, I think they'll be alot nearer 500 seats than 400, and quite possibly over. 50% is staggeringly hard when you factor in Northern Ireland and to a lesser degree, Scotland.
But surely N.I. doesn't count in the % share of the vote in the various betting markets?
I know of a highly respected PB.com bettor, not currently located within these shores, so I can talk about him freely, who has bet on Labour winning fewer than 100 seats which would mean the result looking something like this perhaps:
The Lib/Lab and Lab/Lib splits in this welsh poll are spanking news for Corbyn in Cardiff Central.
I live there. "Feels" Lab hold - just. Libs did ok in the locals, but Welsh Labour pushing Carwyn here. It's very studenty (do they vote here?)/university types, in the inner part, less so further out, voted over 70% Remain I believe. As near as Wales gets to Guardianista in some parts. Jo Stevens (sitting MP) sat on Corbyn's front bench though, so she'll have to confront that on some doorsteps (including mine if she turns up). Must be quite a few Tories voting for Libs tactically. Close (possibly very close indeed) but my finger tips tell me a narrow squeaker of a hold similar to the Assembly election last year (where the same Lib stood). One other thing I guess for the Libs is all resources for miles around will be here, they nothing else this side of the bridge or within an hour to go for.
Haven't read very far into it yet, but there seems to be a serious misunderstanding right here: "Why does the British elite, and not the French and German ones, believe they do not need the EU?"
In what way? Are you saying that the British elite does believe we need the EU?
A lot of them did during the referendum. Remember the economic apocalypse that was due?
Plaid Cymru once again look set to be bystanders at this election. They might get lucky and take Ynys Mon, though that looks far from a done deal on these figures - Labour are only marginally down on their 2015 numbers and Plaid Cymru are also going backwards. They might also note that Carmarthen East & Dinefwr voted Leave and the Conservatives might not be a million miles away from taking this seat off them on these numbers.
I can't work out who that favours, I assume it'll mean UkIP might put in an effort there though he did lose Tatton as a Tory ! Probably helps Plaid unfortunately.
What I'd like to say about Neil Hamilton is mostly unprintable.
He won't miss an opportunity to screw over his former party.
It's very hard to find something to like about Neil Hamilton.
Plaid Cymru once again look set to be bystanders at this election. They might get lucky and take Ynys Mon, though that looks far from a done deal on these figures - Labour are only marginally down on their 2015 numbers and Plaid Cymru are also going backwards. They might also note that Carmarthen East & Dinefwr voted Leave and the Conservatives might not be a million miles away from taking this seat off them on these numbers.
I can't work out who that favours, I assume it'll mean UkIP might put in an effort there though he did lose Tatton as a Tory ! Probably helps Plaid unfortunately.
What I'd like to say about Neil Hamilton is mostly unprintable.
He won't miss an opportunity to screw over his former party.
It's very hard to find something to like about Neil Hamilton.
, Except if you are Mrs Hamilton
Can't ask for more than a loyal and loving spouse.
Haven't read very far into it yet, but there seems to be a serious misunderstanding right here: "Why does the British elite, and not the French and German ones, believe they do not need the EU?"
In what way? Are you saying that the British elite does believe we need the EU?
A lot of them did during the referendum. Remember the economic apocalypse that was due?
True, but I think this part of the article is broadly correct:
On the face of it, Brexit looks like a protest vote by the left behind. But the underlying reason is the hubris and ignorance of much of the British elite, not just the eurosceptics among it. They are less worldly than they imagine themselves to be. Their exaggeration of British political and economic power has fed the idea that Britain can afford to leave the EU, indeed flourish outside of it.
Haven't read very far into it yet, but there seems to be a serious misunderstanding right here: "Why does the British elite, and not the French and German ones, believe they do not need the EU?"
In what way? Are you saying that the British elite does believe we need the EU?
Obviously the elite, such as it exists as it is not a particularly helpful label, has plenty who do think that. The elite was split on the issue in a way that does not generally appear to be the case elsewhere, but the EU had and has plenty of support from the upper tiers, and since few appear to be arch federalists, the rest would presumably be because they think we need it (or like TMay, believe we would be better off with it). Striking an optimistic tone since doesn't mean much.
If the Tories get over 50%, I think they'll be alot nearer 500 seats than 400, and quite possibly over. 50% is staggeringly hard when you factor in Northern Ireland and to a lesser degree, Scotland.
But surely N.I. doesn't count in the % share of the vote in the various betting markets?
I know of a highly respected PB.com bettor, not currently located within these shores, so I can talk about him freely, who has bet on Labour winning fewer than 100 seats which would mean the result looking something like this perhaps:
Haven't read very far into it yet, but there seems to be a serious misunderstanding right here: "Why does the British elite, and not the French and German ones, believe they do not need the EU?"
In what way? Are you saying that the British elite does believe we need the EU?
A lot of them did during the referendum. Remember the economic apocalypse that was due?
True, but I think this part of the article is broadly correct:
On the face of it, Brexit looks like a protest vote by the left behind. But the underlying reason is the hubris and ignorance of much of the British elite, not just the eurosceptics among it. They are less worldly than they imagine themselves to be. Their exaggeration of British political and economic power has fed the idea that Britain can afford to leave the EU, indeed flourish outside of it.
Except that the elite weren't claiming that Britain could afford to leave during the referendum, quite the opposite in fact.
If the Tories get over 50%, I think they'll be alot nearer 500 seats than 400, and quite possibly over. 50% is staggeringly hard when you factor in Northern Ireland and to a lesser degree, Scotland.
But surely N.I. doesn't count in the % share of the vote in the various betting markets?
Of course it does.
What percentage of the registered vote will the named party receive in the UK as a whole, at the next UK general election?
Whoa, steady. That needs checking. We are the UK and NI, The wording you quote implies the exclusion of NI, which I have to say is standard in most polls and punts.
Not saying I know the answer, but be careful.
Err no, we're The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Not the UK and NI
Yes, I stand corrected, but the point still holds. If NI is not specifically mentioned in the wording, the default assumption would be that it is excluded.
Anyway checking never hurts and would put the matter beyond doubt.
I've called Betfair and the lady on the phone assured me it does. I've asked her to send me an e-mail to confirm this. As the UK is mentioned in the rules, and we are the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland this is my hunch anyway. I've also laid some 50+%, I don't think it should be 3-1 - or if it wins alot of my other bets will come in anyway. Possibly 300+ majority.
If the Tories get over 50%, I think they'll be alot nearer 500 seats than 400, and quite possibly over. 50% is staggeringly hard when you factor in Northern Ireland and to a lesser degree, Scotland.
But surely N.I. doesn't count in the % share of the vote in the various betting markets?
I know of a highly respected PB.com bettor, not currently located within these shores, so I can talk about him freely, who has bet on Labour winning fewer than 100 seats which would mean the result looking something like this perhaps:
Haven't read very far into it yet, but there seems to be a serious misunderstanding right here: "Why does the British elite, and not the French and German ones, believe they do not need the EU?"
In what way? Are you saying that the British elite does believe we need the EU?
Yes. Mr Cameron's government sent a booklet to every household arguing exactly that.
Haven't read very far into it yet, but there seems to be a serious misunderstanding right here: "Why does the British elite, and not the French and German ones, believe they do not need the EU?"
In what way? Are you saying that the British elite does believe we need the EU?
A lot of them did during the referendum. Remember the economic apocalypse that was due?
True, but I think this part of the article is broadly correct:
On the face of it, Brexit looks like a protest vote by the left behind. But the underlying reason is the hubris and ignorance of much of the British elite, not just the eurosceptics among it. They are less worldly than they imagine themselves to be. Their exaggeration of British political and economic power has fed the idea that Britain can afford to leave the EU, indeed flourish outside of it.
Except that the elite weren't claiming that Britain could afford to leave during the referendum, quite the opposite in fact.
They were split. People like Mervyn King or Nigel Lawson, who certainly count as the elite, were very blasé about it and thought leaving would be a doddle.
Even people like Cameron gave the impression they thought it was a balanced argument rather than a firm conviction about the national interest.
Haven't read very far into it yet, but there seems to be a serious misunderstanding right here: "Why does the British elite, and not the French and German ones, believe they do not need the EU?"
In what way? Are you saying that the British elite does believe we need the EU?
A lot of them did during the referendum. Remember the economic apocalypse that was due?
True, but I think this part of the article is broadly correct:
On the face of it, Brexit looks like a protest vote by the left behind. But the underlying reason is the hubris and ignorance of much of the British elite, not just the eurosceptics among it. They are less worldly than they imagine themselves to be. Their exaggeration of British political and economic power has fed the idea that Britain can afford to leave the EU, indeed flourish outside of it.
Except that the elite weren't claiming that Britain could afford to leave during the referendum, quite the opposite in fact.
They were split. People like Mervyn King or Nigel Lawson, who certainly count as the elite, were very blasé about it and thought leaving would be a doddle.
Even people like Cameron gave the impression they thought it was a balanced argument rather than a firm conviction about the national interest.
Interesting that the two examples were noted has-beens. Anyway, that article said 'much of the British elite', which is clearly not true.
If the Tories get over 50%, I think they'll be alot nearer 500 seats than 400, and quite possibly over. 50% is staggeringly hard when you factor in Northern Ireland and to a lesser degree, Scotland.
I can see the Conservatives perhaps attaining a majority of all the votes cast in England, but an absolute majority for the whole of the UK sounds vanishingly unlikely. In order to do that they'd surely have to poll something like 52-53% in England and strongly outperform current expectations in Scotland and Wales, or match expectations outside of England and poll at or above 55% in it. Now, 55% was the combined vote share won by both the Conservatives and Ukip in England in 2015, and whatever happens with the latter they should still attract meaningful numbers of votes in at least some of the seats they choose to contest, and you're not going to get 100% of the Ukip vote moving en masse to the Tories in those seats that Ukip fails to field a candidate in.
The Tories quite simply have almost no chance of winning an absolute majority of all votes cast: moreover, even if you assume that they will get to 50%, you also need a great chunk of the Labour vote to peel off to the Lib Dems in order for the Tories to get above 450 seats. Running a result of something like Con 50, Lab 28, LD 10 (plus a Con 32, SNP 43 split in Scotland) through Electoral Calculus gets you to a result similar to the 1997 Blair landslide only in reverse, and with the third party share breaking mostly for the SNP rather than the Lib Dems.
Now, I do appreciate that UNS is a blunt instrument, and that the Conservatives are likely to outperform it if Labour stacks up as many or more votes in ultra-safe urban areas, and suffers a disproportionate swing against it elsewhere. But even so, talk of a Conservative total significantly in excess of 400 or a Labour total significantly below 150 is for the birds. Certainty is a big deal for me, but I'm as close to being sure of this as I reasonably can be.
No, that won't do. Try responding to the substance.
Has to be said there isn't much of it in that article. For example, it makes the broad-brush claim that the British skilfully used their US links to maximise their influence, but the only concrete example provided in support of that is some rather general comments on eastern expansion. It talks about British productivity being lower than French without providing any statistical basis to back that up. It is similarly broad brush when it comes to talking about industries dependent on a pan-European supply chain. OK, we all know he's talking about the car manufacturing industry, but spelling out how dependent car assemblage is by providing the relavent figures on the single market should be pretty basic stuff for anyone writing an essay pitched above GCSE level.
His comments on the past also reveal a remarkable level of special pleading. Delineating the City as a 'relative backwater' prior to 1973 isn't terribly convincing - relative to whom? New York? Yes, agreed. Any other city in Europe? Nonsensical. While his remarks on the Commonwealth may hold true in Africa and parts of Asia - the parts that suffered worst under British rule and were often most ineptly governed by third-rate civil servants sent from London to get them out of the way - I'm dubious about how far it can be said to apply to large other areas, for example, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, even the Carribean.
His remarks on the military situation meanwhile are simply laughable. France has a wholly different outlook as it is considered even following its decision to resume a part in NATO's military command as a half-hearted ally by the Americans, while it is through NATO that Britain actually uses its forces. On paper, these are smaller than the French equivalent, but they have a much greater reach - for example, France has five medium sized jets of various types for long distance haulage, one of which is a tanker, while Britain has eight Globemaster. The disparity is so great that when the French intervened in Mali a while back we actually had to lend them two C17s to do the transport work!
So I think this was a poor article from a biased source by someone so shocked and embittered by his failure that he's refusing to confront the reasons for it and is instead constructing a comforting narrative of how it was those bloody elites that stole it all. It reminds me very much of the letters of Lord Robert Cecil, Cecil of Chelwood, as the League of Nations showed how utterly ineffectual it had become by the late 1930s.
Haven't read very far into it yet, but there seems to be a serious misunderstanding right here: "Why does the British elite, and not the French and German ones, believe they do not need the EU?"
In what way? Are you saying that the British elite does believe we need the EU?
A lot of them did during the referendum. Remember the economic apocalypse that was due?
True, but I think this part of the article is broadly correct:
On the face of it, Brexit looks like a protest vote by the left behind. But the underlying reason is the hubris and ignorance of much of the British elite, not just the eurosceptics among it. They are less worldly than they imagine themselves to be. Their exaggeration of British political and economic power has fed the idea that Britain can afford to leave the EU, indeed flourish outside of it.
This bit tells me something I didn't know: "The country’s biggest comparative advantage is in financial services and that is to a large extent because London has successfully become Europe’s dominant financial centre; the City of London was a relative backwater prior to Britain joining the EU. "
If the Tories get over 50%, I think they'll be alot nearer 500 seats than 400, and quite possibly over. 50% is staggeringly hard when you factor in Northern Ireland and to a lesser degree, Scotland.
But surely N.I. doesn't count in the % share of the vote in the various betting markets?
I know of a highly respected PB.com bettor, not currently located within these shores, so I can talk about him freely, who has bet on Labour winning fewer than 100 seats which would mean the result looking something like this perhaps:
Seen The One Show with T and P May. A lot of cliched answers but then they were cliched questions - they seemed like a pleasant, normal couple.
I suspect the one phrase that they used that will do the rounds is 'boy-jobs' and 'girl-jobs'; but as you say they just seemed quite normal and a bit 'stage-struck' as if they wondered what on earth they were doing on the telly.
If the Tories get over 50%, I think they'll be alot nearer 500 seats than 400, and quite possibly over. 50% is staggeringly hard when you factor in Northern Ireland and to a lesser degree, Scotland.
But surely N.I. doesn't count in the % share of the vote in the various betting markets?
I know of a highly respected PB.com bettor, not currently located within these shores, so I can talk about him freely, who has bet on Labour winning fewer than 100 seats which would mean the result looking something like this perhaps:
Interesting that the two examples were noted has-beens. Anyway, that article said 'much of the British elite', which is clearly not true.
Virtually all academics, most economists, most business leaders, the leaders of all main parties other than UKIP, most of the cabinet and governing party, and the great and the good in general were all against Brexit. Leave had Gove, BoJo and Farage.
Seen The One Show with T and P May. A lot of cliched answers but then they were cliched questions - they seemed like a pleasant, normal couple.
I suspect the one phrase that they used that will do the rounds is 'boy-jobs' and 'girl-jobs';.
Maybe, although even for a partisan it'd be hard to spin as anything other than a light hearted comment I think - she is PM, which is for the most part a 'boy-job' traditionally after all.
I have 2 pounds on Tories over 500 seats. Obviously nearly impossible, it's an insurance in case all assumptions are wrong and this turns out to be 2015 on steroids, but can anyone think of a plausible route for it to happen? It would probably need tories over 50% of vote, Labour losing a bunch of votes to LDs due to anti-Corbyn factor, but these votes largely proving useless and letting Tories through the middle. Would also need strong anti-SNP tactical voting in Scotland, and UKIP to stand down in almost all tory targets. I think the highest seat total ever was the 1931 election, where the tories won 470, so in theory it's not inconceivable...
Playing with Baxter, Con 55%, Lab 14%, LD 15% will do it.
In reality, I don't think Lab would actually have to go that low, because as 14%, their vote would be very inefficiently concentrated in the inner cities.
Seen The One Show with T and P May. A lot of cliched answers but then they were cliched questions - they seemed like a pleasant, normal couple.
I suspect the one phrase that they used that will do the rounds is 'boy-jobs' and 'girl-jobs';.
Maybe, although even for a partisan it'd be hard to spin as anything other than a light hearted comment I think - she is PM, which is for the most part a 'boy-job' traditionally after all.
Haven't read very far into it yet, but there seems to be a serious misunderstanding right here: "Why does the British elite, and not the French and German ones, believe they do not need the EU?"
In what way? Are you saying that the British elite does believe we need the EU?
A lot of them did during the referendum. Remember the economic apocalypse that was due?
Haven't read very far into it yet, but there seems to be a serious misunderstanding right here: "Why does the British elite, and not the French and German ones, believe they do not need the EU?"
In what way? Are you saying that the British elite does believe we need the EU?
A lot of them did during the referendum. Remember the economic apocalypse that was due?
True, but I think this part of the article is broadly correct:
On the face of it, Brexit looks like a protest vote by the left behind. But the underlying reason is the hubris and ignorance of much of the British elite, not just the eurosceptics among it. They are less worldly than they imagine themselves to be. Their exaggeration of British political and economic power has fed the idea that Britain can afford to leave the EU, indeed flourish outside of it.
People voted for Brexit for many reasons. One of the major factors for me was the way that the cultists who fanatically believe in "ever closer union" choose to ignore democracy whenever it suits them. This habit is dangerous.
It all depends on your own political philosophy, I suppose. Do you like a technocratic, managerial model which keeps the people at arms length, or do you believe in a warts-and-all model of democracy which gives ultimate power to the nasty proles.
Haven't read very far into it yet, but there seems to be a serious misunderstanding right here: "Why does the British elite, and not the French and German ones, believe they do not need the EU?"
In what way? Are you saying that the British elite does believe we need the EU?
A lot of them did during the referendum. Remember the economic apocalypse that was due?
If the Tories get over 50%, I think they'll be alot nearer 500 seats than 400, and quite possibly over. 50% is staggeringly hard when you factor in Northern Ireland and to a lesser degree, Scotland.
But surely N.I. doesn't count in the % share of the vote in the various betting markets?
I know of a highly respected PB.com bettor, not currently located within these shores, so I can talk about him freely, who has bet on Labour winning fewer than 100 seats which would mean the result looking something like this perhaps:
One thing I noticed with 365s over/under midpoints for the GB parties seats was that they summed to 618 when there are 632 (I think) GB seats in total. So there is more likely to be value buying Cons than selling Lab. And vice versa. Haven't checked the markets in last couple of hours tho.
I remember posting that the key to this election was going to be the 4m who voted UKIP in 2015 as soon as it was announced. At the time I estimated that this might boost Tory support by 2m. It looks as if it just might be a little more than that.
The Lib/Lab and Lab/Lib splits in this welsh poll are spanking news for Corbyn in Cardiff Central.
Like I've been saying, in our canvassing, the LibDem vote melted away completely after the first few days.
I just don't know how much of that is down to it being a Lab-Con marginal, and whether it would be different in seats where the Lib Dems have a chance.
They're up from 8% to 10-11% in the polls, so presumably they've got 25-35% more votes accruing somewhere.
Not in all the polls. Survation has them on 7.4% today on a UK basis - equivalent to 8% in GB.
Yikes. 3 is lower than I've seen in any prediction to date (Westmoreland, Orkney and ???). If they go down at this one, they should just call it quits, though I'm still thinking they'll creep into low double figures.
I remember posting that the key to this election was going to be the 4m who voted UKIP in 2015 as soon as it was announced. At the time I estimated that this might boost Tory support by 2m. It looks as if it just might be a little more than that.
It does indeed look as if the forces of bigotry and ignorance formerly represented by UKIP - and the BNP - have now switched to the Tories.
I remember posting that the key to this election was going to be the 4m who voted UKIP in 2015 as soon as it was announced. At the time I estimated that this might boost Tory support by 2m. It looks as if it just might be a little more than that.
It does indeed look as if the forces of bigotry and ignorance formerly represented by UKIP - and the BNP - have now switched to the Tories.
I think UKIP had a far bigger tent than that. Many ex-Labour voters for instance
I remember posting that the key to this election was going to be the 4m who voted UKIP in 2015 as soon as it was announced. At the time I estimated that this might boost Tory support by 2m. It looks as if it just might be a little more than that.
Agree. Any seat where Con + (say) 66% of UKIP is more than the winning party is likely to flip.
Which gives the Cons three LD seats: Southport (38 vs 31), Carshalton (42 vs 35) and North Norfolk (41 vs 39).
If you assume the LDs are tracking three points higher than in 2015 (i.e. UNS) then they just edge North Norfolk. But - given its a Leave constituency - I wouldn't want to bet on it without quite good odds.
I remember posting that the key to this election was going to be the 4m who voted UKIP in 2015 as soon as it was announced. At the time I estimated that this might boost Tory support by 2m. It looks as if it just might be a little more than that.
It does indeed look as if the forces of bigotry and ignorance formerly represented by UKIP - and the BNP - have now switched to the Tories.
I think UKIP had a far bigger tent than that. Many ex-Labour voters for instance
I accept that. Racist bigotry has never been difficult to find amongst the lower working classes
I remember posting that the key to this election was going to be the 4m who voted UKIP in 2015 as soon as it was announced. At the time I estimated that this might boost Tory support by 2m. It looks as if it just might be a little more than that.
It does indeed look as if the forces of bigotry and ignorance formerly represented by UKIP - and the BNP - have now switched to the Tories.
Would you have preferred them to switch to Labour? I'm afraid that people purporting to represent Labour have been telling them they don't want their votes.
I remember posting that the key to this election was going to be the 4m who voted UKIP in 2015 as soon as it was announced. At the time I estimated that this might boost Tory support by 2m. It looks as if it just might be a little more than that.
It does indeed look as if the forces of bigotry and ignorance formerly represented by UKIP - and the BNP - have now switched to the Tories.
Haven't read very far into it yet, but there seems to be a serious misunderstanding right here: "Why does the British elite, and not the French and German ones, believe they do not need the EU?"
In what way? Are you saying that the British elite does believe we need the EU?
A lot of them did during the referendum. Remember the economic apocalypse that was due?
True, but I think this part of the article is broadly correct:
On the face of it, Brexit looks like a protest vote by the left behind. But the underlying reason is the hubris and ignorance of much of the British elite, not just the eurosceptics among it. They are less worldly than they imagine themselves to be. Their exaggeration of British political and economic power has fed the idea that Britain can afford to leave the EU, indeed flourish outside of it.
This bit tells me something I didn't know: "The country’s biggest comparative advantage is in financial services and that is to a large extent because London has successfully become Europe’s dominant financial centre; the City of London was a relative backwater prior to Britain joining the EU. "
Edited to sort out italics
Um. Breton Woods.
The City's dominance is built on the Eurodollar market - which gave us pools of capital to manage - and on The growth of FX trading after the end of Breton Woods in the early 1970s.
It was a relative backwater because financial services wasn't that important an industry
It always comes as a bit of a surprise when something shows just how short HM is. I remember on a visit to America, HM was making a speech from a lectern that was the same height. Couldn't see her face at all.
Interesting that the two examples were noted has-beens. Anyway, that article said 'much of the British elite', which is clearly not true.
Virtually all academics, most economists, most business leaders, the leaders of all main parties other than UKIP, most of the cabinet and governing party, and the great and the good in general were all against Brexit. Leave had Gove, BoJo and Farage.
And Lawson and King and George and Cunliffe, Wakefield, North, etc
Labour candidate Kate Hoey shared an image in which her Liberal Democrat challenger was apparently removed from a picture taken at an event in south London.
Ms Hoey is standing to be re-elected in the south London constituency she has held since 1989. She appeared today in a photo on Twitter where an crude effort had been made to erase rival Lib Dem candidate George Turner.
Eagle-eyed viewers noticed that Mr Turner's legs could be seen in the back row of Brexit supporter Ms Hoey’s photo. However his face and upper body had vanished.
Eh, apart from 1997 the Map always looks pretty darn blue most of the time.
Predicting possible (not necessarily probable) LD wins in Bristol West (!), Bermondsey, Cambridge, Cambridge, Bath and Hornsey and Wood Green. The probability of losing Southport, Leeds North West and North Norfolk is amazingly high - imagine surviving the 2015 cull only to lose out 2 years later. Low probability of losing Westmoreland, Carsalton and Orkney - but still, for any prediction to have 6 potential losses out of 9, yeesh.
Possible Con losses in Bath, Gower, Vale of Clwys and Dumfriesshire (!). Tories more likely to gain in Fife than LD, LDs more likely to get Caithness?
And the Lab range. How can 108 even be feasible? While he's essentially saying that sub 200 is guaranteed.
The latter I can see as being very very likely, though not impossible, but 108 feels wrong. I'm only going on gut, I'm not the academic here, but they get 150+ on pretty low scores, they've have to totally collapse to get into the low 100s I'd have thought, and I don't see where the evidence for such a collapse is coming from.
The above article is full of nonsense. Take this for example:
"The country skilfully used its ties to the US and its EU membership to maximise its value to both sides; the EU helped Britain to punch above its weight."
Maximising your value to other actors in no way demonstrates influence. The only worthwhile evidence of influence is concrete achievements in the national interest; the French cementing agricultural subsidies for their small farmers, the Germans establishing a single currency that is structurally undervalued to support their exporters, all continental countries in securing Britain's fishing waters (80% of the EU total) as 'common' property.
We never had much influence in the EU, and yet were the second-largest contributor. Thank goodness we'll soon be out!
Yeah, I'm a bit like that. I cannot deny as a unionist I hope there is some, but it is hypocritical of me as I am not a fan of the practice being so open and near official, rather than something that just happens at a low level. So I cannot blame any tactical voting the other way in Scotland.
I bet he was Afro Caribbean man just as Terror acts are likely to be Muslim men. We are paying the price for TMay's politically correct reform of stop and search. Just dissappointed The Met went along with it (but not suprised).
Labour candidate Kate Hoey shared an image in which her Liberal Democrat challenger was apparently removed from a picture taken at an event in south London.
Ms Hoey is standing to be re-elected in the south London constituency she has held since 1989. She appeared today in a photo on Twitter where an crude effort had been made to erase rival Lib Dem candidate George Turner.
Eagle-eyed viewers noticed that Mr Turner's legs could be seen in the back row of Brexit supporter Ms Hoey’s photo. However his face and upper body had vanished.
Ms Hoey told the Standard: "I was not willing to tweet a photo with anyone wearing a rosette because this was an apolitical event on behalf of the children and I did not want those partisan elements included.”
Ok, how about:
1) Photoshopping out the rosette 2) Blame it on an aide - that's what they are there for 3) Using a different photo.
The above article is full of nonsense. Take this for example:
"The country skilfully used its ties to the US and its EU membership to maximise its value to both sides; the EU helped Britain to punch above its weight."
Maximising your value to other actors in no way demonstrates influence. The only worthwhile evidence of influence is concrete achievements in the national interest; the French cementing agricultural subsidies for their small farmers, the Germans establishing a single currency that is structurally undervalued to support their exporters, all continental countries in securing Britain's fishing waters (80% of the EU total) as 'common' property.
We never had much influence in the EU, and yet were the second-largest contributor. Thank goodness we'll soon be out!
Cementing our role as the financial hub of the EU while not being in the single currency. Being the destination of choice for young European talent because of our language and culture (and hence attracting inward capital investment too).
We did well out of the arrangement we're throwing away.
Comments
On the face of it, Brexit looks like a protest vote by the left behind. But the underlying reason is the hubris and ignorance of much of the British elite, not just the eurosceptics among it. They are less worldly than they imagine themselves to be. Their exaggeration of British political and economic power has fed the idea that Britain can afford to leave the EU, indeed flourish outside of it.
And I thought I was harsh on Mrs May.
As the UK is mentioned in the rules, and we are the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland this is my hunch anyway.
I've also laid some 50+%, I don't think it should be 3-1 - or if it wins alot of my other bets will come in anyway. Possibly 300+ majority.
Even people like Cameron gave the impression they thought it was a balanced argument rather than a firm conviction about the national interest.
The Tories quite simply have almost no chance of winning an absolute majority of all votes cast: moreover, even if you assume that they will get to 50%, you also need a great chunk of the Labour vote to peel off to the Lib Dems in order for the Tories to get above 450 seats. Running a result of something like Con 50, Lab 28, LD 10 (plus a Con 32, SNP 43 split in Scotland) through Electoral Calculus gets you to a result similar to the 1997 Blair landslide only in reverse, and with the third party share breaking mostly for the SNP rather than the Lib Dems.
Now, I do appreciate that UNS is a blunt instrument, and that the Conservatives are likely to outperform it if Labour stacks up as many or more votes in ultra-safe urban areas, and suffers a disproportionate swing against it elsewhere. But even so, talk of a Conservative total significantly in excess of 400 or a Labour total significantly below 150 is for the birds. Certainty is a big deal for me, but I'm as close to being sure of this as I reasonably can be.
His comments on the past also reveal a remarkable level of special pleading. Delineating the City as a 'relative backwater' prior to 1973 isn't terribly convincing - relative to whom? New York? Yes, agreed. Any other city in Europe? Nonsensical. While his remarks on the Commonwealth may hold true in Africa and parts of Asia - the parts that suffered worst under British rule and were often most ineptly governed by third-rate civil servants sent from London to get them out of the way - I'm dubious about how far it can be said to apply to large other areas, for example, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, even the Carribean.
His remarks on the military situation meanwhile are simply laughable. France has a wholly different outlook as it is considered even following its decision to resume a part in NATO's military command as a half-hearted ally by the Americans, while it is through NATO that Britain actually uses its forces. On paper, these are smaller than the French equivalent, but they have a much greater reach - for example, France has five medium sized jets of various types for long distance haulage, one of which is a tanker, while Britain has eight Globemaster. The disparity is so great that when the French intervened in Mali a while back we actually had to lend them two C17s to do the transport work!
So I think this was a poor article from a biased source by someone so shocked and embittered by his failure that he's refusing to confront the reasons for it and is instead constructing a comforting narrative of how it was those bloody elites that stole it all. It reminds me very much of the letters of Lord Robert Cecil, Cecil of Chelwood, as the League of Nations showed how utterly ineffectual it had become by the late 1930s.
Thanks for getting in touch.
Following our call, please be advised that the Conservative Percentage Vote - UK includes also Northern Ireland.
Let me know if there’s anything else I can help with. Or maybe our FAQs will come in handy?
Thanks,
Betfair Customer Service
+37.09/-120.90 here.
"The country’s biggest comparative advantage is in financial services and that is to a large extent because London has successfully become Europe’s dominant financial centre; the City of London was a relative backwater prior to Britain joining the EU. "
Edited to sort out italics
And as for LibDems with 15....
In reality, I don't think Lab would actually have to go that low, because as 14%, their vote would be very inefficiently concentrated in the inner cities.
It all depends on your own political philosophy, I suppose. Do you like a technocratic, managerial model which keeps the people at arms length, or do you believe in a warts-and-all model of democracy which gives ultimate power to the nasty proles.
I'm a prole, so I choose democracy.
https://twitter.com/standardnews/status/862015569167433728
Note the Lib Dem range.
And look at that blue map... just beautiful.
Which gives the Cons three LD seats: Southport (38 vs 31), Carshalton (42 vs 35) and North Norfolk (41 vs 39).
If you assume the LDs are tracking three points higher than in 2015 (i.e. UNS) then they just edge North Norfolk. But - given its a Leave constituency - I wouldn't want to bet on it without quite good odds.
https://twitter.com/fdaoulb/status/862012096686501888
1/100,000,000
1/100,000,000
1/100,000,000
1/100,000,000
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/09/pro-independence-scottish-greens-prop-snp-standing-fewer-10/
http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/israel/2017/april/isis-easter-terror-wave-targets-churches-the-coptic-response-may-surprise-you
The City's dominance is built on the Eurodollar market - which gave us pools of capital to manage - and on The growth of FX trading after the end of Breton Woods in the early 1970s.
It was a relative backwater because financial services wasn't that important an industry
Having said that, it's worth noting Chris Hanratty's central forecast:
Con 413
Lab 156
LD 9
SNP 52 ??? This looks odd
PC 1
Green 1
Seems odd.
Wot a plonker.
Predicting possible (not necessarily probable) LD wins in Bristol West (!), Bermondsey, Cambridge, Cambridge, Bath and Hornsey and Wood Green. The probability of losing Southport, Leeds North West and North Norfolk is amazingly high - imagine surviving the 2015 cull only to lose out 2 years later. Low probability of losing Westmoreland, Carsalton and Orkney - but still, for any prediction to have 6 potential losses out of 9, yeesh.
Possible Con losses in Bath, Gower, Vale of Clwys and Dumfriesshire (!). Tories more likely to gain in Fife than LD, LDs more likely to get Caithness?
The above article is full of nonsense. Take this for example:
"The country skilfully used its ties to the US and its EU membership to maximise its value to both sides; the EU helped Britain to punch above its weight."
Maximising your value to other actors in no way demonstrates influence. The only worthwhile evidence of influence is concrete achievements in the national interest; the French cementing agricultural subsidies for their small farmers, the Germans establishing a single currency that is structurally undervalued to support their exporters, all continental countries in securing Britain's fishing waters (80% of the EU total) as 'common' property.
We never had much influence in the EU, and yet were the second-largest contributor. Thank goodness we'll soon be out!
Edited for spelling
https://twitter.com/WelshLabour/status/862023953753276416
Conservatives 246 287 326 -19
Labour 231 271 316 +13
SNP 26 42 54 +36
Liberal Democrats 19 27 36 -30
DUP 7 8 10 -1
SDLP 1 3 3 0
Plaid Cymru 1 2 4 -1
Greens 0 1 1 0
UKIP 0 1 1 1
Other 7 8 10 1
https://web.archive.org/web/20150407041428/http://electionforecast.co.uk/
Ms Hoey told the Standard: "I was not willing to tweet a photo with anyone wearing a rosette because this was an apolitical event on behalf of the children and I did not want those partisan elements included.”
Ok, how about:
1) Photoshopping out the rosette
2) Blame it on an aide - that's what they are there for
3) Using a different photo.
I regret that you don't believe in Democracy, but as a democrat myself I have to say "It's your choice".
We did well out of the arrangement we're throwing away.