One of the pro-independence campaign groups was though
Which presumably explains the reference to "Scottish Nationalists" rather than the SNP. I don't know if that is fortuitous or Mrs May choosing her words very carefully.
Edit: I see it's actually Scottish nationalists (lower case). That may be significant.
But 'the' Scottish nationalists can only mean the SNP in most people's minds.
Maybe. But if anyone says to Mrs May, "Are you saying the SNP was fined by the Electoral Commission" she has an instant answer. And people are as likely to remember the question as the answer.
Is it attractive politics? Probably not. But it's quite clever.
When local council areas are mapped against Westminster constituencies, the Scottish Conservatives won the most “first preference” votes — in Scottish local elections, voters number their candidates in preference order and can vote for as many as they want — in as many as 18 of Scotland’s 59 Westminster constituencies.
The same analysis for the Scottish National party puts them ahead in 33 constituencies but senior MPs, including Alex Salmond and Angus Robertson, the SNP’s deputy leader, would need to outperform their local government colleagues to hold on to their seats on June 8.
Mapping local council results on Westminster constituencies also shows the gradual shift of the SNP from its “tartan Tory” territory of Perthshire and the north-east into traditionally Labour-dominated areas in Scotland’s central belt and south-west.
You're on the wrong side of the implied volatility here in my opinion.
If you want to avoid the volatility. 365's simple Over/Under line is way above 43 at 48.5. and if you want the chance of a big payout the 40 or under quote is 8/1.
I do not believe in fox hunting and I do not support Theresa on this policy
When a fox comes into your garden and kills 50 chickens and only takes one, the only thing it deservers is a bullet. The anti hunt people have it all wrong. Its the foxes that kill for pleasure.
I believe in shooting foxes, I believe hoese back hunting foxes with hounds is a twat activity for twats.
"a twat activity for twats." I tend to agree. Quite a few things which match that description are not illegal, though.
Forecast: no Lib Dem gains in London, perhaps one only in Scotland. Have bet on Lib Dems getting 3-6 seats only. Reckon overall result, Cons 346, Labour 235, Lib Dem 5, Green 0, UKIP 0, SNP / PC 46, Others 18
Net gain for Lab seems optomistic!
optimistic/impossible. Unless of course the polls are wrong and its actually a 7 point Tory lead rather than a 17 point one
No Green seats seems to understate Lucas's record. Also Bristol West is possibly easier this time than 2015.
Does anyone think Hampstead's odds have gone too short on the Tories and too long (5) on Labour given the unusual nature of the seat, i.e. a rich metropolitan elite plus a little corner of Ireland?
I do not believe in fox hunting and I do not support Theresa on this policy
When a fox comes into your garden and kills 50 chickens and only takes one, the only thing it deservers is a bullet. The anti hunt people have it all wrong. Its the foxes that kill for pleasure.
I believe in shooting foxes, I believe hoese back hunting foxes with hounds is a twat activity for twats.
But you think that because you are a complete and utter twat.
Moral debate at this level is nice and easy, isn't it?
I also agree that Blair used fox hunting to entertain his somewhat brainless back benchers to an astonishing extent when he should have been pursuing a reform agenda. The fact that they were content to waste months of Parliamentary time on such a matter was perhaps indicative of the kinds of problems they have now.
No, not really. If it had breen up to us we'd have zipped it through in no time. The time spent was almost ENTIRELY due to the filibustering in the Commons by opponents and Lords blocking it despite it being an election pledge, plus Tony's obvious reluctance to push it. We weren't content with that at all, but also not willing to just give up.
Note the dual argument provided by hunt supporters: (a) the ban is not having an effect at all and hunting is stronger than ever and (b) the ban mnust be removed as soon as possible as it's having a seriuos effect on our sport. Can't both be true. If it's not effective anyway, why bother? And if it's effective and hunting used to be an important form of fox control, as claimed on the last thread, then why isn't the countryside sufddenly overrun by foxes?
And; (a) it was a terrible waste of time to ban hunting as most people don't care and (b) it's an important use of time to repeal the ban.
Oh come on Nick. It gave you endless chances to emote about the people you love to hate. And as I have made clear in this thread I actually agree with you on the ban.
It gave you endless chances to emote about the people you were paid to hate."
Nick, are you still paid on this subject or has that stopped now?
{edit for clarity]
You only have to look at Mr Palmer's Commons voting record on inquiries into the Iraq war to judge his views on establishing the truth about things, and the proper use of parliamentary time.
And you can bet your bottom dollar that if Corbyn announced tomorrow morning that he had had a radical change of heart and would be hunting with the Beaufort next season, by lunch time Nick would have bought a string of horses and booked a course of riding lessons.
Undeniably true. It would take a skilled contortionist to eat ones feet whilst in the saddle, but I am sure Nick would manage it with ease.
One of the pro-independence campaign groups was though
Which presumably explains the reference to "Scottish Nationalists" rather than the SNP. I don't know if that is fortuitous or Mrs May choosing her words very carefully.
Edit: I see it's actually Scottish nationalists (lower case). That may be significant.
Which party are the Scottish Nationalists (upper case)?
Tim Farron now abolishing married couples tax alowance to pay for more education. Can the messages get any more mixed?
What's mixed about that? You can disagree with it, but as a single person without kids, I see no contradiction in being perfectly happy to chip in for the education of other people's kids, but not seeing why the hell I should be called upon to subsidise married couples' holidays.
One of the pro-independence campaign groups was though
Which presumably explains the reference to "Scottish Nationalists" rather than the SNP. I don't know if that is fortuitous or Mrs May choosing her words very carefully.
Edit: I see it's actually Scottish nationalists (lower case). That may be significant.
Which party are the Scottish Nationalists (upper case)?
Wiki describes the SNP as "a Scottish nationalist[14][15] and social-democratic[16][17][18] political party in Scotland."
It would be interesting to know why two of Europe's major capitol cities reject the fascist option so decisively when both country's small towns embrace it so readily.
In cities, people live and work among different types of people, and know them as human beings. In backwaters, people live in monocultural areas and fear outsiders. Hence why opposition to immigration is often higher in areas where there are no immigrants.
Those of us who live in caves outside the M25 are just naturally suspicious of people who don't daub themselves with woad.
When local council areas are mapped against Westminster constituencies, the Scottish Conservatives won the most “first preference” votes — in Scottish local elections, voters number their candidates in preference order and can vote for as many as they want — in as many as 18 of Scotland’s 59 Westminster constituencies.
The same analysis for the Scottish National party puts them ahead in 33 constituencies but senior MPs, including Alex Salmond and Angus Robertson, the SNP’s deputy leader, would need to outperform their local government colleagues to hold on to their seats on June 8.
Mapping local council results on Westminster constituencies also shows the gradual shift of the SNP from its “tartan Tory” territory of Perthshire and the north-east into traditionally Labour-dominated areas in Scotland’s central belt and south-west.
You're on the wrong side of the implied volatility here in my opinion.
I'm feeling bullish at the moment on the spreads. Having a good campaign so far.
I don't see much downside to this bet/the losses are effectively capped at 13-16 seats.
While what are the gains [realistically] capped at?
Well everyone is surging in Scotland except the SNP if you listen to the hype.
Tories talking about 15 seats, Labour 8, Lib Dems 5.
Allowing for spin etc you might be looking at 20 gains for the unionist side.
Pushing the SNP down to 36.
I'm effectively betting on tactical unionist voting happening.
I'm also aware since 1992 no one has got rich by overestimating the Tories in Scotland at general elections.
If tactical unionist voting was happening - and you believe that Labour voters in Scotland would support and vote for a Tory over the SNP, wouldn't there be evidence in the council election STV transfers ? is there evidence of Labour voters ranking the Tories above the SNP from the transfer tallies ?
Yes.
However there is also evidence of anti Tory tactical voting.
One of the pro-independence campaign groups was though
Which presumably explains the reference to "Scottish Nationalists" rather than the SNP. I don't know if that is fortuitous or Mrs May choosing her words very carefully.
Edit: I see it's actually Scottish nationalists (lower case). That may be significant.
Which party are the Scottish Nationalists (upper case)?
Oh, none at all. It just makes it easier to deny that it was a reference to the SNP as opposed to some unnamed campaign group.
Mr. M, no, she's clearly warning that any party led by an intransigent, complacent captain who refuses to change course will cause permanent damage and that only a minority of the crew will survive.
Mr. M, no, she's clearly warning that any party led by an intransigent, complacent captain who refuses to change course will cause permanent damage and that only a minority of the crew will survive.
The five seats Labour is projected to lose in this poll were gains from the Tories/LibDems in 2015 – with the exception of Hampstead & Kilburn which had a new Labour MP following Glenda Jackson’s retirement. An adverse swing of 2% could quite easily be offset by a first term bonus for these new MPs so it is entirely possible that Labour could retain them all – in the same way that Tory MPs elected in marginal seats in 2010 were able to withstand the pro- Labour swing in England in 2015.
Is that correct ?
It is correct . England saw a swing from Con to Lab of just over 1% in 2015.
Result ! Betfair have waived my PC incurred as a result of Macron's win. Worth £300 (A first week offer)
nice one. but what's PC?
Premium charge.
https://myaccount.betfair.com/activity/premium-charges long term I've only paid 5.4% commission on my gross profit, Betfair need this to be 20% and the difference is taken as a premium charge save for the first £1000 of total implied commission.
Coral seem to have decided I can't get Best Odds Guaranteed on the nags anymore either. Not that I bet too much on the horses anyway.
When local council areas are mapped against Westminster constituencies, the Scottish Conservatives won the most “first preference” votes — in Scottish local elections, voters number their candidates in preference order and can vote for as many as they want — in as many as 18 of Scotland’s 59 Westminster constituencies.
The same analysis for the Scottish National party puts them ahead in 33 constituencies but senior MPs, including Alex Salmond and Angus Robertson, the SNP’s deputy leader, would need to outperform their local government colleagues to hold on to their seats on June 8.
Mapping local council results on Westminster constituencies also shows the gradual shift of the SNP from its “tartan Tory” territory of Perthshire and the north-east into traditionally Labour-dominated areas in Scotland’s central belt and south-west.
Forecast: no Lib Dem gains in London, perhaps one only in Scotland. Have bet on Lib Dems getting 3-6 seats only. Reckon overall result, Cons 346, Labour 235, Lib Dem 5, Green 0, UKIP 0, SNP / PC 46, Others 18
Net gain for Lab seems optomistic!
optimistic/impossible. Unless of course the polls are wrong and its actually a 7 point Tory lead rather than a 17 point one
No Green seats seems to understate Lucas's record. Also Bristol West is possibly easier this time than 2015.
Does anyone think Hampstead's odds have gone too short on the Tories and too long (5) on Labour given the unusual nature of the seat, i.e. a rich metropolitan elite plus a little corner of Ireland?
Not sure.
It's a seat I know better than most. Labour won by a squeak last time so you'd think it would be an easy Tory gain, but it's London and heavily Remain. I saw one of Tulip Siddiq's fliers a few days ago and was struck by how much distance she was putting between herself and her Party Leader. The Conservatives have a new candidate and I haven't seen any literature yet. There isn't much LD, Green or UKIP vote to squeeze. UKIP haven't named a candidate yet so may not stand.
The numbers aren't quite right. You can get 4/1 Labour with Skybet (probably to about 50p) but more realistically 7/2 with Hills.
To me, it's a no bet race - too unpredictable and I wouldn't want to bet or lay at those prices. Miss Cyclefree thinks the Tories will do it, I believe. Not sure what Robert S thinks. Probably the same but perhaps not an investment at those odds.
Can the Electoral Commission refer this directly to the police, or a member of the public?
The Lib Dems don't have £250 to give away, let alone £250K.
Evening MrsB – To be a little clearer, I don’t think the Greens or the Lib Dem have done anything wrong in this case. It is however worth mentioning this is the first acknowledgment by Lucas that the offer was made and it is the offer which is the criminal act imo.
When local council areas are mapped against Westminster constituencies, the Scottish Conservatives won the most “first preference” votes — in Scottish local elections, voters number their candidates in preference order and can vote for as many as they want — in as many as 18 of Scotland’s 59 Westminster constituencies.
The same analysis for the Scottish National party puts them ahead in 33 constituencies but senior MPs, including Alex Salmond and Angus Robertson, the SNP’s deputy leader, would need to outperform their local government colleagues to hold on to their seats on June 8.
Mapping local council results on Westminster constituencies also shows the gradual shift of the SNP from its “tartan Tory” territory of Perthshire and the north-east into traditionally Labour-dominated areas in Scotland’s central belt and south-west.
You're on the wrong side of the implied volatility here in my opinion.
I'm feeling bullish at the moment on the spreads. Having a good campaign so far.
I don't see much downside to this bet/the losses are effectively capped at 13-16 seats.
While what are the gains [realistically] capped at?
Well everyone is surging in Scotland except the SNP if you listen to the hype.
Tories talking about 15 seats, Labour 8, Lib Dems 5.
Allowing for spin etc you might be looking at 20 gains for the unionist side.
Pushing the SNP down to 36.
I'm effectively betting on tactical unionist voting happening.
I'm also aware since 1992 no one has got rich by overestimating the Tories in Scotland at general elections.
If tactical unionist voting was happening - and you believe that Labour voters in Scotland would support and vote for a Tory over the SNP, wouldn't there be evidence in the council election STV transfers ? is there evidence of Labour voters ranking the Tories above the SNP from the transfer tallies ?
PB Tories claim there is. I checked the Glasgow transfers. Some Greens got elected in the 9th...11th count having started well behind the Tories.
I am not sure why SLAB voter would transfer to SCON when there is SLD, SGRN or even the SNP.
I also agree that Blair used fox hunting to entertain his somewhat brainless back benchers to an astonishing extent when he should have been pursuing a reform agenda. The fact that they were content to waste months of Parliamentary time on such a matter was perhaps indicative of the kinds of problems they have now.
No, not really. If it had breen up to us we'd have zipped it through in no time. The time spent was almost ENTIRELY due to the filibustering in the Commons by opponents and Lords blocking it despite it being an election pledge, plus Tony's obvious reluctance to push it. We weren't content with that at all, but also not willing to just give up.
Note the dual argument provided by hunt supporters: (a) the ban is not having an effect at all and hunting is stronger than ever and (b) the ban mnust be removed as soon as possible as it's having a seriuos effect on our sport. Can't both be true. If it's not effective anyway, why bother? And if it's effective and hunting used to be an important form of fox control, as claimed on the last thread, then why isn't the countryside sufddenly overrun by foxes?
And; (a) it was a terrible waste of time to ban hunting as most people don't care and (b) it's an important use of time to repeal the ban.
It's a matter of freedom Nick but of course a Corbynista only has one permitted view of the world.
"Non-EU citizens may have the right to residence in the EU if their children are EU citizens, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ruled.
It made the judgement in the case of a woman from Venezuela who had a child with a Dutch citizen from whom she has since legally separated.
She was denied social welfare and child benefit payments by Dutch authorities. ... In 2009, she had a child with a Dutch national with whom she lived in Germany until their separation in 2011, when she and the child left the family home and she became responsible for care of her daughter without support from the father.
But because she did not have a right to residence, Dutch authorities rejected the mother's application for welfare payments."
As a secondary point, it also infuriates me when feckless men walk away from their responsibilities - which may be the case in this instance.
Look at this EX- MP's website, Chris Matheson is still calling himself an MP and his website has been updated to mention GE 2017. A case of Naughty Naughty ! He is not supposed to call himself an MP anymore :
One of the pro-independence campaign groups was though
Which presumably explains the reference to "Scottish Nationalists" rather than the SNP. I don't know if that is fortuitous or Mrs May choosing her words very carefully.
Edit: I see it's actually Scottish nationalists (lower case). That may be significant.
Which party are the Scottish Nationalists (upper case)?
Result ! Betfair have waived my PC incurred as a result of Macron's win. Worth £300 (A first week offer)
nice one. but what's PC?
Premium charge.
https://myaccount.betfair.com/activity/premium-charges long term I've only paid 5.4% commission on my gross profit, Betfair need this to be 20% and the difference is taken as a premium charge save for the first £1000 of total implied commission.
Coral seem to have decided I can't get Best Odds Guaranteed on the nags anymore either. Not that I bet too much on the horses anyway.
thanks. I thought 5% was the maximum they charged. I dont like that aspect of betfair. do you remember the exchange flutter? they charged flat 2% commission but then got taken over by betfair. I complained to the MMC as they were the only 2 exchanges around then but obviously was unsuccessful.
When local council areas are mapped against Westminster constituencies, the Scottish Conservatives won the most “first preference” votes — in Scottish local elections, voters number their candidates in preference order and can vote for as many as they want — in as many as 18 of Scotland’s 59 Westminster constituencies.
The same analysis for the Scottish National party puts them ahead in 33 constituencies but senior MPs, including Alex Salmond and Angus Robertson, the SNP’s deputy leader, would need to outperform their local government colleagues to hold on to their seats on June 8.
Mapping local council results on Westminster constituencies also shows the gradual shift of the SNP from its “tartan Tory” territory of Perthshire and the north-east into traditionally Labour-dominated areas in Scotland’s central belt and south-west.
The main thing that changes with premium charge is that back/lay Betfair/bookie arbs/ricks are ruled out since you're only getting ~ 85% of the long term price at Betfair.
I actually had to take some risk on the Grand National offer at 365 this year
When local council areas are mapped against Westminster constituencies, the Scottish Conservatives won the most “first preference” votes — in Scottish local elections, voters number their candidates in preference order and can vote for as many as they want — in as many as 18 of Scotland’s 59 Westminster constituencies.
The same analysis for the Scottish National party puts them ahead in 33 constituencies but senior MPs, including Alex Salmond and Angus Robertson, the SNP’s deputy leader, would need to outperform their local government colleagues to hold on to their seats on June 8.
Mapping local council results on Westminster constituencies also shows the gradual shift of the SNP from its “tartan Tory” territory of Perthshire and the north-east into traditionally Labour-dominated areas in Scotland’s central belt and south-west.
You're on the wrong side of the implied volatility here in my opinion.
I'm feeling bullish at the moment on the spreads. Having a good campaign so far.
I don't see much downside to this bet/the losses are effectively capped at 13-16 seats.
While what are the gains [realistically] capped at?
Well everyone is surging in Scotland except the SNP if you listen to the hype.
Tories talking about 15 seats, Labour 8, Lib Dems 5.
Allowing for spin etc you might be looking at 20 gains for the unionist side.
Pushing the SNP down to 36.
I'm effectively betting on tactical unionist voting happening.
I'm also aware since 1992 no one has got rich by overestimating the Tories in Scotland at general elections.
If tactical unionist voting was happening - and you believe that Labour voters in Scotland would support and vote for a Tory over the SNP, wouldn't there be evidence in the council election STV transfers ? is there evidence of Labour voters ranking the Tories above the SNP from the transfer tallies ?
PB Tories claim there is. I checked the Glasgow transfers. Some Greens got elected in the 9th...11th count having started well behind the Tories.
I am not sure why SLAB voter would transfer to SCON when there is SLD, SGRN or even the SNP.
We are voting for Westminster , not a Referendum.
Didn't Salmond say this election was about indyref2?
Forecast: no Lib Dem gains in London, perhaps one only in Scotland. Have bet on Lib Dems getting 3-6 seats only. Reckon overall result, Cons 346, Labour 235, Lib Dem 5, Green 0, UKIP 0, SNP / PC 46, Others 18
Net gain for Lab seems optomistic!
optimistic/impossible. Unless of course the polls are wrong and its actually a 7 point Tory lead rather than a 17 point one
No Green seats seems to understate Lucas's record. Also Bristol West is possibly easier this time than 2015.
Does anyone think Hampstead's odds have gone too short on the Tories and too long (5) on Labour given the unusual nature of the seat, i.e. a rich metropolitan elite plus a little corner of Ireland?
Not sure.
It's a seat I know better than most. Labour won by a squeak last time so you'd think it would be an easy Tory gain, but it's London and heavily Remain. I saw one of Tulip Siddiq's fliers a few days ago and was struck by how much distance she was putting between herself and her Party Leader. The Conservatives have a new candidate and I haven't seen any literature yet. There isn't much LD, Green or UKIP vote to squeeze. UKIP haven't named a candidate yet so may not stand.
The numbers aren't quite right. You can get 4/1 Labour with Skybet (probably to about 50p) but more realistically 7/2 with Hills.
To me, it's a no bet race - too unpredictable and I wouldn't want to bet or lay at those prices. Miss Cyclefree thinks the Tories will do it, I believe. Not sure what Robert S thinks. Probably the same but perhaps not an investment at those odds.
Ask them. I'd be interested myself.
Similar story to Ealing Central and Acton. Heavily Remain, popular but clueless (ie Corbynista) MP.
Greens have stepped down so it'll be a fight.
Luckily a lot of disgusted about to be former Lab voters on the doorstep.
When local council areas are mapped against Westminster constituencies, the Scottish Conservatives won the most “first preference” votes — in Scottish local elections, voters number their candidates in preference order and can vote for as many as they want — in as many as 18 of Scotland’s 59 Westminster constituencies.
The same analysis for the Scottish National party puts them ahead in 33 constituencies but senior MPs, including Alex Salmond and Angus Robertson, the SNP’s deputy leader, would need to outperform their local government colleagues to hold on to their seats on June 8.
Mapping local council results on Westminster constituencies also shows the gradual shift of the SNP from its “tartan Tory” territory of Perthshire and the north-east into traditionally Labour-dominated areas in Scotland’s central belt and south-west.
"Non-EU citizens may have the right to residence in the EU if their children are EU citizens, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ruled.
It made the judgement in the case of a woman from Venezuela who had a child with a Dutch citizen from whom she has since legally separated.
She was denied social welfare and child benefit payments by Dutch authorities. ... In 2009, she had a child with a Dutch national with whom she lived in Germany until their separation in 2011, when she and the child left the family home and she became responsible for care of her daughter without support from the father.
But because she did not have a right to residence, Dutch authorities rejected the mother's application for welfare payments."
As a secondary point, it also infuriates me when feckless men walk away from their responsibilities - which may be the case in this instance.
I suppose as News from Abroad that's vaguely interesting to those who care about how things happen elsewhere.
I also agree that Blair used fox hunting to entertain his somewhat brainless back benchers to an astonishing extent when he should have been pursuing a reform agenda. The fact that they were content to waste months of Parliamentary time on such a matter was perhaps indicative of the kinds of problems they have now.
No, not really. If it had breen up to us we'd have zipped it through in no time. The time spent was almost ENTIRELY due to the filibustering in the Commons by opponents and Lords blocking it despite it being an election pledge, plus Tony's obvious reluctance to push it. We weren't content with that at all, but also not willing to just give up.
Note the dual argument provided by hunt supporters: (a) the ban is not having an effect at all and hunting is stronger than ever and (b) the ban mnust be removed as soon as possible as it's having a seriuos effect on our sport. Can't both be true. If it's not effective anyway, why bother? And if it's effective and hunting used to be an important form of fox control, as claimed on the last thread, then why isn't the countryside sufddenly overrun by foxes?
And; (a) it was a terrible waste of time to ban hunting as most people don't care and (b) it's an important use of time to repeal the ban.
It's a matter of freedom Nick but of course a Corbynista only has one permitted view of the world.
If it is a matter of freedom , why not bring back otter hunting , bear baiting , cockfighting and other barbaric customs
Forecast: no Lib Dem gains in London, perhaps one only in Scotland. Have bet on Lib Dems getting 3-6 seats only. Reckon overall result, Cons 346, Labour 235, Lib Dem 5, Green 0, UKIP 0, SNP / PC 46, Others 18
Net gain for Lab seems optomistic!
optimistic/impossible. Unless of course the polls are wrong and its actually a 7 point Tory lead rather than a 17 point one
No Green seats seems to understate Lucas's record. Also Bristol West is possibly easier this time than 2015.
Does anyone think Hampstead's odds have gone too short on the Tories and too long (5) on Labour given the unusual nature of the seat, i.e. a rich metropolitan elite plus a little corner of Ireland?
Not sure.
It's a seat I know better than most. Labour won by a squeak last time so you'd think it would be an easy Tory gain, but it's London and heavily Remain. I saw one of Tulip Siddiq's fliers a few days ago and was struck by how much distance she was putting between herself and her Party Leader. The Conservatives have a new candidate and I haven't seen any literature yet. There isn't much LD, Green or UKIP vote to squeeze. UKIP haven't named a candidate yet so may not stand.
The numbers aren't quite right. You can get 4/1 Labour with Skybet (probably to about 50p) but more realistically 7/2 with Hills.
To me, it's a no bet race - too unpredictable and I wouldn't want to bet or lay at those prices. Miss Cyclefree thinks the Tories will do it, I believe. Not sure what Robert S thinks. Probably the same but perhaps not an investment at those odds.
Ask them. I'd be interested myself.
Similar story to Ealing Central and Acton. Heavily Remain, popular but clueless (ie Corbynista) MP.
Greens have stepped down so it'll be a fight.
Luckily a lot of disgusted about to be former Lab voters on the doorstep.
Rupa Huq is not a Corbynista. She was one of the nominators who in fact supported another candidate (Yvette Cooper in her case). Otherwise, as someone who also lives in the constituency I agree with your assessment. Her latest missive is almost solely aimed at potential Lab-LD switchers, which suggests to me the canvassing returns are showing that this is her main problem
I also agree that Blair used fox hunting to entertain his somewhat brainless back benchers to an astonishing extent when he should have been pursuing a reform agenda. The fact that they were content to waste months of Parliamentary time on such a matter was perhaps indicative of the kinds of problems they have now.
No, not really. If it had breen up to us we'd have zipped it through in no time. The time spent was almost ENTIRELY due to the filibustering in the Commons by opponents and Lords blocking it despite it being an election pledge, plus Tony's obvious reluctance to push it. We weren't content with that at all, but also not willing to just give up.
Note the dual argument provided by hunt supporters: (a) the ban is not having an effect at all and hunting is stronger than ever and (b) the ban mnust be removed as soon as possible as it's having a seriuos effect on our sport. Can't both be true. If it's not effective anyway, why bother? And if it's effective and hunting used to be an important form of fox control, as claimed on the last thread, then why isn't the countryside sufddenly overrun by foxes?
And; (a) it was a terrible waste of time to ban hunting as most people don't care and (b) it's an important use of time to repeal the ban.
It's a matter of freedom Nick but of course a Corbynista only has one permitted view of the world.
If it is a matter of freedom , why not bring back otter hunting , bear baiting , cockfighting and other barbaric customs
Foxes are pests. Are you out marching against cruelty to rats?
Look at this EX- MP's website, Chris Matheson is still calling himself an MP and his website has been updated to mention GE 2017. A case of Naughty Naughty ! He is not supposed to call himself an MP anymore :
Re May's nationalists comment, clearly very carefully considered phrasing. Pretty grotesque but it's politics and as Nicola is happy to say the Tories are 'at it' it's probably fair enough tit for tat. Politicians are gits, and always will be. Even Caroline is getting offered bungs!
Just to add a bit more about ECA. St. Vince has, of course, given Rupa Huq his blessing and to be fair the LD candidate is an uninspiring re-tread who was prosecuted last year for failing to pay his council tax. That along with today's polling has made me reassess her chances from 0% to around 15%. Still looks like a clear Tory gain, though.
"Non-EU citizens may have the right to residence in the EU if their children are EU citizens, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ruled.
It made the judgement in the case of a woman from Venezuela who had a child with a Dutch citizen from whom she has since legally separated.
She was denied social welfare and child benefit payments by Dutch authorities. ... In 2009, she had a child with a Dutch national with whom she lived in Germany until their separation in 2011, when she and the child left the family home and she became responsible for care of her daughter without support from the father.
But because she did not have a right to residence, Dutch authorities rejected the mother's application for welfare payments."
As a secondary point, it also infuriates me when feckless men walk away from their responsibilities - which may be the case in this instance.
I suppose as News from Abroad that's vaguely interesting to those who care about how things happen elsewhere.
We're (almost) out, thank $DEITY
It's rulings like those that explain why we voted to Leave.
From what I can tell, that was either a mistake - or an outright lie - from the prime minister.
Has been explained downthread. Pro-independence groups were fined.
If that's what she meant, she'd have phrased it differently.
Really shitty stuff from the vicars daughter. When her back is against the wall, she lies and smears. Those voting for her should prepare themselves.
CCHQ are right to keep her way from the cameras at all costs.
She ain't no Dave.
How is that a lie? There is nothing incorrect in describing pro-independence groups as nationalists.
The SNP jump very hard on anyone who misrepresents the "N" as standing for "Nationalist"; now all of a sudden they are asserting (or others are asserting for them) sole and exclusive rights to the name when there's offence to be taken (or simulated).
There are no doubt effective attack lines against May, but no one has hit in them yet. "Lies and smears" - not true; "vicar's daughter" - childish beyond belief; "kept away from the cameras" - definitely true, immediately obvious whenever you look at a photograph of her - errrr...
I also agree that Blair used fox hunting to entertain his somewhat brainless back benchers to an astonishing extent when he should have been pursuing a reform agenda. The fact that they were content to waste months of Parliamentary time on such a matter was perhaps indicative of the kinds of problems they have now.
No, not really. If it had breen up to us we'd have zipped it through in no time. The time spent was almost ENTIRELY due to the filibustering in the Commons by opponents and Lords blocking it despite it being an election pledge, plus Tony's obvious reluctance to push it. We weren't content with that at all, but also not willing to just give up.
Note the dual argument provided by hunt supporters: (a) the ban is not having an effect at all and hunting is stronger than ever and (b) the ban mnust be removed as soon as possible as it's having a seriuos effect on our sport. Can't both be true. If it's not effective anyway, why bother? And if it's effective and hunting used to be an important form of fox control, as claimed on the last thread, then why isn't the countryside sufddenly overrun by foxes?
And; (a) it was a terrible waste of time to ban hunting as most people don't care and (b) it's an important use of time to repeal the ban.
It's a matter of freedom Nick but of course a Corbynista only has one permitted view of the world.
If it is a matter of freedom , why not bring back otter hunting , bear baiting , cockfighting and other barbaric customs
Foxes are pests. Are you out marching against cruelty to rats?
If foxes were pests why did fox hunters increase their numbers in Norfolk just so they could hunt them ?
thanks. still don't quite understand the details but i get that they're just fleecing successful people.
It's actually aimed at 'bots' (robots) which cream off a small but regular profit on each event. It hauls in a few human punters too though.
I would have thought betfair profit from such activity, since all the bots are doing is taking other punters' money?
If it becomes overrun with bots, other punters will stop going there. That's a long term threat, and to some extent it has already happened.
If you look at the horse racing markets early in the money, about 80% of the money sitting them is attributable to bots. Real punters come in much later, and then only if they can't get a decent price with the bookies.
I place most of my AW bets before 9am. I scarcely look at Betfair at that time.
When local council areas are mapped against Westminster constituencies, the Scottish Conservatives won the most “first preference” votes — in Scottish local elections, voters number their candidates in preference order and can vote for as many as they want — in as many as 18 of Scotland’s 59 Westminster constituencies.
The same analysis for the Scottish National party puts them ahead in 33 constituencies but senior MPs, including Alex Salmond and Angus Robertson, the SNP’s deputy leader, would need to outperform their local government colleagues to hold on to their seats on June 8.
Mapping local council results on Westminster constituencies also shows the gradual shift of the SNP from its “tartan Tory” territory of Perthshire and the north-east into traditionally Labour-dominated areas in Scotland’s central belt and south-west.
You're on the wrong side of the implied volatility here in my opinion.
I'm feeling bullish at the moment on the spreads. Having a good campaign so far.
I don't see much downside to this bet/the losses are effectively capped at 13-16 seats.
While what are the gains [realistically] capped at?
Well everyone is surging in Scotland except the SNP if you listen to the hype.
Tories talking about 15 seats, Labour 8, Lib Dems 5.
Allowing for spin etc you might be looking at 20 gains for the unionist side.
Pushing the SNP down to 36.
I'm effectively betting on tactical unionist voting happening.
I'm also aware since 1992 no one has got rich by overestimating the Tories in Scotland at general elections.
If tactical unionist voting was happening - and you believe that Labour voters in Scotland would support and vote for a Tory over the SNP, wouldn't there be evidence in the council election STV transfers ? is there evidence of Labour voters ranking the Tories above the SNP from the transfer tallies ?
PB Tories claim there is. I checked the Glasgow transfers. Some Greens got elected in the 9th...11th count having started well behind the Tories.
I am not sure why SLAB voter would transfer to SCON when there is SLD, SGRN or even the SNP.
We are voting for Westminster , not a Referendum.
West of Scotland sees anti Tory transfers, elsewhere saw anti SNP transfers.
I also agree that Blair used fox hunting to entertain his somewhat brainless back benchers to an astonishing extent when he should have been pursuing a reform agenda. The fact that they were content to waste months of Parliamentary time on such a matter was perhaps indicative of the kinds of problems they have now.
No, not really. If it had breen up to us we'd have zipped it through in no time. The time spent was almost ENTIRELY due to the filibustering in the Commons by opponents and Lords blocking it despite it being an election pledge, plus Tony's obvious reluctance to push it. We weren't content with that at all, but also not willing to just give up.
Note the dual argument provided by hunt supporters: (a) the ban is not having an effect at all and hunting is stronger than ever and (b) the ban mnust be removed as soon as possible as it's having a seriuos effect on our sport. Can't both be true. If it's not effective anyway, why bother? And if it's effective and hunting used to be an important form of fox control, as claimed on the last thread, then why isn't the countryside sufddenly overrun by foxes?
And; (a) it was a terrible waste of time to ban hunting as most people don't care and (b) it's an important use of time to repeal the ban.
It's a matter of freedom Nick but of course a Corbynista only has one permitted view of the world.
The foxes have moved to towns in many areas. Expect more problems of foxes getting into houses and attacking the residsnts
thanks. still don't quite understand the details but i get that they're just fleecing successful people.
It's actually aimed at 'bots' (robots) which cream off a small but regular profit on each event. It hauls in a few human punters too though.
I would have thought betfair profit from such activity, since all the bots are doing is taking other punters' money?
If it becomes overrun with bots, other punters will stop going there. That's a long term threat, and to some extent it has already happened.
If you look at the horse racing markets early in the money, about 80% of the money sitting them is attributable to bots. Real punters come in much later, and then only if they can't get a decent price with the bookies.
I place most of my AW bets before 9am. I scarcely look at Betfair at that time.
From what I can tell, that was either a mistake - or an outright lie - from the prime minister.
Has been explained downthread. Pro-independence groups were fined.
If that's what she meant, she'd have phrased it differently.
Really shitty stuff from the vicars daughter. When her back is against the wall, she lies and smears. Those voting for her should prepare themselves.
CCHQ are right to keep her way from the cameras/journos/public at all costs.
She ain't no Dave.
Fascinated to learn that upper & lower cases case can be indicated in speech, independence groups are the 'Scottish nationalists' while the Scottish National Party are Scottish Nationalists and that they (54 mps) are not a major party while the LDs (9 mps) are.
Forecast: no Lib Dem gains in London, perhaps one only in Scotland. Have bet on Lib Dems getting 3-6 seats only. Reckon overall result, Cons 346, Labour 235, Lib Dem 5, Green 0, UKIP 0, SNP / PC 46, Others 18
Net gain for Lab seems optomistic!
optimistic/impossible. Unless of course the polls are wrong and its actually a 7 point Tory lead rather than a 17 point one
No Green seats seems to understate Lucas's record. Also Bristol West is possibly easier this time than 2015.
Does anyone think Hampstead's odds have gone too short on the Tories and too long (5) on Labour given the unusual nature of the seat, i.e. a rich metropolitan elite plus a little corner of Ireland?
Not sure.
It's a seat I know better than most. Labour won by a squeak last time so you'd think it would be an easy Tory gain, but it's London and heavily Remain. I saw one of Tulip Siddiq's fliers a few days ago and was struck by how much distance she was putting between herself and her Party Leader. The Conservatives have a new candidate and I haven't seen any literature yet. There isn't much LD, Green or UKIP vote to squeeze. UKIP haven't named a candidate yet so may not stand.
The numbers aren't quite right. You can get 4/1 Labour with Skybet (probably to about 50p) but more realistically 7/2 with Hills.
To me, it's a no bet race - too unpredictable and I wouldn't want to bet or lay at those prices. Miss Cyclefree thinks the Tories will do it, I believe. Not sure what Robert S thinks. Probably the same but perhaps not an investment at those odds.
Ask them. I'd be interested myself.
Similar story to Ealing Central and Acton. Heavily Remain, popular but clueless (ie Corbynista) MP.
Greens have stepped down so it'll be a fight.
Luckily a lot of disgusted about to be former Lab voters on the doorstep.
Rupa Huq is not a Corbynista. She was one of the nominators who in fact supported another candidate (Yvette Cooper in her case). Otherwise, as someone who also lives in the constituency I agree with your assessment. Her latest missive is almost solely aimed at potential Lab-LD switchers, which suggests to me the canvassing returns are showing that this is her main problem
When I met her (not in a pub) she said she wanted Jezza for leader.
When local council areas are mapped against Westminster constituencies, the Scottish Conservatives won the most “first preference” votes — in Scottish local elections, voters number their candidates in preference order and can vote for as many as they want — in as many as 18 of Scotland’s 59 Westminster constituencies.
The same analysis for the Scottish National party puts them ahead in 33 constituencies but senior MPs, including Alex Salmond and Angus Robertson, the SNP’s deputy leader, would need to outperform their local government colleagues to hold on to their seats on June 8.
Mapping local council results on Westminster constituencies also shows the gradual shift of the SNP from its “tartan Tory” territory of Perthshire and the north-east into traditionally Labour-dominated areas in Scotland’s central belt and south-west.
You're on the wrong side of the implied volatility here in my opinion.
I'm feeling bullish at the moment on the spreads. Having a good campaign so far.
I don't see much downside to this bet/the losses are effectively capped at 13-16 seats.
While what are the gains [realistically] capped at?
Well everyone is surging in Scotland except the SNP if you listen to the hype.
Tories talking about 15 seats, Labour 8, Lib Dems 5.
Allowing for spin etc you might be looking at 20 gains for the unionist side.
Pushing the SNP down to 36.
I'm effectively betting on tactical unionist voting happening.
I'm also aware since 1992 no one has got rich by overestimating the Tories in Scotland at general elections.
If tactical unionist voting was happening - and you believe that Labour voters in Scotland would support and vote for a Tory over the SNP, wouldn't there be evidence in the council election STV transfers ? is there evidence of Labour voters ranking the Tories above the SNP from the transfer tallies ?
PB Tories claim there is. I checked the Glasgow transfers. Some Greens got elected in the 9th...11th count having started well behind the Tories.
I am not sure why SLAB voter would transfer to SCON when there is SLD, SGRN or even the SNP.
We are voting for Westminster , not a Referendum.
Where do you think most of the tory surge has come from? Direct SLab to SCon switchers.
From what I can tell, that was either a mistake - or an outright lie - from the prime minister.
Has been explained downthread. Pro-independence groups were fined.
If that's what she meant, she'd have phrased it differently.
Really shitty stuff from the vicars daughter. When her back is against the wall, she lies and smears. Those voting for her should prepare themselves.
CCHQ are right to keep her way from the cameras/journos/public at all costs.
She ain't no Dave.
Fascinated to learn that upper & lower cases case can be indicated in speech, independence groups are the 'Scottish nationalists' while the Scottish National Party are Scottish Nationalists and that they (54 mps) are not a major party while the LDs (9 mps) are.
Every day a school day.
If she meant SNP, she would have probably said SNP.
I have been canvassed by the Tories in Hampstead. They are being very active here. Though Labour have had stalks outside the Finchley Road Waitrose and in West Hampstead in recent days.
I feel sorry for the Labour canvassers. They're doing the political equivalent of asking for a pity fuck.
Still Ms Siddique was one of the nitwits who nominated Corbyn, took a job from him then resigned and voted for Owen Whatsit, none of which gets mentioned on her leaflets. She's not a bad MP - even if she isn't as good as she seems to think she is. But the disconnect between her campaigns eg helping the Iranian woman married to a local man who has been imprisoned for no very clear reasons by the Iranian regime and her support for an MP who, even when she nominated him, had a history of being paid by that regime's propaganda arm, Press TV, shows how little some MPs know about those they support or, more likely, how little they care about the values they claim to believe in.
My wife knows the Conservative candidate well and would never vote for her. I trust my wife's judgement completely. She is therefore one of three Conservative candidates I simply could not vote for.
I also agree that Blair used fox hunting to entertain his somewhat brainless back benchers to an astonishing extent when he should have been pursuing a reform agenda. The fact that they were content to waste months of Parliamentary time on such a matter was perhaps indicative of the kinds of problems they have now.
No, not really. If it had breen up to us we'd have zipped it through in no time. The time spent was almost ENTIRELY due to the filibustering in the Commons by opponents and Lords blocking it despite it being an election pledge, plus Tony's obvious reluctance to push it. We weren't content with that at all, but also not willing to just give up.
Note the dual argument provided by hunt supporters: (a) the ban is not having an effect at all and hunting is stronger than ever and (b) the ban mnust be removed as soon as possible as it's having a seriuos effect on our sport. Can't both be true. If it's not effective anyway, why bother? And if it's effective and hunting used to be an important form of fox control, as claimed on the last thread, then why isn't the countryside sufddenly overrun by foxes?
And; (a) it was a terrible waste of time to ban hunting as most people don't care and (b) it's an important use of time to repeal the ban.
It's a matter of freedom Nick but of course a Corbynista only has one permitted view of the world.
If it is a matter of freedom , why not bring back otter hunting , bear baiting , cockfighting and other barbaric customs
Foxes are pests. Are you out marching against cruelty to rats?
If foxes were pests why did fox hunters increase their numbers in Norfolk just so they could hunt them ?
What does it matter? They are pests - you could go out and shoot one tomorrow morning. How people decide to kill them is absolutely irrelevant. You may think they are twats, and fair enough because they I'm sure would all think that you were a twat, but that's irrelevant.
Just to add a bit more about ECA. St. Vince has, of course, given Rupa Huq his blessing and to be fair the LD candidate is an uninspiring re-tread who was prosecuted last year for failing to pay his council tax. That along with today's polling has made me reassess her chances from 0% to around 15%. Still looks like a clear Tory gain, though.
One would hope so. Greens = UKIP in 2015 so all to play for!
From what I can tell, that was either a mistake - or an outright lie - from the prime minister.
Has been explained downthread. Pro-independence groups were fined.
If that's what she meant, she'd have phrased it differently.
Really shitty stuff from the vicars daughter. When her back is against the wall, she lies and smears. Those voting for her should prepare themselves.
CCHQ are right to keep her way from the cameras/journos/public at all costs.
She ain't no Dave.
Fascinated to learn that upper & lower cases case can be indicated in speech, independence groups are the 'Scottish nationalists' while the Scottish National Party are Scottish Nationalists and that they (54 mps) are not a major party while the LDs (9 mps) are.
Every day a school day.
If she meant SNP, she would have probably said SNP.
I have been canvassed by the Tories in Hampstead. They are being very active here. Though Labour have had stalks outside the Finchley Road Waitrose and in West Hampstead in recent days.
I feel sorry for the Labour canvassers. They're doing the political equivalent of asking for a pity fuck.
Still Ms Siddique was one of the nitwits who nominated Corbyn, took a job from him then resigned and voted for Owen Whatsit, none of which gets mentioned on her leaflets. She's not a bad MP - even if she isn't as good as she seems to think she is. But the disconnect between her campaigns eg helping the Iranian woman married to a local man who has been imprisoned for no very clear reasons by the Iranian regime and her support for an MP who, even when she nominated him, had a history of being paid by that regime's propaganda arm, Press TV, shows how little some MPs know about those they support or, more likely, how little they care about the values they claim to believe in.
My wife knows the Conservative candidate well and would never vote for her. I trust my wife's judgement completely. She is therefore one of three Conservative candidates I simply could not vote for.
Looks like you're going to be voting Green then Robert!
Comments
Is it attractive politics? Probably not. But it's quite clever.
I tend to agree.
Quite a few things which match that description are not illegal, though.
Does anyone think Hampstead's odds have gone too short on the Tories and too long (5) on Labour given the unusual nature of the seat, i.e. a rich metropolitan elite plus a little corner of Ireland?
Con 48 (+1)
Lab 31 (+1)
LD 8 (-2)
UKIP 5 (nc)
Moral debate at this level is nice and easy, isn't it?
(A first week offer)
https://twitter.com/SarahChampionMP/status/862316931835195392
It would take a skilled contortionist to eat ones feet whilst in the saddle, but I am sure Nick would manage it with ease.
However there is also evidence of anti Tory tactical voting.
Depends on the geography.
'Tim Farron now abolishing married couples tax alowance to pay for more education. Can the messages get any more mixed?'
Cost of married couples allowance £700 million.
Where is the rest of the £7 billion he pledged coming from?
Sounds like tuition fees mark2.
That's a great analogy. A really good fit.
Ahem.
http://ew.com/tv/2017/05/10/judge-dredd-tv-show/
https://myaccount.betfair.com/activity/premium-charges long term I've only paid 5.4% commission on my gross profit, Betfair need this to be 20% and the difference is taken as a premium charge save for the first £1000 of total implied commission.
Coral seem to have decided I can't get Best Odds Guaranteed on the nags anymore either. Not that I bet too much on the horses anyway.
The bastardness of it is explained quite clearly here:
https://bitedge.com/blog/betfair-premium-charge-explained-by-former-employee/
It's a seat I know better than most. Labour won by a squeak last time so you'd think it would be an easy Tory gain, but it's London and heavily Remain. I saw one of Tulip Siddiq's fliers a few days ago and was struck by how much distance she was putting between herself and her Party Leader. The Conservatives have a new candidate and I haven't seen any literature yet. There isn't much LD, Green or UKIP vote to squeeze. UKIP haven't named a candidate yet so may not stand.
I found a nice little article on the odds here: https://richardosley.com/2017/05/06/paddy-panic-bookmaker-begins-cutting-odds-on-labour-to-hold-hampstead-and-kilburn/
The numbers aren't quite right. You can get 4/1 Labour with Skybet (probably to about 50p) but more realistically 7/2 with Hills.
To me, it's a no bet race - too unpredictable and I wouldn't want to bet or lay at those prices. Miss Cyclefree thinks the Tories will do it, I believe. Not sure what Robert S thinks. Probably the same but perhaps not an investment at those odds.
Ask them. I'd be interested myself.
I am not sure why SLAB voter would transfer to SCON when there is SLD, SGRN or even the SNP.
We are voting for Westminster , not a Referendum.
Really shitty stuff from the vicars daughter. When her back is against the wall, she lies and smears. Those voting for her should prepare themselves.
CCHQ are right to keep her way from the cameras/journos/public at all costs.
She ain't no Dave.
Non-EU parents may have EU residence right, ECJ rules
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39868868
"Non-EU citizens may have the right to residence in the EU if their children are EU citizens, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ruled.
It made the judgement in the case of a woman from Venezuela who had a child with a Dutch citizen from whom she has since legally separated.
She was denied social welfare and child benefit payments by Dutch authorities.
...
In 2009, she had a child with a Dutch national with whom she lived in Germany until their separation in 2011, when she and the child left the family home and she became responsible for care of her daughter without support from the father.
But because she did not have a right to residence, Dutch authorities rejected the mother's application for welfare payments."
As a secondary point, it also infuriates me when feckless men walk away from their responsibilities - which may be the case in this instance.
http://www.chrismatheson.co.uk/
I actually had to take some risk on the Grand National offer at 365 this year
Greens have stepped down so it'll be a fight.
Luckily a lot of disgusted about to be former Lab voters on the doorstep.
We're (almost) out, thank $DEITY
Pretty grotesque but it's politics and as Nicola is happy to say the Tories are 'at it' it's probably fair enough tit for tat.
Politicians are gits, and always will be. Even Caroline is getting offered bungs!
There are no doubt effective attack lines against May, but no one has hit in them yet. "Lies and smears" - not true; "vicar's daughter" - childish beyond belief; "kept away from the cameras" - definitely true, immediately obvious whenever you look at a photograph of her - errrr...
If you look at the horse racing markets early in the money, about 80% of the money sitting them is attributable to bots. Real punters come in much later, and then only if they can't get a decent price with the bookies.
I place most of my AW bets before 9am. I scarcely look at Betfair at that time.
Every day a school day.
Ah. Oh. Right. Carry on.
NEW THREAD
The horror, the horror.....