Who will come second in the popular vote ? Of course, it will be Labour ! WH is offering 1/20 ? Are they mad ?
There must be a catch.
There's no catch, let's say you want to back it for £1000, they stand to lose £50. When placing the bet either in a shop or online the chances are you'll have another bet.
This is a most extraordinary thread header, if the Racing Post tipped something at 1/20 they would lose all credibility.
Yes, that's because a horse can trip or fall, get badly positioned, go lame or one of the field can have the race of it's life. Politics is a completely different ball game. I note you were knocking the short odds on Macron before he was elected.
as an aside, if you are looking for near certain bets, can I recommend the LDs in Orkney and Shetland? They got 67.4% of the vote last year in the Holyrood election, and I think you can get 4/7 on them.
as an aside, if you are looking for near certain bets, can I recommend the LDs in Orkney and Shetland? They got 67.4% of the vote last year in the Holyrood election, and I think you can get 4/7 on them.
Yes very interesting. Nothing more so than that Labour have only ever had three leaders who won a general election
Three who won outright majorities. Macdonald came first in one election (interestingly, the first held under universal suffrage in 1929) but was short of an outright majority.
It is however worth remembering that since 1922 they have only had twelve leaders in total. Henderson, Lansbury, Gaitskell, Foot, Kinnock, Smith and Miliband were never PM, while only two Labour PMs - Callaghan and Brown - have been PM without winning an election at some point (admittedly the same as the number of Conservatives, assuming May wins next month - Chamberlain and Home).
Actually she says Salmond defines a generation as 35 years.
When asked how long she thought “a generation” should be, Davidson said: “What was Alex Salmond’s definition? He said that between the ̓̓79 and 2014 referendum that was about a generation. That works for me.”
Who will come second in the popular vote ? Of course, it will be Labour ! WH is offering 1/20 ? Are they mad ?
There must be a catch.
There's no catch, let's say you want to back it for £1000, they stand to lose £50. When placing the bet either in a shop or online the chances are you'll have another bet.
This is a most extraordinary thread header, if the Racing Post tipped something at 1/20 they would lose all credibility.
I'm sure this was 1/5 until quite recently
Really? That's a completely different matter, put that in a double and boost your winnings by 20%.
Not doubting you in any way that really is finding it in the street.
Here you go. It was 1/5 until April 24th then went 1/6 until May 5th, when it was changed to 1/10.
On the question of Brexit, the electorate can be broken down into three core groups instead of two: the Hard Leavers who want out of the EU (45 per cent); the Hard Remainers who still want to try to stop Brexit (22 per cent); and the Re-Leavers (23 per cent) — those who voted to Remain last summer but think that the government now has a duty to leave.
The emergence of this latter group means that when the parties are discussing Brexit, they should not think in terms of two pools of voters split almost down the middle. Instead, there is a big lake made up of Leave and Re-Leave voters and a much smaller Remain pond. This means that the Conservatives and UK Independence party are fishing among 68 per cent of voters, while Labour, the Liberal Democrats, Greens and nationalists are battling for just 22 per cent of the electorate.
On that definition I'm a Re-Leaver. A democratic, if poorly informed, decision was taken. Now it's questions of how that decision is implemented with the least damage possible and where we go from here in building new relationships with the EU and the rest of the world. Questions that few people are giving much thought to, including most worryingly, Theresa May.
Yep, same here. There is no staying in now, so the focus has to be on making leaving as painless as possible.
On the question of Brexit, the electorate can be broken down into three core groups instead of two: the Hard Leavers who want out of the EU (45 per cent); the Hard Remainers who still want to try to stop Brexit (22 per cent); and the Re-Leavers (23 per cent) — those who voted to Remain last summer but think that the government now has a duty to leave.
The emergence of this latter group means that when the parties are discussing Brexit, they should not think in terms of two pools of voters split almost down the middle. Instead, there is a big lake made up of Leave and Re-Leave voters and a much smaller Remain pond. This means that the Conservatives and UK Independence party are fishing among 68 per cent of voters, while Labour, the Liberal Democrats, Greens and nationalists are battling for just 22 per cent of the electorate.
Not sure that makes much sense. Labour, LDs, Greens and Nats combined are going to get at least 40% of the vote. It's possible they'll get more than 45%.
It's talking about the Brexit effect - obviously a lot more than that informs voters choices - but the lack of a big pool of dedicated REMAINERS could explain why the Lib Dems are struggling
Or it could just be that the lying toerags are crap and people know this
Martin Boon of ICM was on Twitter last night, as TSE noted, and if ICM have a poll imminent it certainly isn't showing Labour at 30%. It's rare to see a pollster so openly sceptical about rivals' findings.
Martin Boon of ICM was on Twitter last night, as TSE noted, and if ICM have a poll imminent it certainly isn't showing Labour at 30%. It's rare to see a pollster so openly sceptical about rivals' findings.
I honestly believe that polls are going to to struggle to find Lab -> Con switchers this time, normally they are easy to identify in the centre ground, this time because of the PM's pitch they are coming from the working classes, a group which is notoriously difficult to poll accurately.
Labour supporters need to accept the possibility of and then work through the implications of the pollsters having the Conservative figure about right. And Conservative supporters need to accept the possibility of and then work through the implications of the pollsters having the Labour figure about right. Neither seems to have done this yet.
If we take the UK as a whole, the Right/Centre Right have about 53%, and the Left/Centre Left have about 47%. So, there really is nothing implausible about Labour winning 30%, or the Conservatives winning 47%.
Corbyn's a muppet, but most Labour voters will rally support their local MP, whatever they think of him (and 20% of the voters favour a radical left programme in any case).
Who will come second in the popular vote ? Of course, it will be Labour ! WH is offering 1/20 ? Are they mad ?
There must be a catch.
There's no catch, let's say you want to back it for £1000, they stand to lose £50. When placing the bet either in a shop or online the chances are you'll have another bet.
This is a most extraordinary thread header, if the Racing Post tipped something at 1/20 they would lose all credibility.
I'm sure this was 1/5 until quite recently
Really? That's a completely different matter, put that in a double and boost your winnings by 20%.
Not doubting you in any way that really is finding it in the street.
1/20 is finding it in the street if the true price is much shorter. Which it is in this instance.
Martin Boon of ICM was on Twitter last night, as TSE noted, and if ICM have a poll imminent it certainly isn't showing Labour at 30%. It's rare to see a pollster so openly sceptical about rivals' findings.
ICM are the only pollster regularly active over the past year that hasn't indicated a 30%+ share for Labour on any occasion since Theresa May became Prime Minister.
Would be interesting were we actually to see at least one of the companies continuing to give results significantly different to the others as we approach polling day. The outlier could end up looking very silly - or very clever.
Martin Boon of ICM was on Twitter last night, as TSE noted, and if ICM have a poll imminent it certainly isn't showing Labour at 30%. It's rare to see a pollster so openly sceptical about rivals' findings.
Meaning higher or lower?
Lower. He was saying the highest he's had Labour is 28%, so if he has new data it will be equal to or less than that.
On the question of Brexit, the electorate can be broken down into three core groups instead of two: the Hard Leavers who want out of the EU (45 per cent); the Hard Remainers who still want to try to stop Brexit (22 per cent); and the Re-Leavers (23 per cent) — those who voted to Remain last summer but think that the government now has a duty to leave.
The emergence of this latter group means that when the parties are discussing Brexit, they should not think in terms of two pools of voters split almost down the middle. Instead, there is a big lake made up of Leave and Re-Leave voters and a much smaller Remain pond. This means that the Conservatives and UK Independence party are fishing among 68 per cent of voters, while Labour, the Liberal Democrats, Greens and nationalists are battling for just 22 per cent of the electorate.
On that definition I'm a Re-Leaver. A democratic, if poorly informed, decision was taken. Now it's questions of how that decision is implemented with the least damage possible and where we go from here in building new relationships with the EU and the rest of the world. Questions that few people are giving much thought to, including most worryingly, Theresa May.
Yep, same here. There is no staying in now, so the focus has to be on making leaving as painless as possible.
SO, It is going to be painful , that is certain
I think that may be an example of Scottish understatement.
Yes very interesting. Nothing more so than that Labour have only ever had three leaders who won a general election
4. MacDonald, Attlee, Wilson, Blair.
See above. MacDonald was the largest party in a hung parliament, not an outright winner.
Also Rawnsley qualified it by saying 'the last 80 years' by which I think he meant the start of Attlee's tenure in 1935 (and it's staggering to think he led the party for nearly a quarter of the time since then).
One of the great ironies of the 2017 general election campaign is that both Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn have embraced the policies of Ed Miliband; having spent the period from 2010 to 2015 lambasting them.
Who will come second in the popular vote ? Of course, it will be Labour ! WH is offering 1/20 ? Are they mad ?
There must be a catch.
There's no catch, let's say you want to back it for £1000, they stand to lose £50. When placing the bet either in a shop or online the chances are you'll have another bet.
This is a most extraordinary thread header, if the Racing Post tipped something at 1/20 they would lose all credibility.
Yes, that's because a horse can trip or fall, get badly positioned, go lame or one of the field can have the race of it's life. Politics is a completely different ball game. I note you were knocking the short odds on Macron before he was elected.
That's factored into the bookies prices on horse racing though. Either prices on politics are less accurate or bookies are less adept at pricing up long odds on shots correctly. Or are just happy to lay the rags at prices shorter than they should be. Or all 3.
Who will come second in the popular vote ? Of course, it will be Labour ! WH is offering 1/20 ? Are they mad ?
There must be a catch.
There's no catch, let's say you want to back it for £1000, they stand to lose £50. When placing the bet either in a shop or online the chances are you'll have another bet.
This is a most extraordinary thread header, if the Racing Post tipped something at 1/20 they would lose all credibility.
Yes, that's because a horse can trip or fall, get badly positioned, go lame or one of the field can have the race of it's life. Politics is a completely different ball game. I note you were knocking the short odds on Macron before he was elected.
I wasn't "knocking the odds" at all, I just know from experience that people queuing up to buy "free money" eventually get their fingers burnt. Those familiar with the betfair forum are aware of 1.01 "gubbings" on a regular basis. Yes politics is different but odds compilers/bookies don't make too many mistakes, they leave that to punters.
Who will come second in the popular vote ? Of course, it will be Labour ! WH is offering 1/20 ? Are they mad ?
There must be a catch.
There's no catch, let's say you want to back it for £1000, they stand to lose £50. When placing the bet either in a shop or online the chances are you'll have another bet.
This is a most extraordinary thread header, if the Racing Post tipped something at 1/20 they would lose all credibility.
Yes, that's because a horse can trip or fall, get badly positioned, go lame or one of the field can have the race of it's life. Politics is a completely different ball game. I note you were knocking the short odds on Macron before he was elected.
That's factored into the bookies prices on horse racing though. Either prices on politics are less accurate or bookies are less adept at pricing up long odds on shots correctly. Or are just happy to lay the rags at prices shorter than they should be. Or all 3.
The heavily odds on shots are too long alot of the time. Stuff like the Democrats winning in California at 1-20.
Who will come second in the popular vote ? Of course, it will be Labour ! WH is offering 1/20 ? Are they mad ?
There must be a catch.
There's no catch, let's say you want to back it for £1000, they stand to lose £50. When placing the bet either in a shop or online the chances are you'll have another bet.
This is a most extraordinary thread header, if the Racing Post tipped something at 1/20 they would lose all credibility.
Yes, that's because a horse can trip or fall, get badly positioned, go lame or one of the field can have the race of it's life. Politics is a completely different ball game. I note you were knocking the short odds on Macron before he was elected.
That's factored into the bookies prices on horse racing though. Either prices on politics are less accurate or bookies are less adept at pricing up long odds on shots correctly. Or are just happy to lay the rags at prices shorter than they should be. Or all 3.
Well, we don't get that many general elections, and we certainly don't get many elections like this one. So there isn't a huge amount to go on.
It happens in sport too. Should Leicester have been 5000-1 at the start of last season? Probably not.
One of the great ironies of the 2017 general election campaign is that both Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn have embraced the policies of Ed Miliband; having spent the period from 2010 to 2015 lambasting them.
The great lamentation of this election, I think you'll find.
Thornberry coming across as a normal human being on Marr.
She does, and then hits a subject she struggles on and off she goes into talking shit. It doesn't happen every time but it is lingering under there, waiting to come out.
I have now done a simulation based on National Opinion polls except for London [ Con +1.1%, Lab -2.7%, LD +6.3%, UKIP -2.1%, GRN -1.9% ], Scotland [ Con +13%, Lab -6.3%, LD -0.5%, SNP -7%, GRN +0.8% ] and Wales [ Con +13.8%, Lab -1.9%, LD +0.5%, PC -1.1%, UKIP -9.6%, GRN -1.6% ]
The drum rolls:
CON 379 +48 LAB 191 -41 LD 11 +3 SNP 47 -9 PC 3 - GRN 1 - UKIP 0 -1
The reasons for the slightly smaller Tory numbers are mainly:
London - UKIP does not have too many votes to transfer to the Tories
East of England - There are 58 seats and Labour is not going to lose even one. The closest will be Cambridge but that is to the LD's.
I think the swing to the LD's will be smaller nationwide because they are almost doubling their vote in London.
I take the Welsh poll with a large bucket of salt but have faithfully reproduced it. I also think the SNP will defend better than it is believed in PB.
It's amazing how young the French population is, and it's a salutory reminder that - no matter how messed up other parts of their economy are - they've got their pronatal policies right.
Martin Boon of ICM was on Twitter last night, as TSE noted, and if ICM have a poll imminent it certainly isn't showing Labour at 30%. It's rare to see a pollster so openly sceptical about rivals' findings.
I honestly believe that polls are going to to struggle to find Lab -> Con switchers this time, normally they are easy to identify in the centre ground, this time because of the PM's pitch they are coming from the working classes, a group which is notoriously difficult to poll accurately.
Labour supporters need to accept the possibility of and then work through the implications of the pollsters having the Conservative figure about right. And Conservative supporters need to accept the possibility of and then work through the implications of the pollsters having the Labour figure about right. Neither seems to have done this yet.
I'm inclined to agree, but it's a much bigger problem for Labour than it is for the Tories. Even if Labour are in the low 30s the Tories don't need a huge lead to get a big majority. For Labour if the Tory polling is right and their own is wrong it could be 15 year rebuilding project.
"The NHS failed to heed repeated warnings that its out-of-date computer systems were vulnerable to the sort of cyber attack that brought it to its knees, it was claimed today.
Jeremy Hunt, the Health Secretary was accused of ignoring extensive warning signs before an unprecedented cyber attack which plunged the NHS into chaos."
If true, then I take it Jeremy Hunt will be unceremoniously dumped from his position after the General Election.
It's amazing how young the French population is, and it's a salutory reminder that - no matter how messed up other parts of their economy are - they've got their pronatal policies right.
Err, it's the same median age as the UK, two years higher than USA and one year higher than Russia.
"The NHS failed to heed repeated warnings that its out-of-date computer systems were vulnerable to the sort of cyber attack that brought it to its knees, it was claimed today.
Jeremy Hunt, the Health Secretary was accused of ignoring extensive warning signs before an unprecedented cyber attack which plunged the NHS into chaos."
If true, then I take it Jeremy Hunt will be unceremoniously dumped from his position after the General Election.
It's amazing how young the French population is, and it's a salutory reminder that - no matter how messed up other parts of their economy are - they've got their pronatal policies right.
Err, it's the same median age as the UK, two years higher than USA and one year higher than Russia.
Russia's median age is low because people die young. With us and the US, it's because of immigration.
France is almost unique in the world in getting women with college education to have two children.
It's all about Labour's 2015 vote firming up, and the party doing better in London and the North, isn't it? Even assuming that this is correct (and I'm still not convinced,) it's consistent with the theory of a party doing well in inner London, Liverpool, Manchester, and some other urban cores with high deprivation and/or black and Muslim minorities, whilst going backwards everywhere else.
The splits for the Midlands sub-sample are especially dramatic: 52:31, and that's inclusive of Wales. And the two party system is reasserting itself: in England, it's not just Ukip that's melting, either: the Lib Dems appear, beyond Southern England, to be reverting to the pattern of the old Liberal Party: strong in isolated pockets, practically an irrelevance everywhere else. In Scotland, meanwhile, the progress towards an (SNP) Nationalist - (Conservative) Unionist duopoly continues.
It's amazing how young the French population is, and it's a salutory reminder that - no matter how messed up other parts of their economy are - they've got their pronatal policies right.
Err, it's the same median age as the UK, two years higher than USA and one year higher than Russia.
Russia's median age is low because people die young. With us and the US, it's because of immigration.
France is almost unique in the world in getting women with college education to have two children.
Controversial - are you suggesting that the wrong sort of people are having children in the UK?
I'm on. I hesitate to say this is a completely sure thing but I am genuinely struggling to work out what the risk is.
The only thing that came to mind was a majority of Labour candidates disowning the party before polling day, but with the nomination papers now in they'd probably still count as Labour for the purposes of this bet.
Who will come second in the popular vote ? Of course, it will be Labour ! WH is offering 1/20 ? Are they mad ?
There must be a catch.
There's no catch, let's say you want to back it for £1000, they stand to lose £50. When placing the bet either in a shop or online the chances are you'll have another bet.
This is a most extraordinary thread header, if the Racing Post tipped something at 1/20 they would lose all credibility.
I'm sure this was 1/5 until quite recently
Coral opened 1.08 labour more votes than LD I think. But it's 1.04 now after some better labour poll figures and zero progress from the yellows.
The idea that 8% could overtake 31% , i.e. a swing of 11.5% nationally is funny really. The SNP stuff doesn't happen everyday.
I'm on. I hesitate to say this is a completely sure thing but I am genuinely struggling to work out what the risk is.
Opportunity cost; you could have made five longer odds bets of £20 with a £100 you put on this. They might pay better overall and would certainly be more exciting - never mind "When the fun stops, stop" - does it ever actually start with a bet like this?
"The NHS failed to heed repeated warnings that its out-of-date computer systems were vulnerable to the sort of cyber attack that brought it to its knees, it was claimed today.
Jeremy Hunt, the Health Secretary was accused of ignoring extensive warning signs before an unprecedented cyber attack which plunged the NHS into chaos."
If true, then I take it Jeremy Hunt will be unceremoniously dumped from his position after the General Election.
Well, Gove needs a job.
There’s a post on the Guardian’s page on the cyber-attack, as follows 'Not that that stopped Amber Rudd rushing onto television to tell everyone it was in no way the Tories' fault despite being their remit and their lack of funding, while NHS Wales was fine.’
Zat so? I've heard of problems in Scotland, which, IIRC, a spokesman said were now sorted, but nothing from Wales.
Edit: BBC Wales says Welsh NHS has recently invested in IT security.
It's amazing how young the French population is, and it's a salutory reminder that - no matter how messed up other parts of their economy are - they've got their pronatal policies right.
Err, it's the same median age as the UK, two years higher than USA and one year higher than Russia.
Russia's median age is low because people die young. With us and the US, it's because of immigration.
France is almost unique in the world in getting women with college education to have two children.
Controversial - are you suggesting that the wrong sort of people are having children in the UK?
I'm simply making a comment about demographics.
In the UK, the TFR of a university educated woman is 1.2-1.3. It's a little higher in the US.
In France it's 2.2. Women with degrees are more likely to have children in France than women without degrees. It's unprecedented anywhere in the world.
"The NHS failed to heed repeated warnings that its out-of-date computer systems were vulnerable to the sort of cyber attack that brought it to its knees, it was claimed today.
Jeremy Hunt, the Health Secretary was accused of ignoring extensive warning signs before an unprecedented cyber attack which plunged the NHS into chaos."
If true, then I take it Jeremy Hunt will be unceremoniously dumped from his position after the General Election.
iTs not true.. Listen to the former NHS digital director on the subject. It was on 5pm news R4 last night
"The NHS failed to heed repeated warnings that its out-of-date computer systems were vulnerable to the sort of cyber attack that brought it to its knees, it was claimed today.
Jeremy Hunt, the Health Secretary was accused of ignoring extensive warning signs before an unprecedented cyber attack which plunged the NHS into chaos."
If true, then I take it Jeremy Hunt will be unceremoniously dumped from his position after the General Election.
I thought Jeremy was supposed to be good at computers?
The government knew this attack was coming. We chose to keep computers vulnerable so we could launch targeted hacks. The government knew our hacking tools had been nicked, and which parts of our infrastructure was vulnerable.
It's amazing how young the French population is, and it's a salutory reminder that - no matter how messed up other parts of their economy are - they've got their pronatal policies right.
Err, it's the same median age as the UK, two years higher than USA and one year higher than Russia.
Russia's median age is low because people die young. With us and the US, it's because of immigration.
France is almost unique in the world in getting women with college education to have two children.
Controversial - are you suggesting that the wrong sort of people are having children in the UK?
I'm simply making a comment about demographics.
In the UK, the TFR of a university educated woman is 1.2-1.3. It's a little higher in the US.
In France it's 2.2. Women with degrees are more likely to have children in France than women without degrees. It's unprecedented anywhere in the world.
It's amazing how young the French population is, and it's a salutory reminder that - no matter how messed up other parts of their economy are - they've got their pronatal policies right.
Err, it's the same median age as the UK, two years higher than USA and one year higher than Russia.
Russia's median age is low because people die young. With us and the US, it's because of immigration.
France is almost unique in the world in getting women with college education to have two children.
Controversial - are you suggesting that the wrong sort of people are having children in the UK?
I'm simply making a comment about demographics.
In the UK, the TFR of a university educated woman is 1.2-1.3. It's a little higher in the US.
In France it's 2.2. Women with degrees are more likely to have children in France than women without degrees. It's unprecedented anywhere in the world.
I'm winding you up - I think it's a very interesting statistic that needs a wider audience. But you just know the Left would kick off if we started talking about this.
Martin Boon of ICM was on Twitter last night, as TSE noted, and if ICM have a poll imminent it certainly isn't showing Labour at 30%. It's rare to see a pollster so openly sceptical about rivals' findings.
I honestly believe that polls are going to to struggle to find Lab -> Con switchers this time, normally they are easy to identify in the centre ground, this time because of the PM's pitch they are coming from the working classes, a group which is notoriously difficult to poll accurately.
Labour supporters need to accept the possibility of and then work through the implications of the pollsters having the Conservative figure about right. And Conservative supporters need to accept the possibility of and then work through the implications of the pollsters having the Labour figure about right. Neither seems to have done this yet.
I'm inclined to agree, but it's a much bigger problem for Labour than it is for the Tories. Even if Labour are in the low 30s the Tories don't need a huge lead to get a big majority. For Labour if the Tory polling is right and their own is wrong it could be 15 year rebuilding project.
And let us not forget boundary change. Assuming a good Conservative win, we can assume that Labour will be starting the next election campaign after this one a net twenty-or-so seats further behind the Conservatives, notionally speaking, than where they actually finish this time around. In other words, their first ten gains from the Tories would only get them back to where they started.
"The NHS failed to heed repeated warnings that its out-of-date computer systems were vulnerable to the sort of cyber attack that brought it to its knees, it was claimed today.
Jeremy Hunt, the Health Secretary was accused of ignoring extensive warning signs before an unprecedented cyber attack which plunged the NHS into chaos."
If true, then I take it Jeremy Hunt will be unceremoniously dumped from his position after the General Election.
Well, Gove needs a job.
There’s a post on the Guardian’s page on the cyber-attack, as follows 'Not that that stopped Amber Rudd rushing onto television to tell everyone it was in no way the Tories' fault despite being their remit and their lack of funding, while NHS Wales was fine.’
Zat so? I've heard of problems in Scotland, which, IIRC, a spokesman said were now sorted, but nothing from Wales.
Edit: BBC Wales says Welsh NHS has recently invested in IT security.
Yes, NHS Wales came through unscathed but NHS Scotland didn't. Plus all the other non-governmental organisations hit as well. This kind of limits the ability to attack the government.
"The NHS failed to heed repeated warnings that its out-of-date computer systems were vulnerable to the sort of cyber attack that brought it to its knees, it was claimed today.
Jeremy Hunt, the Health Secretary was accused of ignoring extensive warning signs before an unprecedented cyber attack which plunged the NHS into chaos."
If true, then I take it Jeremy Hunt will be unceremoniously dumped from his position after the General Election.
I thought Jeremy was supposed to be good at computers?
What this thread shows is how appallingly the Lib Dems have performed in this campaign.
Well, over the last year. If they were going to capitalise on the Brexit referendum they would have made more progress before the election was called. The voters who are most fervent in their support for the EU will tend to be those who are most disappointed with the Lib Dems for going in to Coalition with the Tories.
It's amazing how the Tories have gobbled up Lib Dem and UKIP support since 2010. I remember back when people on here would discuss whether the ceiling for Tory support was 32%...
I have done a simulation for GE 2017 England only. Simple assumption:
UKIP loses 0.66 of its votes. Of that figure, CON gets 0.8, LAB gets 0.15, LD gets 0.05 [ The last maybe a bit silly but I had to put 0.05 somewhere. As you will see , it hardly makes any difference ]
No other changes. That means, LAB retains its votes and so does the LD and the Greens.
Results are as follows:
CON 344, LAB 185, LD 3, GRN 1.
In the coming days, I will make the model more sophisticated by entering regional variations.
Even if UKIP lost all its votes, split according to those shares you give, Con would only get up to ~360
Adding in a Scotland factor perhaps adds another handful, but to reach anywhere near 400 we need regional swings in Midlands and North, which must mean smaller swings elsewhere.
Yeah, but this is all based on the assumption there is zero Lab to Con swing.
The polling figures for Labour look like that is not far off.
A couple of points either way will make a big difference. At the moment it looks as though the Tories are up 10, which would imply a bigger share of the UKIP votes, or some swing from labour cancelled by swing from UKIP->Labour.
The Tory vote will turn out.
The Labour vote won't.
Voting against May is not a great reason to go to the polls, especially when you have to vote for Corbyn.
That's probably as close as you can get in one sentence.
"The NHS failed to heed repeated warnings that its out-of-date computer systems were vulnerable to the sort of cyber attack that brought it to its knees, it was claimed today.
Jeremy Hunt, the Health Secretary was accused of ignoring extensive warning signs before an unprecedented cyber attack which plunged the NHS into chaos."
If true, then I take it Jeremy Hunt will be unceremoniously dumped from his position after the General Election.
Well, Gove needs a job.
There’s a post on the Guardian’s page on the cyber-attack, as follows 'Not that that stopped Amber Rudd rushing onto television to tell everyone it was in no way the Tories' fault despite being their remit and their lack of funding, while NHS Wales was fine.’
Zat so? I've heard of problems in Scotland, which, IIRC, a spokesman said were now sorted, but nothing from Wales.
Edit: BBC Wales says Welsh NHS has recently invested in IT security.
Yes, NHS Wales came through unscathed but NHS Scotland didn't. Plus all the other non-governmental organisations hit as well. This kind of limits the ability to attack the government.
Yes, that and the fact that (a) this has happened all over the world and (b) nearly all of the affected NHS bodies are now back up and running.
Assuming that there's not a new wave of infections when the weekday workload resumes in the morning, the Government should get away with this one. Voters may be less impressed if it keeps happening in the future, but the chances of another serious IT failure happening before June 8th are, presumably, slight.
"The NHS failed to heed repeated warnings that its out-of-date computer systems were vulnerable to the sort of cyber attack that brought it to its knees, it was claimed today.
Jeremy Hunt, the Health Secretary was accused of ignoring extensive warning signs before an unprecedented cyber attack which plunged the NHS into chaos."
If true, then I take it Jeremy Hunt will be unceremoniously dumped from his position after the General Election.
I thought Jeremy was supposed to be good at computers?
"The NHS failed to heed repeated warnings that its out-of-date computer systems were vulnerable to the sort of cyber attack that brought it to its knees, it was claimed today.
Jeremy Hunt, the Health Secretary was accused of ignoring extensive warning signs before an unprecedented cyber attack which plunged the NHS into chaos."
If true, then I take it Jeremy Hunt will be unceremoniously dumped from his position after the General Election.
I thought Jeremy was supposed to be good at computers?
read ir properly.. THE NHS was accused NOT Hunt
So where does the NHS buck stop?
The buck is Jeremy, and that is one wild mammal Labour are happy to Hunt to destruction.
Actually she says Salmond defines a generation as 35 years.
When asked how long she thought “a generation” should be, Davidson said: “What was Alex Salmond’s definition? He said that between the ̓̓79 and 2014 referendum that was about a generation. That works for me.”
Silly definition really if (if!) he did say that, because the comparable referendum to 1979 was the one on setting up Holyrood in 1997 - so roughly 18 years a generation which sounds more like it (17 more years until the next referendum on Scotland's status would fit with that).
However long It is it's clear that the SNP believed they had waited long enough. This is starting to look like a bad miscalculation - what I thought was well-judged posturing that Sturgeon didn't believe in but would throw red meat to her left flank of irreconcilables looks as though under circumstances she clearly wasn't expecting it has left her vulnerable on the right.
However, in her further defence, the way things are going on Scotland at the moment it could easily be now or never for that second referendum.
The average age of a mother giving birth in Scotland in 2014 was 30.1. On average fathers were 2.6 years older. So 35 is closer to the mark regardless of political reasoning.
It's amazing how young the French population is, and it's a salutory reminder that - no matter how messed up other parts of their economy are - they've got their pronatal policies right.
Err, it's the same median age as the UK, two years higher than USA and one year higher than Russia.
Russia's median age is low because people die young. With us and the US, it's because of immigration.
France is almost unique in the world in getting women with college education to have two children.
Controversial - are you suggesting that the wrong sort of people are having children in the UK?
I'm simply making a comment about demographics.
In the UK, the TFR of a university educated woman is 1.2-1.3. It's a little higher in the US.
In France it's 2.2. Women with degrees are more likely to have children in France than women without degrees. It's unprecedented anywhere in the world.
I'm winding you up - I think it's a very interesting statistic that needs a wider audience. But you just know the Left would kick off if we started talking about this.
If you present it as: let's encourage the native population to breed so that we don't need those smelly foreigners, then naturally the Left would kick off. But if you present the necessary policies as: let's provide women with the employment rights, tax benefits, whatever it is that France is doing, so that they can make their own choices, then that is already policy for parties of the Left.
I rather got the impression on here that the Right in England was opposed to children, what with the two-child limit on tax credits.
"The NHS failed to heed repeated warnings that its out-of-date computer systems were vulnerable to the sort of cyber attack that brought it to its knees, it was claimed today.
Jeremy Hunt, the Health Secretary was accused of ignoring extensive warning signs before an unprecedented cyber attack which plunged the NHS into chaos."
If true, then I take it Jeremy Hunt will be unceremoniously dumped from his position after the General Election.
Well, Gove needs a job.
There’s a post on the Guardian’s page on the cyber-attack, as follows 'Not that that stopped Amber Rudd rushing onto television to tell everyone it was in no way the Tories' fault despite being their remit and their lack of funding, while NHS Wales was fine.’
Zat so? I've heard of problems in Scotland, which, IIRC, a spokesman said were now sorted, but nothing from Wales.
Edit: BBC Wales says Welsh NHS has recently invested in IT security.
Yes, NHS Wales came through unscathed but NHS Scotland didn't. Plus all the other non-governmental organisations hit as well. This kind of limits the ability to attack the government.
It's Labour's general uselessness that limits their ability to attack the government.
If it is true that Jeremy Hunt ignored repeated warnings and that he ended the MS extended support contract that would have prevented these outages, while NHS Wales continued with the MS contract, then that is more than enough grounds for blaming the government.
There is a reason Jeremy Hunt has said nothing at all since the incidents started.
Martin Boon of ICM was on Twitter last night, as TSE noted, and if ICM have a poll imminent it certainly isn't showing Labour at 30%. It's rare to see a pollster so openly sceptical about rivals' findings.
Meaning higher or lower?
Lower. He was saying the highest he's had Labour is 28%, so if he has new data it will be equal to or less than that.
What this thread shows is how appallingly the Lib Dems have performed in this campaign.
Well, over the last year. If they were going to capitalise on the Brexit referendum they would have made more progress before the election was called. The voters who are most fervent in their support for the EU will tend to be those who are most disappointed with the Lib Dems for going in to Coalition with the Tories.
It's amazing how the Tories have gobbled up Lib Dem and UKIP support since 2010. I remember back when people on here would discuss whether the ceiling for Tory support was 32%...
Oddly enough, some sections of Labour and Lib Dem support were quite right wing in the past. Post 2005, some shifted directly to the Tories, and some to UKIP, but the latter have now completed their political journey by going Conservative.
"The NHS failed to heed repeated warnings that its out-of-date computer systems were vulnerable to the sort of cyber attack that brought it to its knees, it was claimed today.
Jeremy Hunt, the Health Secretary was accused of ignoring extensive warning signs before an unprecedented cyber attack which plunged the NHS into chaos."
If true, then I take it Jeremy Hunt will be unceremoniously dumped from his position after the General Election.
Well, Gove needs a job.
There’s a post on the Guardian’s page on the cyber-attack, as follows 'Not that that stopped Amber Rudd rushing onto television to tell everyone it was in no way the Tories' fault despite being their remit and their lack of funding, while NHS Wales was fine.’
Zat so? I've heard of problems in Scotland, which, IIRC, a spokesman said were now sorted, but nothing from Wales.
Edit: BBC Wales says Welsh NHS has recently invested in IT security.
Yes, NHS Wales came through unscathed but NHS Scotland didn't. Plus all the other non-governmental organisations hit as well. This kind of limits the ability to attack the government.
It's Labour's general uselessness that limits their ability to attack the government.
If it is true that Jeremy Hunt ignored repeated warnings and that he ended the MS extended support contract that would have prevented these outages, while NHS Wales continued with the MS contract, then that is more than enough grounds for blaming the government.
There is a reason Jeremy Hunt has said nothing at all since the incidents started.
Unlike NHS staff, Jeremy Hunt does not do weekends.
Unless there is 3 times the swing, I can't see Labour losing. But then people have to decide very early on who to plump for. One of them has to transfer 5000 votes to the other to beat Labour.
"The NHS failed to heed repeated warnings that its out-of-date computer systems were vulnerable to the sort of cyber attack that brought it to its knees, it was claimed today.
Jeremy Hunt, the Health Secretary was accused of ignoring extensive warning signs before an unprecedented cyber attack which plunged the NHS into chaos."
If true, then I take it Jeremy Hunt will be unceremoniously dumped from his position after the General Election.
I thought Jeremy was supposed to be good at computers?
read ir properly.. THE NHS was accused NOT Hunt
The Telegraph's headline is: NHS cyber attack: Jeremy Hunt ignored repeated warnings over system vulnerability
It's amazing how young the French population is, and it's a salutory reminder that - no matter how messed up other parts of their economy are - they've got their pronatal policies right.
Err, it's the same median age as the UK, two years higher than USA and one year higher than Russia.
Russia's median age is low because people die young. With us and the US, it's because of immigration.
France is almost unique in the world in getting women with college education to have two children.
Controversial - are you suggesting that the wrong sort of people are having children in the UK?
I'm simply making a comment about demographics.
In the UK, the TFR of a university educated woman is 1.2-1.3. It's a little higher in the US.
In France it's 2.2. Women with degrees are more likely to have children in France than women without degrees. It's unprecedented anywhere in the world.
I'm winding you up - I think it's a very interesting statistic that needs a wider audience. But you just know the Left would kick off if we started talking about this.
If you present it as: let's encourage the native population to breed so that we don't need those smelly foreigners, then naturally the Left would kick off. But if you present the necessary policies as: let's provide women with the employment rights, tax benefits, whatever it is that France is doing, so that they can make their own choices, then that is already policy for parties of the Left.
I rather got the impression on here that the Right in England was opposed to children, what with the two-child limit on tax credits.
I wasn't thinking about not needing foreigners, I was thinking more along the lines of class. It sort of implies we'd rather well educated people were having more children as it implies those children are more likely to have a better upbringing.
The other thing about it is that it would be seen as putting pressure on professional women to have children. Whether you like it or not, having to stop work to have children is definitely a disadvantage to women in terms of career prospects (I know some on the Left would like that not to be the case - and in the Civil Service, it isn't) and sometimes that seems to be all that matters.
"The NHS failed to heed repeated warnings that its out-of-date computer systems were vulnerable to the sort of cyber attack that brought it to its knees, it was claimed today.
Jeremy Hunt, the Health Secretary was accused of ignoring extensive warning signs before an unprecedented cyber attack which plunged the NHS into chaos."
If true, then I take it Jeremy Hunt will be unceremoniously dumped from his position after the General Election.
Well, Gove needs a job.
There’s a post on the Guardian’s page on the cyber-attack, as follows 'Not that that stopped Amber Rudd rushing onto television to tell everyone it was in no way the Tories' fault despite being their remit and their lack of funding, while NHS Wales was fine.’
Zat so? I've heard of problems in Scotland, which, IIRC, a spokesman said were now sorted, but nothing from Wales.
Edit: BBC Wales says Welsh NHS has recently invested in IT security.
Yes, NHS Wales came through unscathed but NHS Scotland didn't. Plus all the other non-governmental organisations hit as well. This kind of limits the ability to attack the government.
It's Labour's general uselessness that limits their ability to attack the government.
If it is true that Jeremy Hunt ignored repeated warnings and that he ended the MS extended support contract that would have prevented these outages, while NHS Wales continued with the MS contract, then that is more than enough grounds for blaming the government.
There is a reason Jeremy Hunt has said nothing at all since the incidents started.
Only £5.5m we are talking about. This was well covered at the time. What is Labour saying ? Nothing as far as I know.
"The NHS failed to heed repeated warnings that its out-of-date computer systems were vulnerable to the sort of cyber attack that brought it to its knees, it was claimed today.
Jeremy Hunt, the Health Secretary was accused of ignoring extensive warning signs before an unprecedented cyber attack which plunged the NHS into chaos."
If true, then I take it Jeremy Hunt will be unceremoniously dumped from his position after the General Election.
Well, Gove needs a job.
There’s a post on the Guardian’s page on the cyber-attack, as follows 'Not that that stopped Amber Rudd rushing onto television to tell everyone it was in no way the Tories' fault despite being their remit and their lack of funding, while NHS Wales was fine.’
Zat so? I've heard of problems in Scotland, which, IIRC, a spokesman said were now sorted, but nothing from Wales.
Edit: BBC Wales says Welsh NHS has recently invested in IT security.
Yes, NHS Wales came through unscathed but NHS Scotland didn't. Plus all the other non-governmental organisations hit as well. This kind of limits the ability to attack the government.
It's Labour's general uselessness that limits their ability to attack the government.
If it is true that Jeremy Hunt ignored repeated warnings and that he ended the MS extended support contract that would have prevented these outages, while NHS Wales continued with the MS contract, then that is more than enough grounds for blaming the government.
There is a reason Jeremy Hunt has said nothing at all since the incidents started.
Would a cabinet minister have a direct line of sight over the renewal of software support products? I suspect that the answer is no - that doesn't mean that responsibility can be avoided but how much centralised command is there? To take the Welsh example, who made the decision about software support there? I assume you can confidently provide evidence that it was a directly made political decision.
Your argument looks hyperbolic and difficult to maintain.
as an aside, if you are looking for near certain bets, can I recommend the LDs in Orkney and Shetland? They got 67.4% of the vote last year in the Holyrood election, and I think you can get 4/7 on them.
I agree i think thats a steal
Scandals can blow up in Scotland like nowhere on earth.
"The NHS failed to heed repeated warnings that its out-of-date computer systems were vulnerable to the sort of cyber attack that brought it to its knees, it was claimed today.
Jeremy Hunt, the Health Secretary was accused of ignoring extensive warning signs before an unprecedented cyber attack which plunged the NHS into chaos."
If true, then I take it Jeremy Hunt will be unceremoniously dumped from his position after the General Election.
Well, Gove needs a job.
There’s a post on the Guardian’s page on the cyber-attack, as follows 'Not that that stopped Amber Rudd rushing onto television to tell everyone it was in no way the Tories' fault despite being their remit and their lack of funding, while NHS Wales was fine.’
Zat so? I've heard of problems in Scotland, which, IIRC, a spokesman said were now sorted, but nothing from Wales.
Edit: BBC Wales says Welsh NHS has recently invested in IT security.
Yes, NHS Wales came through unscathed but NHS Scotland didn't. Plus all the other non-governmental organisations hit as well. This kind of limits the ability to attack the government.
Yes, that and the fact that (a) this has happened all over the world and (b) nearly all of the affected NHS bodies are now back up and running.
Assuming that there's not a new wave of infections when the weekday workload resumes in the morning, the Government should get away with this one. Voters may be less impressed if it keeps happening in the future, but the chances of another serious IT failure happening before June 8th are, presumably, slight.
NHS Wales, under Labour, paid for XP support. NHS England , under the Tories didn't. I suppose , NHS Scotland, under the SNP, did not [ I have no evidence on the last one ]
Comments
It is however worth remembering that since 1922 they have only had twelve leaders in total. Henderson, Lansbury, Gaitskell, Foot, Kinnock, Smith and Miliband were never PM, while only two Labour PMs - Callaghan and Brown - have been PM without winning an election at some point (admittedly the same as the number of Conservatives, assuming May wins next month - Chamberlain and Home).
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/1002695/tories-ruth-davidson-u-turn-prescriptions/
http://www.betbreakingnews.com/betmod-item/bet-performance-chart/74269/
This is also worth a read:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/13/brexit-bullies-turning-on-those-sorting-out-their-mess
Corbyn's a muppet, but most Labour voters will rally support their local MP, whatever they think of him (and 20% of the voters favour a radical left programme in any case).
Would be interesting were we actually to see at least one of the companies continuing to give results significantly different to the others as we approach polling day. The outlier could end up looking very silly - or very clever.
Also Rawnsley qualified it by saying 'the last 80 years' by which I think he meant the start of Attlee's tenure in 1935 (and it's staggering to think he led the party for nearly a quarter of the time since then).
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/1b8yww4g1l/SundayTimesResults_170512_VI_W.pdf
Socialism is still very appealing to a significant fraction of the population, but on the national scale it's a dead duck.
Not saying they'd be usurping Labour now, but they'd be in better shape.
It happens in sport too. Should Leicester have been 5000-1 at the start of last season? Probably not.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a26189/ludgar-war-wolf-catapults/
I have now done a simulation based on National Opinion polls except for
London [ Con +1.1%, Lab -2.7%, LD +6.3%, UKIP -2.1%, GRN -1.9% ],
Scotland [ Con +13%, Lab -6.3%, LD -0.5%, SNP -7%, GRN +0.8% ] and
Wales [ Con +13.8%, Lab -1.9%, LD +0.5%, PC -1.1%, UKIP -9.6%, GRN -1.6% ]
The drum rolls:
CON 379 +48
LAB 191 -41
LD 11 +3
SNP 47 -9
PC 3 -
GRN 1 -
UKIP 0 -1
The reasons for the slightly smaller Tory numbers are mainly:
London - UKIP does not have too many votes to transfer to the Tories
East of England - There are 58 seats and Labour is not going to lose even one. The closest will be Cambridge but that is to the LD's.
I think the swing to the LD's will be smaller nationwide because they are almost doubling their vote in London.
I take the Welsh poll with a large bucket of salt but have faithfully reproduced it. I also think the SNP will defend better than it is believed in PB.
"The NHS failed to heed repeated warnings that its out-of-date computer systems were vulnerable to the sort of cyber attack that brought it to its knees, it was claimed today.
Jeremy Hunt, the Health Secretary was accused of ignoring extensive warning signs before an unprecedented cyber attack which plunged the NHS into chaos."
If true, then I take it Jeremy Hunt will be unceremoniously dumped from his position after the General Election.
That's what penny bets are for, isn't it? Backing the odd ugly duckling, and let's face it, Lady N is definitely one of those.
With us and the US, it's because of immigration.
France is almost unique in the world in getting women with college education to have two children.
The splits for the Midlands sub-sample are especially dramatic: 52:31, and that's inclusive of Wales. And the two party system is reasserting itself: in England, it's not just Ukip that's melting, either: the Lib Dems appear, beyond Southern England, to be reverting to the pattern of the old Liberal Party: strong in isolated pockets, practically an irrelevance everywhere else. In Scotland, meanwhile, the progress towards an (SNP) Nationalist - (Conservative) Unionist duopoly continues.
Zat so? I've heard of problems in Scotland, which, IIRC, a spokesman said were now sorted, but nothing from Wales.
Edit: BBC Wales says Welsh NHS has recently invested in IT security.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1779052/labours-emily-thornberry-didnt-know-french-minister-but-she-must-know-its-wrong-to-cry-sexism/
In the UK, the TFR of a university educated woman is 1.2-1.3. It's a little higher in the US.
In France it's 2.2. Women with degrees are more likely to have children in France than women without degrees. It's unprecedented anywhere in the world.
The government knew this attack was coming. We chose to keep computers vulnerable so we could launch targeted hacks. The government knew our hacking tools had been nicked, and which parts of our infrastructure was vulnerable.
It's a complete scandal.
TM should be grateful it wasn't more serious.
It's amazing how the Tories have gobbled up Lib Dem and UKIP support since 2010. I remember back when people on here would discuss whether the ceiling for Tory support was 32%...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/21/emily-thornberry-resignation-explain-outside-britain
Next ICM tomorrow for the Guardian then, perhaps?
Assuming that there's not a new wave of infections when the weekday workload resumes in the morning, the Government should get away with this one. Voters may be less impressed if it keeps happening in the future, but the chances of another serious IT failure happening before June 8th are, presumably, slight.
LibDem Winning Over There ....
Mind you after his messages to Brooks...
I have to go. Have a good morning.
Makes you wonder what Corbyn and McDonnell spent so much time seeking to undermine previous Labour leaderships.
This is also worth a read:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/13/brexit-bullies-turning-on-those-sorting-out-their-mess
Well worth a read. Nick Cohen at his persuasive best. A great champion for those of us who loathe brexit and all it stands for.
I rather got the impression on here that the Right in England was opposed to children, what with the two-child limit on tax credits.
If it is true that Jeremy Hunt ignored repeated warnings and that he ended the MS extended support contract that would have prevented these outages, while NHS Wales continued with the MS contract, then that is more than enough grounds for blaming the government.
There is a reason Jeremy Hunt has said nothing at all since the incidents started.
Pleasing military uniforms .... The Royal Scots Greys saw a lot of them at Waterloo ....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/13/nhs-cyber-attack-repeated-warnings-system-vulnerability-not/
The other thing about it is that it would be seen as putting pressure on professional women to have children. Whether you like it or not, having to stop work to have children is definitely a disadvantage to women in terms of career prospects (I know some on the Left would like that not to be the case - and in the Civil Service, it isn't) and sometimes that seems to be all that matters.
http://www.v3.co.uk/v3-uk/news/2406304/windows-xp-government-support-deal-ends-leaving-pcs-open-to-attack
Your argument looks hyperbolic and difficult to maintain.
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/997006/tasmina-ahmed-sheikh-snp-general-election-legal-watchdog-probe/