Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » It is 6-1 for CON to re-take Corby: By far the best bet for
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » It is 6-1 for CON to re-take Corby: By far the best bet for those who think the blues are in with a shout
PaddyPower is offering 6/1 on the Tories retaking Corby – Louise Mensch’s old seat which was won by Labour in last November’s by-election.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
It just wouldn't be fair to tim.
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB[Numbers corrected up the thread]
However the Labour by-election victor will probably get a significant boost on the back of the 13% swing in 2012.
6/1 sounds about right to me, so no value there.
You don't crush a cockroach unless you have a need for cochineal.
I understand that the party was holding meetings on how to manage recess months ago, and had planned a programme of announcements, speeches, stunts and neat little infographics about how well their policies are going. They printed half a million more pledge cards to hand out. And they decided to target Labour, and only Labour. ‘The Lib Dems don’t really figure for us at the moment,’ said one senior figure when I asked what happened to the plan to start differentiating between the two Coalition parties. And party strategists insist that they’re relaxed about Ukip now that Lynton Crosby has got a plan for attacking Nigel Farage’s party. The reality is of course slightly different and as James explains in his column this week, many of the key summer attack themes that undermine Labour like immigration and welfare also reassure would-be Ukip voters that the Tories are on the right track.
The focus on Labour means the Tories have started to behave more like a traditional opposition than a party of government. Their strategy this summer has been to attack Labour on the areas where the party is weakest, playing up their own achievements and arguing that Miliband has ‘questions to answer’ on key policy areas... >> http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/08/how-the-tories-planned-to-spend-this-summer-behaving-like-an-opposition-party/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=how-the-tories-planned-to-spend-this-summer-behaving-like-an-opposition-party
Mr. T, it's wrong to treat atheists as a single group in the same way it's wrong to treat everyone not interested in football as a single group. There's no unifying beliefs beyond the very basic "There's no god(s)", no structure or politics and no holy book (and no, The Blind Watchmaker is not the equivalent of the Bible).
It's not too surprising that some are angry, militant and prone to being annoyed by pieces such as yours. On the bright side, there's no fatwa on your head yet.
May you be touched by His Noodley Appendage.
A 3.6% Tory lead in popular vote may not even guarantee a Tory highest number of seats. What a Tory win in Corby would mean is that they would be doing at least as well as they did in 2010. After all, Me Me Mensch won with a little to spare.
"If there is no value here", we have to conclude that you do not think the Tories could even win 307 seats !
Polls out this week seem to show a shift to Abbott and the Coalition, both nationally and in the marginals and it looks as if Abbott should win comfortably, but that Rudd will ensure the ALP avoids the meltdown Gillard would have caused. Still a few weeks left to go though
Post & Tweets deleted
Correct numbers
Con+2 31
Lab-2 32%
LD+1 16%
UKIP-1 12%
It's like asking "Are people who don't have red as their favourite colour mentally ill?"
Not least because - and this is a common mistake - absence of belief is not belief of absence. The best way I've heard to describe this is: not believing in god is a religion, in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby.
The stamp-collecting comparison is a good one. Even if atheism is a positive belief it's still one that lacks the hallmarks and advantages/drawbacks of religion (hierarchy, holy book, death threats if you make silly cartoons about them).
http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/politics/8994771/ed-miliband-may-be-stumbling-but-dont-forget-his-huge-headstart/
perdix said:
» show previous quotes
Kippers obviously don't like any measure of success by Cameron in dealing with the EU. One would have thought any success would have suited their aims.
Well, we don't live in a fools paradise or a never-never land like some on PB, thats true. The fact that you believe that Cammo is having success in this matter says it all.
More a type of Scale Insect:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochineal
A by-election has intervened in Corby, which Labour won on a thumping swing. Historically, victors from all parties get a boost at the next general election off the back of a by-election victory.
So the 3.6% Tory lead in Corby is irrelevant now. Labour are sitting on a 21.8% majority, courtesy of the 2012 by-election.
Now of course, some of that will evaporate come 2015, but not all. Let us be conservative and say about 1/4 of Labour's gain in 2012 will be retained in 2015. Let us be further generous to the Tories and subtract the actual position in 2010 from Labour's adjusted tally.
I would therefore estimate that this seat has a notional Labour majority of about 1.9% going into 2015, and subject to the vagaries of UNS at that point.
Now if the Tories manage a 3.6% national lead in 2015, that would still be a swing to Labour.
Given we can estimate the likely variation in swing (the SD was 3.4% last time) that would imply the Tories have about a 21% chance of retaking Corby, not so far from the odds offered.
Of course if the Tories do significantly better nationally, the chance rises. If there is zero swing (or positive to the Tories) their chance would be at least 39%.
On the other hand if you think Labour will win the popular vote in 2015, the Tories' chances of taking Corby would be no higher than 9%.
It's certainly not any kind of stand-out bet, as Mike implies.
Electoral Calculus +8
UKPR +7
Wisdom index +1
Lebo & Norpoth -6
hint: it can be shown that voters lie in their VIs this far out from an election. The crafty thing is to discover a proxy question which gets them to reveal their true intentions. Such as the WI or PM approval...
Regular polls
YouGov: ~12%.
ComRes: ~12% (down recently though - might be a bit higher - is there are more recent one - I find the site confusing)
Populus: 8%
Ipsos-MORI: 11%
ICM: 10%
Opinium: 16%
Wisdom index
ICM: 12%
Seems in line.
For some reason no pollsters do it.
So you can't base theories on polling data that doesn't exist.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23724066
Now which part of 1713 The Treaty of Utrecht did The Spanish not understand? Cameron may need to be careful over his tactics. It might look clever to involve The EU, but will UKIP profit from its involvement?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/Xibraltarplano-en.jpg
"Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the way [David Cameron] is doing his job as
Prime Minister?"
The "satisfieds" are what L&N term "PM approval"...
I'm happy to base my bets on something which may not be as relevant now as it might be in the future, but is a damn sight more relevant than 60% porkies VI opinion polls!
That is bollocks.
Leader satisfaction is not the same as leader approval and you are twisting things.
My preference for forecasting is leader favourability which both ComRes and now Survation ask.
Tories won 307 seats AND won Corby by a slim margin.
The Tories cannot hope to win outright without winning Corby [ theoretically possible though unlikely ]
So, 6/1 against tells me that punters currently do not think they can win Corby. Implies they can't win outright either [ whatever Rod C says ].
They allowed me all of £3.83 on this.
It would be true to say "The Tories cannot hope to win outright without winning Corby [ theoretically possible though unlikely ]" if Corby had come to be where it is because the Tories had failed to win it in 2010, but that's not the case. Corby is now special and could defy the swing.
"The question typically asks: ‘Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with [name] as Prime Minister?’"
Note 22, page 76
http://primarymodel.com/Press_files/PM_Pend_BJPS06.PDF
Really graphic pictures !
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100231401/the-mandatory-tweets-of-the-self-righteous-vacillating-centrist-stats-bore-a-users-guide/
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/youre_right_wing_you_must_be_really_stupid/13917#.Ug55pJLU_sv
'It makes me nostalgic for the bad old days, it really does. When Margaret Thatcher died I sat through 11 hours of the BBC’s 1979 election night coverage. At first glance many of the MPs seemed to have been plucked straight from the Brigade of Guards or the shop floor; so different were their accents that Robin Day was as much translator as interviewer. But beneath the costumes were real people whose dislike for each other was rooted in conflicting but passionate notions of service to Britain.'
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100231461/modern-politicians-intensely-relaxed-about-trousering-other-peoples-cash/
The use of the term PB Tory as a political label speaks to the infantilisation of public life. Name-calling is an activity normally associated with childish behavior. Making fun of someone’s blog comments, gambling record, party identification and use of predictive modelling systems is the politics of insult. And an insult does not constitute an argument, or even an idea. In fact, often the political insult serves as a substitute for argument and debate. The use of invective and the suggestion of mental deficiency closes down debate.
After all, what’s the point of using a rational argument against people who are incapable of reasoning? To use an expression from a popular UK political blog: ‘The PB Tories never learn.’ When someone says this, particularly in relation to political and moral debates, what they’re really saying is not only that the other person ‘will never learn’ but that they are incapable of learning. Therefore, in the mind of the accuser, further debate is pointless.
Altogether a interesting article, if a bit too intellectual for PB Lefties.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cashforaccess-1750-for-access-to-the-prime-ministers-bed-8771525.html
(Though I don't know why they expect the LD to Lab swing which would benefit them in the CON/LD marginals not to hurt them in the Lab/Con ones)
SeanT, I'm an atheist: I don't believe in either God or you in the troll-like form you choose to project yourself. I suspect you're really a mild-mannered chap with greying hair and an apologetic air as you say you wouldn't mind another orange juice. But I wish you both well, insofar as you exist.
You could, of course, come to the next PB do and prove or disprove the theory. I'll buy you a tonic water, if you like.
I'm an atheist. I'd love to know what you think my holy book is, who my priest is, where the local temple is.
I don't have or want any of those. I have no commandments, or precepts or holy days either.
Sean is being deliberately inflammatory, and it's working it seems.
Of course atheism isn't a religion, there is no doctrine of faith, scripture, ceremony or even any natty robes.
Let him have his rant and move on.
As for me, I don't believe in any god but should compelling evidence be presented I will change my mind. Just don't expect me to worship the hateful bastard.
Discipline seems to be breaking down inside Ed Miliband's Labour Party http://bit.ly/15PlsqA
Labour's Tom Watson accuses party of 'huge injustice' over Falkirk
MP says Labour botched its response with 'storm in a teacup' over Unite union byelection candidate controversy in Scotland
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/aug/16/tom-watson-accuses-labour-injustice-falkirk?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
But, like a Christian, I forgive you.
Did you get your 1,000 links/tweets?
60% - NOM
20-25% LAB
15-20% CON
I cannot imagine any predictive simulation can give one of the two major parties zero percent chance under FPTP from 2.5 years back Maybe 3 days before the GE and one of the parties 8% behind, fair enough !
Is yours a personal God, Sean?
Does she care about you and your deeds?
My money's on Chelsea.
C of E
Methodist
RC
C of S
Liverpool FC
Everton FC
Godless Atheist Bastard.
"Faith is unsusceptible to logic" - not unlike madness?
That's probably very true.
Although I am not at all religious, despite my hypocrisy of getting married in a church, I am very reluctant to call myself an aetheist or a non-believer because I want there to be a God, and I am hopeful that there is something out there. Something that did create the beauty of the peacock feathers and our wondrous Goldilocksian position in the universe.
Worth recalling that Nasser was in power for decades. Then Sadat was. Then Mubarak. Morsi lasted about a year (almost as bad as Julius Caesar).
It's possible Egypt could become that significant in global terms (ie in a bad way), but it may well simply lapse into military dictatorship.
More damaging than Watson's comments on Falkirk is his attack on Labour's EU referendum position
The main one was Europe. Watson fears struggled to grasp that being in opposition means they cannot set the agenda. His colleagues aren't wrong to argue that this is not the right time for an EU referendum – "but unfortunately we're not in control of that debate. Cameron has set the agenda on Europe; he wants a referendum, and if we don't engage with that debate then it won't be on our terms. So I would argue for a referendum next May – get it out the way before the election. That should be Labour's position. Yes to a referendum, and yes to remaining part of Europe." Yet the subject was apparently seldom discussed in cabinet. Did he think that was a tad negligent? "Yes, I did."
I'm just curious as to what you actually believe in.
What bothers me slightly more ( though not all that much ) is why my lack of belief bothers you enough to brand be mentally ill.
Striking thing about Falkirk report is not just Miliband wont publish, but even within party hierarchy, it's kept under lock + key. Why?
There may be something in that, as a sentient species has the spectre of death to contend with. On the other hand, that doesn't make theism true, and one might argue that believing in something that has no evidence for it is closer to madness than not believing in it.
I actually read The God Delusion, and it made for uncomfortable reading. Basically we are all worm food. When you are told something that final and that depressing it's hardly surprising that so many people look for hope in a God.
Dawkins is obviously very clever and very sure of his argument but the militancy of his aetheism makes him as much a zealot as those arguing for their respsective religions.
Edited extra bit: it'd obviously be immoral and indefensible to have Scots on both sides of the negotiating table.
Get to the end of the long Watson rant and you find he has taken forsaken the tank turret for a sniper's rifle. Andy Burnham is in the crosshairs.
[Watson] blamed other colleagues for making the shadow cabinet disunited and ineffective. "They certainly need to behave more collectively and back each other up more." He said some, such as Andy Burnham, were "motoring in their brief", but others were "certainly not".
As it is rumoured a Shadow Cabinet reshuffle is imminent, it would be interesting to ask Nick Palmer and tim as to whom they would like to see as the new Shadow Secretary for Health.
Of course, Watson may praising Burnham. It depends how you interpret the meaning of "motoring".
He has a good point too.. Plenty of current research points to religiosity being evolutionary advantageous
Lovely.
We discussed this a few weeks ago.
In my view there should be a self-denying ordinance by the Scottish MPs. I can't imagine the Westminster party choosing to legislate on something that the Holyrood Parliament was opposed to during that interim period.
Scots would need representation for constituency business, but they shouldn't feel the need to vote on the laws for what will, in the near future, be a foreign country.
But, of course, we can't expect Labour to stick to what is right.