This morning I'm starting to thing that Ed Miliband's rebel yell on behalf of the ordinary ripped off squeezed brit might actually do the tories a favour.
The msg of the conference should be 'we know things are bl*dy rough for many, here's how we intend to help out....'
So the immediate scores on the doors with Populus, is Labour dropping 2 points from BEFORE his speech.
At this rate, there could even be a poll with a blue lead if there is a conference bounce for them to come - mind you, after 3 conferences so far you wouldn't say there's a lot of evidence of them actually happening at all this year!
My hunch is this poll is a wee bit of an outlier. Labour's lead has probably upped a notch to 5-6% which will duly fall back after next week's Tory outing. We'll need to wait until mid November for a more accurate picture: my guess is that the Labour will enjoy a very modest advantage until year end which will then give way to a narrow Tory lead/level pegging in the New Year as the economic recovery gains momentum. Next year's Budget will be incredibly important poltically - George HAS to get that one right.
To me the comments on this thread are bizarre. With pc and tablet why would anyone sane buy even one bulky paper when you can get all of them online for free - not all of the catwalks are even that effective. The Mail is excellent and way better than its competitors.
Isn't a PC or tablet quite bulky (and valuable unlike a read newspaper) . too much screen time hurts my eyes . I like a paper paper . IT makes me concentrate on one thing rather than click click and flcking through different websites . Its a bit like having sky and hundreds of TV Channals in that you end up half or quarter watching 4 programmes at once and not concentrating. I consider myself quite sane
I think the papers are more influential since the emergence of online editions. I read them far more than I ever did printed editions.
its the comments at the end of articles that I find fascinating because they can give you a clue as to public sentiment turning.
For example on the Mail's site this morning the most liked comment on the 'work for benefits' story was one saying 'OK -but no to slave labour for private companies'
This suggests to me that the tory advantage on benefits is almost played out, and they have to be very careful pushing things much further.
Obviously these aren't polls, but I find them interesting nevertheless.
On 'Work for benefits' - Tesco/Poundland employment bad Working in a BHF shop or having to do 20 hrs/week at the Dog's Trust - Good.
I think Labour is probably REALLY on 38 and Con on 33, Lib Dems 10, UKIP 11. That leaves 8% for others/Nats which is about right.
I think the polls are all under-estimating UKIP, I don't believe they've lost support since the May elections. Which means the Con/Lab numbers are too high.
So, for example, the climate scientist can not control whether there will be a volcanic eruption, or a greater frequency of La-Nina events, and the occurrence of such events may - to a naive person - appear to invalidate the theory behind consequently erroneous projections made with a climate model. Really, they do not.
The point I was making in my original intervention is that scientists are culturally a very argumentative lot. You simply could not create and maintain a multi-decade long global conspiracy of scientists to "fiddle the records" as MikeK originally alleged.
As I have said before, anyone using RealClimate - a blog specifically set up as a pressure group to push the idea of catastrophic global warming - in an argument on science really isn't doing themselves any favours.
All the climate models have overstated warming over the last 2 decades by a margin that exceeds their own error bars. As such the models have failed and need to be revisited. This is hardly surprising given that - in spite of what some might try to claim - they are models, not the results of experimentation or direct measurement.
This IPCC report has already reduced the predicted temperature rise substantially and I expect it will do so further as we go forward since it still doesn't reflect the results of direct measurements being made at the moment.
As far as 'fiddling the results' is concerned I am not one of those who believes in a grand over-reaching conspiracy. I leave the whys and wherefores to others. Though I am interested in the fact that the few bodies who collate temperature data on a world wide basis have found it necessary on several occasions over the last decade to go back and lower past temperature measurements, particularly from the first half of the twentieth century. Apparently the raw data that we used for some 60 or 70 years is no longer considered valid and must now be adjusted - downwards as it happens in such a way as to make the rises of the 1980s and 90s seem far more extreme than the raw data would have indicated.
I think Labour is probably REALLY on 38 and Con on 33, Lib Dems 10, UKIP 11. That leaves 8% for others/Nats which is about right.
I think the polls are all under-estimating UKIP, I don't believe they've lost support since the May elections. Which means the Con/Lab numbers are too high.
I've simply added up the unweighted totals from both the recent populus and yougov polls and here are the %s
Con 32.9 Lab 41.2 Lib 9.7 UKIP 16.2
They both however are online polls so that might attract more kippers or something, I'm not sure. Any phone polls out soon (TM) ?
Sometimes I think the various 'weighting' tries to be too clever by half.
BBC: the two Muslim converts accused of murdering Lee Rigby in May have pleaded not guilty.
I'm very surprised - it seems a rather open-and-shut case. Then again, IANAL.
It is unlawful to publish reports of the preparatory hearing before Mr Justice Sweeney at the Central Criminal Court today (s. 37(1) of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996), so the nature of the defence case, if any, advanced by the defendants cannot be disclosed.
As I have said before, anyone using RealClimate - a blog specifically set up as a pressure group to push the idea of catastrophic global warming - in an argument on science really isn't doing themselves any favours.
All the climate models have overstated warming over the last 2 decades by a margin that exceeds their own error bars. As such the models have failed and need to be revisited. This is hardly surprising given that - in spite of what some might try to claim - they are models, not the results of experimentation or direct measurement.
This IPCC report has already reduced the predicted temperature rise substantially and I expect it will do so further as we go forward since it still doesn't reflect the results of direct measurements being made at the moment.
As far as 'fiddling the results' is concerned I am not one of those who believes in a grand over-reaching conspiracy. I leave the whys and wherefores to others. Though I am interested in the fact that the few bodies who collate temperature data on a world wide basis have found it necessary on several occasions over the last decade to go back and lower past temperature measurements, particularly from the first half of the twentieth century. Apparently the raw data that we used for some 60 or 70 years is no longer considered valid and must now be adjusted - downwards as it happens in such a way as to make the rises of the 1980s and 90s seem far more extreme than the raw data would have indicated.
This climate keffuffle just increased the need to move to 'better' baseload capabilities.
Let's just take a trip into fantasy land: say by 2030, a company develops a deployable, reproducible, cheap, environmentally friendly and safe nuclear fusion device (yes, I know). Something like Lockheed's "High Beta Fusion Reactor" crossed with Back to the Future's "Mr Fusion"
What rewards should the world give the company? What effects would it have on business and industry? How would our lives be altered by much cheaper electricity prices?
As I have said before, anyone using RealClimate - a blog specifically set up as a pressure group to push the idea of catastrophic global warming - in an argument on science really isn't doing themselves any favours.
All the climate models have overstated warming over the last 2 decades by a margin that exceeds their own error bars. As such the models have failed and need to be revisited. This is hardly surprising given that - in spite of what some might try to claim - they are models, not the results of experimentation or direct measurement.
This IPCC report has already reduced the predicted temperature rise substantially and I expect it will do so further as we go forward since it still doesn't reflect the results of direct measurements being made at the moment.
As far as 'fiddling the results' is concerned I am not one of those who believes in a grand over-reaching conspiracy. I leave the whys and wherefores to others. Though I am interested in the fact that the few bodies who collate temperature data on a world wide basis have found it necessary on several occasions over the last decade to go back and lower past temperature measurements, particularly from the first half of the twentieth century. Apparently the raw data that we used for some 60 or 70 years is no longer considered valid and must now be adjusted - downwards as it happens in such a way as to make the rises of the 1980s and 90s seem far more extreme than the raw data would have indicated.
This climate keffuffle just increased the need to move to 'better' baseload capabilities.
Let's just take a trip into fantasy land: say by 2030, a company develops a deployable, reproducible, cheap, environmentally friendly and safe nuclear fusion device (yes, I know). Something like Lockheed's "High Beta Fusion Reactor" crossed with Back to the Future's "Mr Fusion"
What rewards should the world give the company? What effects would it have on business and industry? How would our lives be altered by much cheaper electricity prices?
As I have said before, anyone using RealClimate - a blog specifically set up as a pressure group to push the idea of catastrophic global warming - in an argument on science really isn't doing themselves any favours.
Honestly, that's your argument?
The blogpost I linked to had a lot of observational data, and some conceptual explanations of non-intuitive changes to the climate, and your response is simply to shoot the messenger.
What is behind it ? Well on the nags their early prices are never the best to be perfectly honest.
That's absolutely correct, Pulpstar.
When the new Chief Executive was appointed a few years back one of his first moves was to take Ladbrokes off the Oddschecker site comparison. They did a swift u-turn on that one when they saw how much business they were losing. Their pricing policy hasn't improved though. They used to be amongst the most competitive but they are rarely best price these days.
They have also become very much quicker to close successful accounts. Three winning bets and you're out now. This always strikes me as a short-sighted policy. They would be better off allowing successful punters to remain (but with a reasonable limit of say £50 per bet) so that they can see where the smart money is going. These punters get back in anyway, by using 'beards', so why not use them to advantage?
The Magic Sign used to be the doyen of the bookmaking community. It's now looking distinctly fifth-rate.
From being an avid hard-copy newspaper reader - 2 dailies and 3 Sundays 5 years ago I now haven't bought one for a couple of years.
Online I look at everything that doesn't charge to get a balance - funny how having once been a Times reader I barely remember they exist behind their paywall these days. From being the most influential paper in the country (pre-Murdoch) I think its influence must have declined rapidly - you rarely see links to their articles on blogs I assume because so few people can access them.
I think Labour is probably REALLY on 38 and Con on 33, Lib Dems 10, UKIP 11. That leaves 8% for others/Nats which is about right.
I think the polls are all under-estimating UKIP, I don't believe they've lost support since the May elections. Which means the Con/Lab numbers are too high.
They're probably not underestimating them right now, but then the polls don't mean a lot yet. We're too far from the reality and urgency of a GE.
I would expect their poll ratings to improve in 2015. My money is still on a strong UKIP performance.
Newspaper circulations may be falling but every day Al Beeb and Sky talk about their articles. What the papers say in their headlines is given prominence.
I like a paper in my hand, I suppose because I'm used to it. Not that I read them everyday like I once did. If I do buy one these days it's The Times on a Saturday and The Observer on a Sunday. But it's always for the non-news stuff. The Times has become just another Tory paper over the last couple of years, which is a shame because it used to be a superb read from front page to last while clearly leaning Tory; but it's sports, style and review sections are excellent, as is its magazine. And it does have some columnists worth reading. I also like The Observer sport section and its review pages; its columnists are not so interesting because it's generally readership comfort zone stuff (like the Grauniad and Torygraph), though Rawnsley can still be thought-provoking.
BTW, I thought Tim's Bilbo Baggins exit on 9,999 was superbly done. But PB is much the poorer without him. Hopefully, he'll be back. And hopefully Polruan will also post more regularly. Big steak in NYC for me today. Flying home tomorrow.
I think Labour is probably REALLY on 38 and Con on 33, Lib Dems 10, UKIP 11. That leaves 8% for others/Nats which is about right.
I think the polls are all under-estimating UKIP, I don't believe they've lost support since the May elections. Which means the Con/Lab numbers are too high.
I've simply added up the unweighted totals from both the recent populus and yougov polls and here are the %s
Con 32.9 Lab 41.2 Lib 9.7 UKIP 16.2
They both however are online polls so that might attract more kippers or something, I'm not sure. Any phone polls out soon (TM) ?
Sometimes I think the various 'weighting' tries to be too clever by half.
There's also a website that's started to do regular tallies of the local by-election results.
I like a paper in my hand, I suppose because I'm used to it. Not that I read them everyday like I once did. If I do buy one these days it's The Times on a Saturday and The Observer on a Sunday. But it's always for the non-news stuff. The Times has become just another Tory paper over the last couple of years, which is a shame because it used to be a superb read from front page to last while clearly leaning Tory; but it's sports, style and review sections are excellent, as is its magazine. And it does have some columnists worth reading. I also like The Observer sport section and its review pages; its columnists are not so interesting because it's generally readership comfort zone stuff (like the Grauniad and Torygraph), though Rawnsley can still be thought-provoking.
BTW, I thought Tim's Bilbo Baggins exit on 9,999 was superbly done. But PB is much the poorer without him. Hopefully, he'll be back. And hopefully Polruan will also post more regularly. Big steak in NYC for me today. Flying home tomorrow.
tim'll be back, do you really think someone who posts that much can keep away?
I think Labour is probably REALLY on 38 and Con on 33, Lib Dems 10, UKIP 11. That leaves 8% for others/Nats which is about right.
I think the polls are all under-estimating UKIP, I don't believe they've lost support since the May elections. Which means the Con/Lab numbers are too high.
They're probably not underestimating them right now, but then the polls don't mean a lot yet. We're too far from the reality and urgency of a GE.
I would expect their poll ratings to improve in 2015. My money is still on a strong UKIP performance.
The loss of UKIP support shown by the polls, doesn't appear to show up in the local election contests.
What is behind it ? Well on the nags their early prices are never the best to be perfectly honest.
That's absolutely correct, Pulpstar.
When the new Chief Executive was appointed a few years back one of his first moves was to take Ladbrokes off the Oddschecker site comparison. They did a swift u-turn on that one when they saw how much business they were losing. Their pricing policy hasn't improved though. They used to be amongst the most competitive but they are rarely best price these days.
They have also become very much quicker to close successful accounts. Three winning bets and you're out now. This always strikes me as a short-sighted policy. They would be better off allowing successful punters to remain (but with a reasonable limit of say £50 per bet) so that they can see where the smart money is going. These punters get back in anyway, by using 'beards', so why not use them to advantage?
The Magic Sign used to be the doyen of the bookmaking community. It's now looking distinctly fifth-rate.
Cyril Stein will be turning in his grave.
Just like newspapers ,established bookies are suffering due to the internet . Its not just that its easier to gain bookie market access for new upstarts like 888 ,bwin etc its also the fact that odds can be compared much more easily than a few years ago when the only way to do it was buy the Racing Post. Ladbrokes will have to accept an ineviatble decline in market share just as newspapers will
To me the comments on this thread are bizarre. With pc and tablet why would anyone sane buy even one bulky paper when you can get all of them online for free - not all of the catwalks are even that effective. The Mail is excellent and way better than its competitors.
Isn't a PC or tablet quite bulky (and valuable unlike a read newspaper) . too much screen time hurts my eyes . I like a paper paper . IT makes me concentrate on one thing rather than click click and flcking through different websites . Its a bit like having sky and hundreds of TV Channals in that you end up half or quarter watching 4 programmes at once and not concentrating. I consider myself quite sane
Modern tablets are pretty light - and the screen on my kindle fire HD is superb. Like all the other paper lovers you just sound like dinosaurs i'm afraid. You'll soon be reminiscing about canal journey v planes:)
Re : Populus poll being an outlier isn't the rule that an outlier is the poll you don't like?
I think Labour is probably REALLY on 38 and Con on 33, Lib Dems 10, UKIP 11. That leaves 8% for others/Nats which is about right.
I think the polls are all under-estimating UKIP, I don't believe they've lost support since the May elections. Which means the Con/Lab numbers are too high.
They're probably not underestimating them right now, but then the polls don't mean a lot yet. We're too far from the reality and urgency of a GE.
I would expect their poll ratings to improve in 2015. My money is still on a strong UKIP performance.
The loss of UKIP support shown by the polls, doesn't appear to show up in the local election contests.
I think UKIP is classic protest vote material - they'll do well in the locals and the euros but i'd be surprised if the sustain it till 2015. The conference really showed up their weakness as a serious party.
What is behind it ? Well on the nags their early prices are never the best to be perfectly honest.
That's absolutely correct, Pulpstar.
When the new Chief Executive was appointed a few years back one of his first moves was to take Ladbrokes off the Oddschecker site comparison. They did a swift u-turn on that one when they saw how much business they were losing. Their pricing policy hasn't improved though. They used to be amongst the most competitive but they are rarely best price these days.
They have also become very much quicker to close successful accounts. Three winning bets and you're out now. This always strikes me as a short-sighted policy. They would be better off allowing successful punters to remain (but with a reasonable limit of say £50 per bet) so that they can see where the smart money is going. These punters get back in anyway, by using 'beards', so why not use them to advantage?
The Magic Sign used to be the doyen of the bookmaking community. It's now looking distinctly fifth-rate.
Cyril Stein will be turning in his grave.
Took £50 of the nice 13-8 on NOM last night to eliminate my former 'red' on that result ^^
Lab 88.41 NOM 14.51 Con -152.94
Then again if the Conservatives win I'd be miffed if Kingswood didn't come in at 3-1 for £50 stake...
I think Labour is probably REALLY on 38 and Con on 33, Lib Dems 10, UKIP 11. That leaves 8% for others/Nats which is about right.
I think the polls are all under-estimating UKIP, I don't believe they've lost support since the May elections. Which means the Con/Lab numbers are too high.
They're probably not underestimating them right now, but then the polls don't mean a lot yet. We're too far from the reality and urgency of a GE.
I would expect their poll ratings to improve in 2015. My money is still on a strong UKIP performance.
The loss of UKIP support shown by the polls, doesn't appear to show up in the local election contests.
What is behind it ? Well on the nags their early prices are never the best to be perfectly honest.
That's absolutely correct, Pulpstar.
When the new Chief Executive was appointed a few years back one of his first moves was to take Ladbrokes off the Oddschecker site comparison. They did a swift u-turn on that one when they saw how much business they were losing. Their pricing policy hasn't improved though. They used to be amongst the most competitive but they are rarely best price these days.
They have also become very much quicker to close successful accounts. Three winning bets and you're out now. This always strikes me as a short-sighted policy. They would be better off allowing successful punters to remain (but with a reasonable limit of say £50 per bet) so that they can see where the smart money is going. These punters get back in anyway, by using 'beards', so why not use them to advantage?
The Magic Sign used to be the doyen of the bookmaking community. It's now looking distinctly fifth-rate.
Cyril Stein will be turning in his grave.
Just like newspapers ,established bookies are suffering due to the internet . Its not just that its easier to gain bookie market access for new upstarts like 888 ,bwin etc its also the fact that odds can be compared much more easily than a few years ago when the only way to do it was buy the Racing Post. Ladbrokes will have to accept an ineviatble decline in market share just as newspapers will
They are suffering in their traditional markets,it's true, State.
You may be interested to learn, as I was, that their internet businesses are not normally licenced through UK but through offshore 'havens', such as Malta and Gibraltar. This enables them to avoid the scrutiny of the UK's Gambling Commission. The GC does not set the highest standards in standing up for punters but I'm sure, like me, you would on the whole prefer the protection of the jobsworth down the road to the jobsworth in the Med.
Time the Government got tough with them. Register here or have you Sites blocked. They do it in the USA, so evidently it is not a problem.
As I have said before, anyone using RealClimate - a blog specifically set up as a pressure group to push the idea of catastrophic global warming - in an argument on science really isn't doing themselves any favours.
Honestly, that's your argument?
The blogpost I linked to had a lot of observational data, and some conceptual explanations of non-intuitive changes to the climate, and your response is simply to shoot the messenger.
That is so lame.
No that is not my argument. It is a statement of fact. Using blogs as support for a scientific position is intellectually bankrupt. I would say exactly the same to someone using 'Watts Up With That' as a source or a justification for their position. Indeed I have said the same in the past to those on here who quote WUWT as if it provided any scientific justification for their arguments. The same applies to the Skeptical Science blog.
If you want to argue the case then use scientific sources not blogs which are specifically designed to skew the argument in one direction or another.
BTW, I thought Tim's Bilbo Baggins exit on 9,999 was superbly done. But PB is much the poorer without him. Hopefully, he'll be back. And hopefully Polruan will also post more regularly. Big steak in NYC for me today. Flying home tomorrow.
That's very kind of you. You'll be glad to know I'll have more time on my hands now that I'm no longer so busy also posting as my three-lettered alter ego.
I think Labour is probably REALLY on 38 and Con on 33, Lib Dems 10, UKIP 11. That leaves 8% for others/Nats which is about right.
I think the polls are all under-estimating UKIP, I don't believe they've lost support since the May elections. Which means the Con/Lab numbers are too high.
They're probably not underestimating them right now, but then the polls don't mean a lot yet. We're too far from the reality and urgency of a GE.
I would expect their poll ratings to improve in 2015. My money is still on a strong UKIP performance.
The loss of UKIP support shown by the polls, doesn't appear to show up in the local election contests.
What is behind it ? Well on the nags their early prices are never the best to be perfectly honest.
That's absolutely correct, Pulpstar.
When the new Chief Executive was appointed a few years back one of his first moves was to take Ladbrokes off the Oddschecker site comparison. They did a swift u-turn on that one when they saw how much business they were losing. Their pricing policy hasn't improved though. They used to be amongst the most competitive but they are rarely best price these days.
They have also become very much quicker to close successful accounts. Three winning bets and you're out now. This always strikes me as a short-sighted policy. They would be better off allowing successful punters to remain (but with a reasonable limit of say £50 per bet) so that they can see where the smart money is going. These punters get back in anyway, by using 'beards', so why not use them to advantage?
The Magic Sign used to be the doyen of the bookmaking community. It's now looking distinctly fifth-rate.
Cyril Stein will be turning in his grave.
Took £50 of the nice 13-8 on NOM last night to eliminate my former 'red' on that result ^^
Lab 88.41 NOM 14.51 Con -152.94
Then again if the Conservatives win I'd be miffed if Kingswood didn't come in at 3-1 for £50 stake...
That's a similar looking book to mine, Pulp.
Conservative overall majority at 4.1 on Betfair is way too short so it figures the other two serious options are good value. Until recently I was an NOM man but I'm beginning to think Labour overall is more likely.
I think Labour is probably REALLY on 38 and Con on 33, Lib Dems 10, UKIP 11. That leaves 8% for others/Nats which is about right.
I think the polls are all under-estimating UKIP, I don't believe they've lost support since the May elections. Which means the Con/Lab numbers are too high.
They're probably not underestimating them right now, but then the polls don't mean a lot yet. We're too far from the reality and urgency of a GE.
I would expect their poll ratings to improve in 2015. My money is still on a strong UKIP performance.
The loss of UKIP support shown by the polls, doesn't appear to show up in the local election contests.
tim'll be back, do you really think someone who posts that much can keep away?
Sheesh, you go away for a few days and come back to discover the barrel has lost its fish... genuinely wanted to congratulate tim on his prediction over a year ago that energy prices would become the most important political issue...
Eyes gouged out, bodies hanging from hooks, and fingers removed with pliers': Horrific claims of torture emerge as soldiers reveal gory Kenyan mall massacre details
tim'll be back, do you really think someone who posts that much can keep away?
Sheesh, you go away for a few days and come back to discover the barrel has lost its fish... genuinely wanted to congratulate tim on his prediction over a year ago that energy prices would become the most important political issue...
Tim is being rebooted and will emerge stronger. His dedication and work rate puts in the rest of us to shame. However it would have been interesting to see what he had to say on Blairite Philip Collins extraordinary article on Ed today in the Times (a newspaper rather unfairly maligned in this thread).
"Ghoulish accounts on the fate of the hostages have circulated Nairobi and there have been claims that the military was forced to blow up part of the Westgate complex not just to bring the siege to an end, but to end the appalling suffering of hostages amid reports that hostages were raped, and others beheaded and their heads thrown out of the windows."
The demise of the UK Press - as our sharpest butters (who would cut through knives) pointed out in late 2012 - was Ed Militwunt's successful force-majeure in January 2013: He humiliated "Dave" and as a result we have 'Levenson' on the Statute!
It's a beautiful day in the NW - the last gasp of a dying summer - so tim is probably stretched out on a sun-lounger, an ice lolly in one hand and a copy of 'Hello' in the other.
More realistically, he's converted to Ukip and is preparing a series of posts in favour of Godfrey Bloom.
To me the comments on this thread are bizarre. With pc and tablet why would anyone sane buy even one bulky paper when you can get all of them online for free - not all of the catwalks are even that effective. The Mail is excellent and way better than its competitors.
Isn't a PC or tablet quite bulky (and valuable unlike a read newspaper) . too much screen time hurts my eyes . I like a paper paper . IT makes me concentrate on one thing rather than click click and flcking through different websites . Its a bit like having sky and hundreds of TV Channals in that you end up half or quarter watching 4 programmes at once and not concentrating. I consider myself quite sane
Modern tablets are pretty light - and the screen on my kindle fire HD is superb. Like all the other paper lovers you just sound like dinosaurs i'm afraid. You'll soon be reminiscing about canal journey v planes:)
Re : Populus poll being an outlier isn't the rule that an outlier is the poll you don't like?
Never really understand the need to label people insane or dinosaurs just because they do things differently to you. I always believe people shoudl do what they enjoy and like and not sneer at others for doing what they enjoy and like . Everyone can then say why they like what they do and have an adult chat without sneers or being rude
Apropos of nothing much, other than it being Friday afternoon, here's a special treat from the I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue archive. I do hope Dave's superfilter doesn't protect children from this particular kind of filth; it's a special kind of creative genius.
Meanwhile, tim is well in the process of passing into the kind of hallowed myth that was previously the province of ISIHAC's celebrated scorers. Half of the posts of the last 24 hours have been reminiscent of Humph's discussions of Samantha and Sven's* current activities and whereabouts.
Eyes gouged out, bodies hanging from hooks, and fingers removed with pliers': Horrific claims of torture emerge as soldiers reveal gory Kenyan mall massacre details
What is behind it ? Well on the nags their early prices are never the best to be perfectly honest.
That's absolutely correct, Pulpstar.
When the new Chief Executive was appointed a few years back one of his first moves was to take Ladbrokes off the Oddschecker site comparison. They did a swift u-turn on that one when they saw how much business they were losing. Their pricing policy hasn't improved though. They used to be amongst the most competitive but they are rarely best price these days.
They have also become very much quicker to close successful accounts. Three winning bets and you're out now. This always strikes me as a short-sighted policy. They would be better off allowing successful punters to remain (but with a reasonable limit of say £50 per bet) so that they can see where the smart money is going. These punters get back in anyway, by using 'beards', so why not use them to advantage?
The Magic Sign used to be the doyen of the bookmaking community. It's now looking distinctly fifth-rate.
Cyril Stein will be turning in his grave.
Just like newspapers ,established bookies are suffering due to the internet . Its not just that its easier to gain bookie market access for new upstarts like 888 ,bwin etc its also the fact that odds can be compared much more easily than a few years ago when the only way to do it was buy the Racing Post. Ladbrokes will have to accept an ineviatble decline in market share just as newspapers will
Also, Ladbrokes could do with sorting their rubbish bloody website out!
"Ghoulish accounts on the fate of the hostages have circulated Nairobi and there have been claims that the military was forced to blow up part of the Westgate complex not just to bring the siege to an end, but to end the appalling suffering of hostages amid reports that hostages were raped, and others beheaded and their heads thrown out of the windows."
I've read that report in various online papers. I don't really think that sort of thing should be reported, just yet, until the facts are known. If it's true, then victims loved ones will be in even more distress so close to the event, and if it turns out to be made up, then it's just unnecessary suffering for them. I don't like to see pictures of dead bodies, either, in the press, with large blood stains, as I'm sure a relative would be able to recognise some of the victims in the pictures. It's just voyeurism.
We get numpties trying to take pics quite a lot at incidents, particulary traffic incidents on the motorway. It's just sick
Just had a look at the ICM-Guardian poll. Appears they use a weighted 7/10+ to vote.
Looking at their raw figures (Which are adjusted very little (Which is good)) I get Con 29, Lab 43
Using 10/10 to vote (Most strict measure) gives Con 27% and Lab ~37%. The weighting and using 7/10 certainty to vote are what swing the headline VI back to a 4 pt lead for Labour.
Just back from a pleasant lunchtime stroll around the streets of sunny Manchester. Irked slightly by the splash on the front of the Manchester Evening News: "TORIES GET FREE TRAM AND BUS RIDES". As they give it away free on Fridays, I picked up a copy. In fairness, they do acknowledge that this is part of the usual conference deal done by the Tories and Labour with the city authorities, and that both have benefited from this largesse for years.
But it's a bit bloody ungrateful for a paper supposedly championing Manchester and which itself has waxed lyrical of the boost to the economy hosting a major political conference each year brings, to have a blatantly political non-story whinge, whilst juxtaposing this against various local sob stories resulting from Manchester City Council no longer having endless millions to spunk up the wall on any project that takes its fancy such as been its wont for decades.
It really annoys me as a rightward leaner that it's so damned easy to demonise evil Tories. Despite their various failings, it's so bloody difficult to demonise Labour. Even if rags like then MEN had even wanted to, of course.
To me the comments on this thread are bizarre. With pc and tablet why would anyone sane buy even one bulky paper when you can get all of them online for free - not all of the catwalks are even that effective. The Mail is excellent and way better than its competitors.
Isn't a PC or tablet quite bulky (and valuable unlike a read newspaper) . too much screen time hurts my eyes . I like a paper paper . IT makes me concentrate on one thing rather than click click and flcking through different websites . Its a bit like having sky and hundreds of TV Channals in that you end up half or quarter watching 4 programmes at once and not concentrating. I consider myself quite sane
Modern tablets are pretty light - and the screen on my kindle fire HD is superb. Like all the other paper lovers you just sound like dinosaurs i'm afraid. You'll soon be reminiscing about canal journey v planes:)
Re : Populus poll being an outlier isn't the rule that an outlier is the poll you don't like?
Never really understand the need to label people insane or dinosaurs just because they do things differently to you. I always believe people shoudl do what they enjoy and like and not sneer at others for doing what they enjoy and like . Everyone can then say why they like what they do and have an adult chat without sneers or being rude
Oh get over yourself - this is a blog where there's normally a robust exchange of views - apologies if I've offended you but we're both free to ignore each other from now on.
And another thing, I note the MEN buries a piece about Dave still backing the ailing HS2 project underneath its "Tory delegates getting free travel on your buses" non-story. So the MEN, which has been a vocal advocate of this grossly expensive white elephant scheme, buries the story about the one man who still seems to be speaking up for this ridiculous project whilst their Labour cronies backpedal beneath some class war guff of a story.
To me the comments on this thread are bizarre. With pc and tablet why would anyone sane buy even one bulky paper when you can get all of them online for free - not all of the catwalks are even that effective. The Mail is excellent and way better than its competitors.
Isn't a PC or tablet quite bulky (and valuable unlike a read newspaper) . too much screen time hurts my eyes . I like a paper paper . IT makes me concentrate on one thing rather than click click and flcking through different websites . Its a bit like having sky and hundreds of TV Channals in that you end up half or quarter watching 4 programmes at once and not concentrating. I consider myself quite sane
Modern tablets are pretty light - and the screen on my kindle fire HD is superb. Like all the other paper lovers you just sound like dinosaurs i'm afraid. You'll soon be reminiscing about canal journey v planes:)
Re : Populus poll being an outlier isn't the rule that an outlier is the poll you don't like?
Never really understand the need to label people insane or dinosaurs just because they do things differently to you. I always believe people shoudl do what they enjoy and like and not sneer at others for doing what they enjoy and like . Everyone can then say why they like what they do and have an adult chat without sneers or being rude
Oh get over yourself - this is a blog where there's normally a robust exchange of views - apologies if I've offended you but we're both free to ignore each other from now on.
Well just trying to teach you to 'get over yourself' as if you only think your way of life is the right one and sneer at others for doing something different then you need to be encouraged to tone down a little your rudeness.
As for this site , its better when name calling is left out of it full stop . I obviously have my opinions and ways of doing things but respect and am interested in others opinions and lifestyles . Thats why I come to a political blog .
Just had a look at the ICM-Guardian poll. Appears they use a weighted 7/10+ to vote.
Looking at their raw figures (Which are adjusted very little (Which is good)) I get Con 29, Lab 43
Using 10/10 to vote (Most strict measure) gives Con 27% and Lab ~37%. The weighting and using 7/10 certainty to vote are what swing the headline VI back to a 4 pt lead for Labour.
Not neccesarily wrong, but interesting
Just to be clear, this is last month's ICM, not a new one? But yes, interesting stuff. It would be good if someone looked at the raw data over 6 months to find out if it swings around violently (which would just show that the weighting is important) or always leans one way (which could make us want to question the weighting a bit more). Even if it always leans one way, the weighting could of course still be right, if certain types of people respond more.
As a fence-sitter, I'm disappointed that the BBC summarises the IPCC report in the way it does. Sun headlines aren't really the way to go.
Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and the levels have been increased by human activities. But the confounding factors are enormous. The pause in global air temperature rise was not predicted. There are other greenhouse gases and other factors involved.
We've had four ice-ages in the last 100,000 years and I doubt if cavemen lighting fires (or not) had much to do with them.
I'm in favour of renewable energy production, clean energy = much less particle pollution. But bankrupting yourself in a frantic rush to ditch current energy resources won't even solve the problem anyway, merely ameliorate it to some extent.
The medical people have a 'motto'. "First, do no harm."
Once politicians and green activists are involved, the precautionary principle takes over. "Let's do something now, just in case."
When the scientists can make a confident prediction and see it confirmed, then it becomes a fact and not a hypothesis.
Can anybody tell me what's so good about a poster from the McBride school spreading his sh1tty smears all over most of these blogs?
In the week before his disappearance he spent a whole day accusing Toby Young of deliberately preventing free-school-meal qualified kids from attending his school. Once it was shown that this wasn't the case, tim having seemingly based his libel on dodgy statistics and his own prejudice, he may have then shut up but I don't believe he retracted the unfounded attack.
He also made an unfounded smear against Samantha Cameron and "her missiles" every single day for that entire week, based on his misinterpretation of a Telegraph article and, again, his prejudice.
There have been many more examples of similar perversions of the truth from him over the years and they do the site no favours.
He may occasionally be amusing, and on some occasions quite astute, but that's not worth the disgusting stains he so often spreads around this place. I, for one, won't be welcoming him back with open arms unless he completely stops using such ugly tactics.
Just had a look at the ICM-Guardian poll. Appears they use a weighted 7/10+ to vote.
Looking at their raw figures (Which are adjusted very little (Which is good)) I get Con 29, Lab 43
Using 10/10 to vote (Most strict measure) gives Con 27% and Lab ~37%. The weighting and using 7/10 certainty to vote are what swing the headline VI back to a 4 pt lead for Labour.
Not neccesarily wrong, but interesting
Just to be clear, this is last month's ICM, not a new one? But yes, interesting stuff. It would be good if someone looked at the raw data over 6 months to find out if it swings around violently (which would just show that the weighting is important) or always leans one way (which could make us want to question the weighting a bit more). Even if it always leans one way, the weighting could of course still be right, if certain types of people respond more.
I'm doing some analysis on this, have been for a while, trying to get a picture of the pollsters raw figures, before they do their adjustments.
And for a bit of a fun, I'm trying to see what other pollsters figures would be like if they applied
1) Mori's 10/10 turnout weighting
and/or
2) ICM's Spiral of Silence adjustment.
Just for a bit of fun, if we were to apply ICM's spiral of silence adjustment to this morning's YouGov we'd get this VI
Con 32%
Lab 37%
LD 17%
UKIP 8%
Others 6%
Edit - I think my calcs are slightly off, because YouGov don't break down the DKs by 2010 UKIP voters and others.
To me the comments on this thread are bizarre. With pc and tablet why would anyone sane buy even one bulky paper when you can get all of them online for free - not all of the catwalks are even that effective. The Mail is excellent and way better than its competitors.
Isn't a PC or tablet quite bulky (and valuable unlike a read newspaper) . too much screen time hurts my eyes . I like a paper paper . IT makes me concentrate on one thing rather than click click and flcking through different websites . Its a bit like having sky and hundreds of TV Channals in that you end up half or quarter watching 4 programmes at once and not concentrating. I consider myself quite sane
Modern tablets are pretty light - and the screen on my kindle fire HD is superb. Like all the other paper lovers you just sound like dinosaurs i'm afraid. You'll soon be reminiscing about canal journey v planes:)
Re : Populus poll being an outlier isn't the rule that an outlier is the poll you don't like?
Never really understand the need to label people insane or dinosaurs just because they do things differently to you. I always believe people shoudl do what they enjoy and like and not sneer at others for doing what they enjoy and like . Everyone can then say why they like what they do and have an adult chat without sneers or being rude
Oh get over yourself - this is a blog where there's normally a robust exchange of views - apologies if I've offended you but we're both free to ignore each other from now on.
Well just trying to teach you to 'get over yourself' as if you only think your way of life is the right one and sneer at others for doing something different then you need to be encouraged to tone down a little your rudeness.
As for this site , its better when name calling is left out of it full stop . I obviously have my opinions and ways of doing things but respect and am interested in others opinions and lifestyles . Thats why I come to a political blog .
Oh wow - thankyou sir - suitably chastised - you might want to consider whether your 'teaching' approach is the one best suited to achieve your objectives.
And another thing, I note the MEN buries a piece about Dave still backing the ailing HS2 project underneath its "Tory delegates getting free travel on your buses" non-story. So the MEN, which has been a vocal advocate of this grossly expensive white elephant scheme, buries the story about the one man who still seems to be speaking up for this ridiculous project whilst their Labour cronies backpedal beneath some class war guff of a story.
You couldn;t make it up...
The Tories should go back to the seaside e.g Blackpool or Bournemouth where they'd be welcomed!
As for HS2 I see the new guy in charge admits the project cost could now exceed £50bn. He also admits it won't happen if the project is going to be a political football.
And another thing, I note the MEN buries a piece about Dave still backing the ailing HS2 project underneath its "Tory delegates getting free travel on your buses" non-story. So the MEN, which has been a vocal advocate of this grossly expensive white elephant scheme, buries the story about the one man who still seems to be speaking up for this ridiculous project whilst their Labour cronies backpedal beneath some class war guff of a story.
You couldn;t make it up...
There's a reason they give the Evening News away for free.
Plus, they've stopped their sponsorship of the Arena as well, it's the Phone4U arena now
"An ICM survey conducted among 2010 GB adults between 17th – 18th October 2012 revealed that a third of all drivers use mobile phone handsets whilst driving.
The survey also found that a quarter of motorists read emails whilst behind the wheel and 14% like to log into social websites whilst driving."
Im not surprised regarding the Ladbrokes drop in profits. I regularly go in my local ladbrokes on a saturday afternoon to watch the racing and quite regularly I am the only person in there. I think the FOBTs may be have had their heyday. People have only got so much money to lose and I cant remember the last time I saw anyone win a decent amount on them. Back in the 1980s a betting shop on a Saturday afternoon was a crowded place, a bit of a dump but full of atmosphere. There are much nicer places now, just empty.
And another thing, I note the MEN buries a piece about Dave still backing the ailing HS2 project underneath its "Tory delegates getting free travel on your buses" non-story. So the MEN, which has been a vocal advocate of this grossly expensive white elephant scheme, buries the story about the one man who still seems to be speaking up for this ridiculous project whilst their Labour cronies backpedal beneath some class war guff of a story.
You couldn;t make it up...
The Tories should go back to the seaside e.g Blackpool or Bournemouth where they'd be welcomed!
As for HS2 I see the new guy in charge admits the project cost could now exceed £50bn. He also admits it won't happen if the project is going to be a political football.
That doesn't make any statistical sense. You should draw the 70th percentile of responses down (30th up) and use that rather than use the response 7/10 because results cluster at 0, 5 and 10.
There's been a good deal of speculation on here about what might be the tory response to Ed's energy prices play, and from the press today, it seems the line is going to be that Ed Miliband is......er.........right. Absolutely right. I'm getting this from quotes from Michael Gove.
And another thing, I note the MEN buries a piece about Dave still backing the ailing HS2 project underneath its "Tory delegates getting free travel on your buses" non-story. So the MEN, which has been a vocal advocate of this grossly expensive white elephant scheme, buries the story about the one man who still seems to be speaking up for this ridiculous project whilst their Labour cronies backpedal beneath some class war guff of a story.
You couldn;t make it up...
The Tories should go back to the seaside e.g Blackpool or Bournemouth where they'd be welcomed!
As for HS2 I see the new guy in charge admits the project cost could now exceed £50bn. He also admits it won't happen if the project is going to be a political football.
It appears to be in the Times, which I can't get. Could you summarise it for me, please?
It's amazing how the people making those claims fall quiet when asked to produce evidence ...
Without looking at it in detail a couple of things jump out. The first is that the assumption that the cost of capital for one of those utilities is in the 8-10% range sounds very high; 7% would be at the high end. Second, the return has remained pretty constant for several years during which lending costs, and returns on most assets, have been falling. That suggests a market failure (on some definitions) because in a competitive market you would expect prices to be driven down such that returns more closely match funding costs. Unless the energy supply sector has done something to improve relative returns on equity over the last three years (I haven't noticed anything) that is.
Im not surprised regarding the Ladbrokes drop in profits. I regularly go in my local ladbrokes on a saturday afternoon to watch the racing and quite regularly I am the only person in there. I think the FOBTs may be have had their heyday. People have only got so much money to lose and I cant remember the last time I saw anyone win a decent amount on them. Back in the 1980s a betting shop on a Saturday afternoon was a crowded place, a bit of a dump but full of atmosphere. There are much nicer places now, just empty.
In those carefree single days of living on the Edgware road in the early 90's I used to spend all Saturday in the bookies . Great fun . I am not sure FOBT's help the atmosphere these days
That doesn't make any statistical sense. You should draw the 70th percentile of responses down (30th up) and use that rather than use the response 7/10 because results cluster at 0, 5 and 10.
I think they do, they go all those that say they are 7/10, 8/10 9/10 and 10/10 certain to vote.
It's amazing how the people making those claims fall quiet when asked to produce evidence ...
Without looking at it in detail a couple of things jump out. The first is that the assumption that the cost of capital for one of those utilities is in the 8-10% range sounds very high; 7% would be at the high end. Second, the return has remained pretty constant for several years during which lending costs, and returns on most assets, have been falling. That suggests a market failure (on some definitions) because in a competitive market you would expect prices to be driven down such that returns more closely match funding costs. Unless the energy supply sector has done something to improve relative returns on equity over the last three years (I haven't noticed anything) that is.
Thanks for that; it's outside my real area of knowledge. Could the long-term nature of power investments and uncertainty due to regulatory changes have pushed up the cost of capital and other items?
And another thing, I note the MEN buries a piece about Dave still backing the ailing HS2 project underneath its "Tory delegates getting free travel on your buses" non-story. So the MEN, which has been a vocal advocate of this grossly expensive white elephant scheme, buries the story about the one man who still seems to be speaking up for this ridiculous project whilst their Labour cronies backpedal beneath some class war guff of a story.
You couldn;t make it up...
The Tories should go back to the seaside e.g Blackpool or Bournemouth where they'd be welcomed!
As for HS2 I see the new guy in charge admits the project cost could now exceed £50bn. He also admits it won't happen if the project is going to be a political football.
It appears to be in the Times, which I can't get. Could you summarise it for me, please?
The new HS2 guy said that he hasn't looked into the costings yet so couldn't give an informed opinion. Typical newspaper reporting - it could have been reported that it could be less.
And another thing, I note the MEN buries a piece about Dave still backing the ailing HS2 project underneath its "Tory delegates getting free travel on your buses" non-story. So the MEN, which has been a vocal advocate of this grossly expensive white elephant scheme, buries the story about the one man who still seems to be speaking up for this ridiculous project whilst their Labour cronies backpedal beneath some class war guff of a story.
You couldn;t make it up...
The Tories should go back to the seaside e.g Blackpool or Bournemouth where they'd be welcomed!
As for HS2 I see the new guy in charge admits the project cost could now exceed £50bn. He also admits it won't happen if the project is going to be a political football.
It appears to be in the Times, which I can't get. Could you summarise it for me, please?
The new HS2 guy said that he hasn't looked into the costings yet so couldn't give an informed opinion. Typical newspaper reporting - it could have been reported that it could be less.
Ah, thanks. So a non-story, then.
I still stick by my finger-in-the-air semi-educated guess, that (without including rolling stock costs, which are not included in such projects as standard) it will come in for a little over £30 billion for the Y network.
I could easily be proved embarrassingly wrong about that, but only if large changes to the route are made, for instance more tunnelling. The biggest risk atm is at the London end.
Things are very well defined and understood at the moment.
And another thing, I note the MEN buries a piece about Dave still backing the ailing HS2 project underneath its "Tory delegates getting free travel on your buses" non-story. So the MEN, which has been a vocal advocate of this grossly expensive white elephant scheme, buries the story about the one man who still seems to be speaking up for this ridiculous project whilst their Labour cronies backpedal beneath some class war guff of a story.
You couldn;t make it up...
The Tory delegates getting free travel on "your" Manchester buses.... It happens at every Tory conference in Manchester. I assume that delegates to other political conferences get the same deal.
During a previous conference the front page of the MEN had a big splash about a letter from a reader who complained that Tories were walking about "as if they owned the place". Pathetic stuff.
The Bank of England's Financial Policy Committee has issued a statement on the housing market following its recent policy meeting.
The key section is as follows:
In the United Kingdom, the continued recovery of the banking sector had been associated with a further easing in credit conditions. Against that backdrop, the recovery in the housing market appeared to have gained momentum and to be broadening. Mortgage approvals in July were 30% higher than a year earlier and average house prices in August were 5% higher than a year earlier and had risen more in some parts of the country, particularly London.
Nevertheless, activity in the housing market and loan-to-value ratios on new mortgage lending remained below their historic averages. Households’ debt servicing costs were low and the ratio of house prices to earnings was at its level of a decade ago.
In view of that, the Committee judged that it should closely monitor developments in the housing market and banks' underwriting standards. The Committee would be vigilant to potential emerging vulnerabilities.
The Committee noted that if risks to the stability of the financial system were to emerge from the housing market, both it and the microprudential regulators had a range of tools available to address those risks. These included, amongst others, supervisory guidance on underwriting standards, sectoral capital requirements and recommendations to the regulators on tightening of affordability tests.
The Committee agreed that, if it became necessary to deploy its tools, they would be used in a way that was proportionate to the risks and consistent with a graduated response.
The Bank of England has also agreed with the Treasury that the FPC will conduct a formal review of the Help to Buy schemes every September and that any extension to the schemes beyond their planned three year term will require prior FPC approval. The recent statement by the BoE follows this year's FPC review and there is unlikely to be any further comment by the BoE before Help to Buy moves into its next phase on 1st January 2014.
The conclusion of all this officialese is that the BoE has given the Help to Buy scheme a clean bill of health. The Bank has reassured market and political critics by establishing a regular review process and by highlighting their powers and options to control credit supply and lending policy if conditions in the housing market start to present an unacceptable financial risk.
For anyone looking at the current mortgage lending statistics (from the CML, BBA and BoE) would immediate agree with Danny Alexander that "we are a million miles away from a housing bubble". For example, the BBA reported new mortgage lending in August to be £9.3 billion matched by an equivalent £9.3 billion of capital repayments. So far this year, net lending has fallen by -£1.6 bn. This should be compared to average annual increases in net lending between 2001-07 of £57.3 bn.
Comments
Who is buying all the thorium?
The msg of the conference should be 'we know things are bl*dy rough for many, here's how we intend to help out....'
Working in a BHF shop or having to do 20 hrs/week at the Dog's Trust - Good.
It's notable that for Populus, this hasn't happened, and in fact the reverse.
But no ones really getting overexcited about it, rather mild interest..
I though Self seemed really drunk.
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/09/26/what-behind-ladbrokes-profits-warningts-warning/
What is behind it ? Well on the nags their early prices are never the best to be perfectly honest.
All the climate models have overstated warming over the last 2 decades by a margin that exceeds their own error bars. As such the models have failed and need to be revisited. This is hardly surprising given that - in spite of what some might try to claim - they are models, not the results of experimentation or direct measurement.
This IPCC report has already reduced the predicted temperature rise substantially and I expect it will do so further as we go forward since it still doesn't reflect the results of direct measurements being made at the moment.
As far as 'fiddling the results' is concerned I am not one of those who believes in a grand over-reaching conspiracy. I leave the whys and wherefores to others. Though I am interested in the fact that the few bodies who collate temperature data on a world wide basis have found it necessary on several occasions over the last decade to go back and lower past temperature measurements, particularly from the first half of the twentieth century. Apparently the raw data that we used for some 60 or 70 years is no longer considered valid and must now be adjusted - downwards as it happens in such a way as to make the rises of the 1980s and 90s seem far more extreme than the raw data would have indicated.
We all know this and everyone is pretending they don't so that the Telegraph won't change their system.
Con 32.9
Lab 41.2
Lib 9.7
UKIP 16.2
They both however are online polls so that might attract more kippers or something, I'm not sure. Any phone polls out soon (TM) ?
Sometimes I think the various 'weighting' tries to be too clever by half.
Let's just take a trip into fantasy land: say by 2030, a company develops a deployable, reproducible, cheap, environmentally friendly and safe nuclear fusion device (yes, I know). Something like Lockheed's "High Beta Fusion Reactor" crossed with Back to the Future's "Mr Fusion"
What rewards should the world give the company? What effects would it have on business and industry? How would our lives be altered by much cheaper electricity prices?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_beta_fusion_reactor
It'll cause problems, but they'll be good problems.
The blogpost I linked to had a lot of observational data, and some conceptual explanations of non-intuitive changes to the climate, and your response is simply to shoot the messenger.
That is so lame.
When the new Chief Executive was appointed a few years back one of his first moves was to take Ladbrokes off the Oddschecker site comparison. They did a swift u-turn on that one when they saw how much business they were losing. Their pricing policy hasn't improved though. They used to be amongst the most competitive but they are rarely best price these days.
They have also become very much quicker to close successful accounts. Three winning bets and you're out now. This always strikes me as a short-sighted policy. They would be better off allowing successful punters to remain (but with a reasonable limit of say £50 per bet) so that they can see where the smart money is going. These punters get back in anyway, by using 'beards', so why not use them to advantage?
The Magic Sign used to be the doyen of the bookmaking community. It's now looking distinctly fifth-rate.
Cyril Stein will be turning in his grave.
Online I look at everything that doesn't charge to get a balance - funny how having once been a Times reader I barely remember they exist behind their paywall these days. From being the most influential paper in the country (pre-Murdoch) I think its influence must have declined rapidly - you rarely see links to their articles on blogs I assume because so few people can access them.
They're probably not underestimating them right now, but then the polls don't mean a lot yet. We're too far from the reality and urgency of a GE.
I would expect their poll ratings to improve in 2015. My money is still on a strong UKIP performance.
What the papers say in their headlines is given prominence.
BTW, I thought Tim's Bilbo Baggins exit on 9,999 was superbly done. But PB is much the poorer without him. Hopefully, he'll be back. And hopefully Polruan will also post more regularly. Big steak in NYC for me today. Flying home tomorrow.
http://ukgeneralelection2015.blogspot.co.uk/p/real-votes-not-opinion-polls.html
http://order-order.com/2013/09/27/godfrey-who/
Re : Populus poll being an outlier isn't the rule that an outlier is the poll you don't like?
Lab 88.41
NOM 14.51
Con -152.94
Then again if the Conservatives win I'd be miffed if Kingswood didn't come in at 3-1 for £50 stake...
They are suffering in their traditional markets,it's true, State.
You may be interested to learn, as I was, that their internet businesses are not normally licenced through UK but through offshore 'havens', such as Malta and Gibraltar. This enables them to avoid the scrutiny of the UK's Gambling Commission. The GC does not set the highest standards in standing up for punters but I'm sure, like me, you would on the whole prefer the protection of the jobsworth down the road to the jobsworth in the Med.
Time the Government got tough with them. Register here or have you Sites blocked. They do it in the USA, so evidently it is not a problem.
If you want to argue the case then use scientific sources not blogs which are specifically designed to skew the argument in one direction or another.
That's a similar looking book to mine, Pulp.
Conservative overall majority at 4.1 on Betfair is way too short so it figures the other two serious options are good value. Until recently I was an NOM man but I'm beginning to think Labour overall is more likely.
Long way to go, of course.
UKIP can take heart that the MSM is bothering to dig the dirt on them.
Likewise EdM must be feeling he is getting somewhere, judging from the howls of anguish his 'energy policy' generated in some quarters.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2434278/Kenya-mall-attack-torture-claims-emerge-soldiers-Eyes-gouged-bodies-hooks-fingers-removed.html
Absolutely sickening...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/kenya-shopping-mall-attack-nairobi-hostages-were-tortured-before-they-were-killed-says-police-doctor-8842509.html
The demise of the UK Press - as our sharpest butters (who would cut through knives) pointed out in late 2012 - was Ed Militwunt's successful force-majeure in January 2013: He humiliated "Dave" and as a result we have 'Levenson' on the Statute!
:clever-puntahs-know-dat:
It's a beautiful day in the NW - the last gasp of a dying summer - so tim is probably stretched out on a sun-lounger, an ice lolly in one hand and a copy of 'Hello' in the other.
More realistically, he's converted to Ukip and is preparing a series of posts in favour of Godfrey Bloom.
http://www.g0akh.f2s.com/isihac/Samanthas_Pick_Ups_Page.php
Meanwhile, tim is well in the process of passing into the kind of hallowed myth that was previously the province of ISIHAC's celebrated scorers. Half of the posts of the last 24 hours have been reminiscent of Humph's discussions of Samantha and Sven's* current activities and whereabouts.
* No relation, Fluffy.
We get numpties trying to take pics quite a lot at incidents, particulary traffic incidents on the motorway. It's just sick
Looking at their raw figures (Which are adjusted very little (Which is good)) I get Con 29, Lab 43
Using 10/10 to vote (Most strict measure) gives Con 27% and Lab ~37%. The weighting and using 7/10 certainty to vote are what swing the headline VI back to a 4 pt lead for Labour.
Not neccesarily wrong, but interesting
Mr. CD13, it's also a rather warm day in Yorkshire.
But it's a bit bloody ungrateful for a paper supposedly championing Manchester and which itself has waxed lyrical of the boost to the economy hosting a major political conference each year brings, to have a blatantly political non-story whinge, whilst juxtaposing this against various local sob stories resulting from Manchester City Council no longer having endless millions to spunk up the wall on any project that takes its fancy such as been its wont for decades.
It really annoys me as a rightward leaner that it's so damned easy to demonise evil Tories. Despite their various failings, it's so bloody difficult to demonise Labour. Even if rags like then MEN had even wanted to, of course.
Oh get over yourself - this is a blog where there's normally a robust exchange of views - apologies if I've offended you but we're both free to ignore each other from now on.
You couldn;t make it up...
Well just trying to teach you to 'get over yourself' as if you only think your way of life is the right one and sneer at others for doing something different then you need to be encouraged to tone down a little your rudeness.
As for this site , its better when name calling is left out of it full stop . I obviously have my opinions and ways of doing things but respect and am interested in others opinions and lifestyles . Thats why I come to a political blog .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKGjOE_7bYI
As a fence-sitter, I'm disappointed that the BBC summarises the IPCC report in the way it does. Sun headlines aren't really the way to go.
Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and the levels have been increased by human activities. But the confounding factors are enormous. The pause in global air temperature rise was not predicted. There are other greenhouse gases and other factors involved.
We've had four ice-ages in the last 100,000 years and I doubt if cavemen lighting fires (or not) had much to do with them.
I'm in favour of renewable energy production, clean energy = much less particle pollution. But bankrupting yourself in a frantic rush to ditch current energy resources won't even solve the problem anyway, merely ameliorate it to some extent.
The medical people have a 'motto'. "First, do no harm."
Once politicians and green activists are involved, the precautionary principle takes over. "Let's do something now, just in case."
When the scientists can make a confident prediction and see it confirmed, then it becomes a fact and not a hypothesis.
Still, it is nice and warm today.
In the week before his disappearance he spent a whole day accusing Toby Young of deliberately preventing free-school-meal qualified kids from attending his school. Once it was shown that this wasn't the case, tim having seemingly based his libel on dodgy statistics and his own prejudice, he may have then shut up but I don't believe he retracted the unfounded attack.
He also made an unfounded smear against Samantha Cameron and "her missiles" every single day for that entire week, based on his misinterpretation of a Telegraph article and, again, his prejudice.
There have been many more examples of similar perversions of the truth from him over the years and they do the site no favours.
He may occasionally be amusing, and on some occasions quite astute, but that's not worth the disgusting stains he so often spreads around this place. I, for one, won't be welcoming him back with open arms unless he completely stops using such ugly tactics.
And for a bit of a fun, I'm trying to see what other pollsters figures would be like if they applied
1) Mori's 10/10 turnout weighting
and/or
2) ICM's Spiral of Silence adjustment.
Just for a bit of fun, if we were to apply ICM's spiral of silence adjustment to this morning's YouGov we'd get this VI
Con 32%
Lab 37%
LD 17%
UKIP 8%
Others 6%
Edit - I think my calcs are slightly off, because YouGov don't break down the DKs by 2010 UKIP voters and others.
http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm
As for HS2 I see the new guy in charge admits the project cost could now exceed £50bn. He also admits it won't happen if the project is going to be a political football.
Plus, they've stopped their sponsorship of the Arena as well, it's the Phone4U arena now
How about this revealing finding from Nov 2012
"An ICM survey conducted among 2010 GB adults between 17th – 18th October 2012 revealed that a third of all drivers use mobile phone handsets whilst driving.
The survey also found that a quarter of motorists read emails whilst behind the wheel and 14% like to log into social websites whilst driving."
I can see the forthcoming message:
"Don't Tweet and Drive."
http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/energy-environment/its-not-entirely-obvious-that-the-power-firms-are-ripping-consumers-off
It's amazing how the people making those claims fall quiet when asked to produce evidence ...
Well i was tempted to respond in kind as such but sometimes its better to just tell somebody to stop it . Makes for a more pleasant world.
I still stick by my finger-in-the-air semi-educated guess, that (without including rolling stock costs, which are not included in such projects as standard) it will come in for a little over £30 billion for the Y network.
I could easily be proved embarrassingly wrong about that, but only if large changes to the route are made, for instance more tunnelling. The biggest risk atm is at the London end.
Things are very well defined and understood at the moment.
During a previous conference the front page of the MEN had a big splash about a letter from a reader who complained that Tories were walking about "as if they owned the place". Pathetic stuff.
The Bank of England's Financial Policy Committee has issued a statement on the housing market following its recent policy meeting.
The key section is as follows:
In the United Kingdom, the continued recovery of the banking sector had been associated with a further easing in credit conditions. Against that backdrop, the recovery in the housing market appeared to have gained momentum and to be broadening. Mortgage approvals in July were 30% higher than a year earlier and average house prices in August were 5% higher than a year earlier and had risen more in some parts of the country, particularly London.
Nevertheless, activity in the housing market and loan-to-value ratios on new mortgage lending remained below their historic averages. Households’ debt servicing costs were low and the ratio of house prices to earnings was at its level of a decade ago.
In view of that, the Committee judged that it should closely monitor developments in the housing market and banks' underwriting standards. The Committee would be vigilant to potential emerging vulnerabilities.
The Committee noted that if risks to the stability of the financial system were to emerge from the housing market, both it and the microprudential regulators had a range of tools available to address those risks. These included, amongst others, supervisory guidance on underwriting standards, sectoral capital requirements and recommendations to the regulators on tightening of affordability tests.
The Committee agreed that, if it became necessary to deploy its tools, they would be used in a way that was proportionate to the risks and consistent with a graduated response.
[to be continued...]
The Bank of England has also agreed with the Treasury that the FPC will conduct a formal review of the Help to Buy schemes every September and that any extension to the schemes beyond their planned three year term will require prior FPC approval. The recent statement by the BoE follows this year's FPC review and there is unlikely to be any further comment by the BoE before Help to Buy moves into its next phase on 1st January 2014.
The conclusion of all this officialese is that the BoE has given the Help to Buy scheme a clean bill of health. The Bank has reassured market and political critics by establishing a regular review process and by highlighting their powers and options to control credit supply and lending policy if conditions in the housing market start to present an unacceptable financial risk.
For anyone looking at the current mortgage lending statistics (from the CML, BBA and BoE) would immediate agree with Danny Alexander that "we are a million miles away from a housing bubble". For example, the BBA reported new mortgage lending in August to be £9.3 billion matched by an equivalent £9.3 billion of capital repayments. So far this year, net lending has fallen by -£1.6 bn. This should be compared to average annual increases in net lending between 2001-07 of £57.3 bn.