Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » EdM still tight odds on favourite to be next PM
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » EdM still tight odds on favourite to be next PM
The price assumes that both LAB are in a position to form a government after GE2015 and that Ed is still leader. While the latter is now in less doubt than it was there must always be an element on uncertainty.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
LOL
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/cartoons/article3557195.ece
Betfair punters don't seem to have caught up with the recent slight strengthening in Labour's polling, so Labour Most Seats is worth it at 1.86 (5/6).
EDIT I see that TGOHF makes the same point.
'Mystic Ed and his Crystal Balls'.....or this - Labour PPB going out tonight:
Effective I guess but a really nauseating soundtrack.
She may cross the floor of the HoC, kick Ed with her leopard pattern shoes, a quick forearm smash to Ed Balls and the Labour party is hers.
The odds look fairly plausible - we're in the last third of the Parliament and far from swingback the lead seems to be strengthening slightly. Plenty of time for black swans, of course.
Cluny Estate :
http://search.savills.com/content/assets/properties/gbedruedr120073/EDR120073_EDR13000115.PDF
The "lame joke" on PB is your constant anally retentive wittering and regularly MODERATED drivel contending that all the worlds ills are the fault of the Coalition in general and David Cameron in particular.
I see it as "fairer" than a "next PM" market as it doesn't involve backroom deals - Ed might win most seats but yet not be PM (no sniggering).
Should you consider as I do that :
Ed Miliband will never be Prime Minister
then the market opens very considerably. Cameron continues as PM and we must look at a future Conservative PM down the line - plenty of large odds there - or the next Labour leader after Ed goes in 2015 - again good odds available.
More short term is the Cameron/Clapham Omnibus option. Here the odds favour May and Hague and even Clegg as stand-in whilst the Conservatives choose one of the former.
(1) You lose your stake
(2) You probably have a job to go to
or
(1) You win
(2) You lose your job.
Is it worthwhile betting on that scenario? Think of it as disaster planning.
In other news.....Banksy is on a roll in New York:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2479336/Banksy-anonymously-donated-latest-artwork-charity-shop-theyre-thrilled-Nazi-officer.html
For geeks and others who are interested in new technology like screens, etching circuits on graphene, new solar cell efficiency, gallium nitride etc, Solid State Technology magazine is free from: www.electroiq.com
There is a chance that they might also gain the odd seat off Labour but most of SLABs seats are very safe. In Dundee West, for example, which is a very strong area for the SNP generally and where they hold the Scottish Parliamentary seat, Labour got almost as many votes at the last election as the SNP, Lib Dem and tory put together. It really would require something remarkable to change that.
2011 (vs 2003)
Housing: 19.4 (+4.7)
Water: 0.9 (+0.2)
Gas: 1.3 (+0.5)
Electric: 1.4 (+0.4)
Petrol/Diesel: 3.0 (+0.4)
Total: 26.0 (+6.1)
For perspective - 2013 vs 2011 total is +1.3
Morning all, the game is available below and will close at 7pm Monday:
http://www.electiongame.co.uk/nj-virginia/
Many thanks,
DC
Some farmers are doing something useful.
1) Cameron falls under a bus before the next election. I don't have much doubt about what would happen in that scenario: William Hague (25/1 at William Hill) would surely be interim PM, whilst the Conservative Party set about finding a new permanent leader. One important point to note: unlike the 'next leader' markets, which usually exclude a temporary or interim leader, I think I'm right in saying this wouldn't apply to next PM - you're either the PM or you're not. Still, the 'under a bus' scenario is pretty remote; 25/1 is no more than reasonable value IMO.
2) Labour don't do well enough to propel Ed into No 10, Cameron remains as PM, Labour elect a new leader. In this case you want to be on that Labour figure (if only as a trading bet) - Andy Burnham at 66/1 (Ladbrokes) would be a possible long shot for this scenario.
3) Same as 2, but looking at the possibility of Cameron's replacement instead. Any of Theresa May (14/1), Michael Gove (33/1), George Osborne (whose star will be in the ascendant in this scenario - 33/1), or - this is the long shot - Jeremy Hunt (66/1) might be worth looking at, and of course there's Boris (20/1), although it's hard to see his route to the top from where he is now. I can't say that any of these odds are compelling, but for a small fun bet any of them might provide you with a nice surprise.
It`s bizarre how the Tories are intent on wrecking their massive lead over Labour on welfare.
So, yet more of the 'Wrong kind of Green Energy'. It appears to be nigh on impossible to appease these people.
Given the Government introduced new regulations, it's not yet clear how much compensation will need to be paid. It seems that the Government won on the general principle that this was not slave labour, but lost on the detail of how it had used the regulation-making powers available to it.
'Duncan Weldon @DuncanWeldon 5m
ONS - real households' disposable income has been flat since Q2 2009 despite growth of 4.2% in GDP.'
As we know wages started to stagnate in 2003,but nothing to do with Labour's mass immigration policy.
The period from 2003 onwards has seen median wages stagnate, and then fall in the aftermath of the 2008-09 recession.
From 2003 to 2008, median wages were stagnant. Despite growth in GDP of 11 percent over the period, median earnings fell by an annual average of 0.2% percent for men, and for women rose by 0.3 percent a year. Put simply, a middle earner in 2008 did not earn noticeably more than a middle earner in 2003.
'[PDF]
Growth without gain? - Resolution Foundation
www.resolutionfoundation.org/media/.../Growth_without_gain_-_Web.p...
by J Plunkett - 2011 - Cited by 12 - Related articles
to living standards in the UK over the last thirty years? In absolute terms ... was
strong from 1977 to 2003 but from 2003-08 – before the 2008-09 recession, and.
Is this all a proxy war over how much power and discretion Balls has to decide economic policy?
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/07/jeremy-hunt-claims-against-andy-burnham
Dave has turned the tables neatly by giving Ed that 'veto'. Cue all those Labour Big City Leader bods...
I understand Hunchman is to be called before the PB Accounts Committee for an explanation at the next Dirty Dicks meeting.
Despite the Labour bluster in the articles you quoted, that remains the case, as far as I know.
http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2013_0064_Judgment.pdf
It sounds more like a case of sloppy drafting - an insufficient follow through on detail - than a fundamental 'it's wrong'.
My favourite bit:
"Miss Reilly was born in 1989 and first claimed jobseeker’s allowance in August 2010. Three months later, she got a paid work experience placement at a museum pursuant to a Government scheme, and was paid the minimum wage subsidised by that scheme. When that placement ended, she continued to work voluntarily at the museum, with a view to pursuing a career in museums. She has always complied with the jobseeking conditions, and has been committed to seeking employment. Miss Reilly is no longer claiming jobseeker’s allowance as she has obtained paid employment at a supermarket."
It was Miss Reilly who claimed (dismissed) that forcing her to work on an unpaid placement in a Poundland was a breach of her Human Rights..... and had she known it was not required would not have done so....then would she have got her job in the supermarket?
Yeah, right.
He hasn't apologised nor retracted - Burnham said on live radio he wouldn't back down...
He hasn't apologised nor retracted - Burnham said on live radio he wouldn't back down...
Do not pretend that any political grouping has monolithic views. I am sure that you would be able to find individual environmental campaigners to oppose just about every type of green energy, but they would likely be different individuals for different things, while every type of green energy would have majority support amongst those that self-identify as green.
Do you see how that works?
Next you will be telling us there is a drop in the number of people quitting snuff and laudanum ?
Next week - sales of cassettes drops to new record low - blame Cameron.
Hmm, tricky one for the two Eds, isn't it. Big goal to Dave, wouldn't you agree?
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/10/30/infographic-consumers-road-recovery/
I love the Banksy with the Nazi officer! Reminds me of the book 'How Green we're the Nazis?'
No, that wasn't the plan, was it? I believe you yourself - on this very blog no less - were speculating on those billions being spent elsewhere and that would have included the housebuilding programme which now magically would have become affordable on the Tories own figures!
Poor Ed. And it looked soooo promising. Blame Balls. You know you want to. I won't grass on you.
"42% Identify with Obama Politically, 42% with the Tea Party
Voters are evenly divided when asked whether they agree more politically with President Obama or with the average member of the Tea Party. But an enormous partisan gap colors virtually all opinions of the Tea Party.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 42% of Likely U.S. Voters think the president’s views are closest to their own when it comes to the major issues facing the country. But just as many (42%) say their views come closest to those of the average Tea Party member instead. Sixteen percent (16%) are not sure."
So basically people want the Republicans to run a campaign based on the 16% who are neither Tea Party nor Obama supporters? Good luck with that.
(And before anybody else says it, yes the down-thread polling is all over the place. I do think the most interesting and relevant bit however is - "When it comes to the major issues facing the nation, 77% of Democrats say Obama’s views are closest to their own. Seventy-six percent (76%) of Republicans and 51% of unaffiliated voters identify more closely with the average member of the Tea Party. " - if you want to win unaffiliateds you won't do it by burning the Tea Party.)
(From "http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/october_2013/42_identify_with_obama_politically_42_with_the_tea_party"= apologies, first attempt to insert it as a link failed.)
If you do a straight approval question you get more like 31% support, eg
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/30/politics/cnn-poll-congress-approval/
Admittedly that was during the shutdown and Rasmussen sees more Republicans than CNN, but I doubt you'll find them above the mid-30s on a non-forced approval question.
A Tea Party candidate for POTUS could certainly make it into the 30s, maybe even the low 40s.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/8286
I'm imagining him writing it then going through it again later editing out the swears.
"Chris and I did indeed sit next to each other in English classes many moons ago,” he informed me. “We studied Macbeth and Chaucer’s The Miller’s Tale, from memory. At least one of those was a guide to politics of a kind. In those days, Chris was more interested in theatre than politics. Arguably, he still is."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10412322/Chris-Bryant-in-a-schoolboy-spat-with-Martin-Horwood.html
What I meant is that if you consistently forecast a market collapse for long enough you will eventually be right. Hunchman's misfortune has been to be forecasting one all the way through a longish bull run. The stars must not have been in alignment. Or the waves were disrupted. But he always posts with such good grace so he is a favourite contributor of mine.
https://www.predictious.com/politics/virginia-gubernatorial-election-2013/terry-mcauliffe
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/10/twist-in-teaching-debate-as-speaker-rejects-government-attempt-to-calm-row/
Nobody is predicting a big surge in equities that will blast away previous records and herald 'the return of the stock' as a real hot investment item.
So that may well happen. It hasn't happened since pre 87 and all markets are cyclical.
However, it doesn't address the actual point, which is whether teachers should exclusively be drawn from those with a specific named UK qualification, with no discretion given to head teachers and governors at all.
ARG !!! .... and not them either !!!
Are the tea party really about winning elections? they surely know they'll never take real power in America.
Its all about circling the wagons isn't it? Custer's last stand? that sort of thing?
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/same-sex-union-referendum-to-pose-problems-for-fine-gael-1.1577316