Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Punters continue to rate Tory chances of a majority at more
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Punters continue to rate Tory chances of a majority at more than 20pc
What’s been one of the intensive weeks of polling since the last election has barely moved the betting markets where Tory chances of securing a majority are rated at more than 23%.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
So if anyone fails to heed Mike's wise advice / statement of the bleeding obvious and insists on betting on the proposition that there's nearly a 1 in 4 chance of the Tories finding a bunch of voters from some mysterious place to make up for the Lib->Lab defectors and getting a bunch more to boot, bet on those instead.
Lots of questions on immigration and Christmas
Only the LDs in favour of past and present immigration and even they believe in residence qualifications before eligibility for benefits.
The rational punter only considers YouGov findings to be on a par with any other BPC pollster's findings. Indeed, many consider YouGov to be less useful than eg. ICM or IpsosMORI.
It is a great (and frequent) mistake to fixate on one pollster when we have a wealth of other data.
For example, anybody wanting to get a grip on levels of support for the Scottish National Party would be profoundly unwise to focus solely on the daily YouGov/Murdoch series, as they have the strongest house effect in downweighting SNP voting respondents. Other pollsters perhaps have other problems with their methodology. Rational punters will look at all the available material, over a long time period, and come to a calm conclusion as to the lie of the land.
Doing well (net)
Cameron: -19 (-1)
Miliband: -32 (-4)
Clegg: -54 (-)
Jack Straw's immigration 'spectacular mistake'
Was: 69 (Lab 62)
Was not: 16
The world is mean to UKIP supporters contd......last week it was cyclists going through red lights, this week it's Christmas stress:
Christmas stressful - net:
Con: -14
Lab: +5
LibD: -14
UKIP : +14
It is madness to listen to daily fuzz when if you only lift your horizons you can hear the strong rhythm of the marching band.
It is in the nature of blogging to focus on fuzzy noise, because they have to publish something every day, even on days when nothing worth publishing happens.
THE full details of how Britain’s biggest union fought back against a Labour party inquiry into alleged electoral corruption are disclosed today.
Unite’s 12-page report, defending its role against Labour’s accusations that it used forgery and coercion to seize control of the safe Labour seat of Falkirk, is being published for the first time in The Sunday Times.
The internal document, part of a dossier of 1,000 Unite emails that were leaked to this newspaper, also reveals the full conclusions of Labour’s confidential report on the scandal.
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/National/article1341801.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2013_11_16
Trust in Mr Miliband and Ed Balls, the Shadow Chancellor, has fallen to its lowest point since the "omnishambles" Budget last year. Only 19 per cent trust them to "make the right decisions about the economy". David Cameron and George Osborne, on the other hand, are trusted by 27 per cent. Encouragingly for the Government, 44 per cent say they "expect the UK economy will improve next year", while only 34 per cent disagree.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-six-points-ahead-in-new-poll-8944624.html
Labour chair linked to Falkirk fiasco
LABOUR’S Scottish chairman played a key role in support of the Unite union activist at the heart of the Falkirk vote-rigging scandal, emails seen by The Sunday Times indicate.
Jackson Cullinane, who is also a senior Unite official, also appears to have bolstered Karie Murphy’s position despite warnings from the party’s top Scottish official.
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/scotland/article1341831.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2013_11_17
Another scapegoat for Ed's smouldering firewall?
Was: 69 (Lab 62)
Was not: 16"
Wonder what the percentages would be if you did that poll in Westminster.
Explosive leaked emails have laid bare for the first time the depth of the bitter feud between Ed Miliband and Ed Balls.
The emails, sent last week and obtained by The Mail on Sunday, reveal that the Labour leader’s team think Mr Balls is a ‘nightmare’.
They prove the two are deeply divided over how to respond to the economic revival.
And they indicate Mr Miliband is sick and tired of the shadow chancellor’s refusal to obey his orders and ‘stay on message’.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2508542/NIGHTMARE--Leaked-emails-reveal-Ed-Miliband-really-thinks-Balls.html#ixzz2ksxJEWOX
Labour is getting very leaky,,,,,first Falkirk, now this,,,,,
Con: 33 (-)
Lab: 39 (-5)
LibD: 10 (+1)
UKIP: 12 (+4)
Leaders net 'well':
Cameron: -19 (-2)
Miliband: -32 (-11)
Clegg: -53 (+2)
State of the economy - net 'good': -38 (+29)
Household situation over next 12m - net 'better': -29 (+12)
Admittedly there's a lot more time left than there was when Stuart Truth was posting and a lot can happen in between, but... 23%???
Scottish independence: Labour grandee backs Yes vote
Alex Mosson, who was Lord Provost of Glasgow between 1999 and 2003, said he will back a Yes vote because he believes that Westminster is “holding us back”.
Mosson’s announcement follows a similar conversion by the former Labour head of Strathclyde Regional Council Sir Charles Gray who also publicly voiced his support for independence.
Both are a boost to the Yes campaign, with evidence suggesting that Labour identifying voters hold the key to pushing support for independence over the 50 percent mark next September.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-labour-grandee-backs-yes-vote-1-3191733
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/10/22/the-rich-dont-get-richer/
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2013/10/21/wealth-more-equal-in-uk-than-in-france-or-germany/
The urls are broadly accurate summaries of the contents.
I'll try and get the pre-race piece up this morning. Race start is 7pm.
Con: 17 (51)
Lab: 13 (39)
LibD: 5 (48)
UKIP: 25 (88)
Not even Labour voters trust Labour on immigration......
Balls is a nightmare, the economic ability of Blanchflower combined with the social skills of of the school bully.
I am sure that Miliband knows Balls is a liability, after all everyone else does. Even tim won't defend him.
UKIP must derive a lot of its VI from its opposition to immigration.
Divided Right !
Rugger: if Scotland lose handily my many bets will end up a shade of green, if they lose a bit or have the temerity to win then I'll be exactly evens. My own fault for stacking half my bets on the Irish to win.
Con: -30
Lab: -14
LibD: +19
UKIP: -80
Nov 2013 VI with change from Nov 2012:
Con 32 (nc)
Lab 38 (-8)
LD 8 (-1)
Ukip 8 (+5)
Approval:
Govt -31 (nc)
Cam -21 (-6)
Mili -23 (-20)
Clegg -43 (-11)
Still, that didn't cause problems before, did it?
It was a 'nest of vipers' and 'explosive' as recently as five minutes ago. You are becoming a laughing stock.
Con 33 (-)
Lab 31.5 (-7.5)
LibD 11.5 (+1.5)
UKIP 18 (+6)
Baxtering Yields:
CON 33.00% 286
LAB 31.50% 309
LIB 11.50% 27
UKIP 18% 0
Labour Minority or Lib-Lab pact.
Carlotta is - of course - completely correct.
Between 2003 and 2011, top rate taxpayers paid - directly - 25% more tax, as their marginal rate went from 40% to 50%.
In addition, the increase in capital gain tax from 18% to 28% broke a lot of tax 'optimisation' techniques (which, for the record I've never used).
The consequence of these things is that if you're earning - say - GBP20m a year, your tax burden probably did increase 30% or so between 2003 and 2011.
Say another year and a half:
Con 32 (nc)
Lab 26 (-12)
LD 6.5 (-1.5)
Ukip 15.5 (+7.5)
National Prediction: CON short 3 of majority
Whilst a Conservative Minority Gov't would be de facto very viable due to Sinn Fein absences, for betting purposes it is settled as NOM...& Con Minority or Con-Lib coalition.
Not even that Baxters to a conservative majority.
Did you see the England game yesterday? We are going in the right direction under Lancaster. Shame we didn't win the game but you can feel we should come to the boil at the right time for the WC.
Meanwhile, just watched the Wales tries - some boy's own stuff there - the Welsh are looking ominously good although the Argies clearly had a bad day at the office.
Betting PostLaid Rosberg for points at 1.69. The 12th bet I considered, which I think is a record.
He had a very poor race in texas last year and this year was also significantly off his team mate.
The pre-race piece is here: http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/america-pre-race.html
@rcs -- apologies for flagging your post as off-topic. I was aiming, not very carefully, for the quote button.
England did very well not to crumble after being down 15-3 early on. Ashton should be dropped, though. I'm hoping the Springboks crush the Welsh. Purely for betting reasons, of coruse.
Only on PB could an increasing Labour lead turn into a declining one!
Nick Clegg - On the side of the actual 'workers'.
This is a genuine question - I haven't been following it that closely, and all I get on here is mutterings of the black spot. For what?
......go on, post a link to your "Man cries at funeral" story.....
Hodges main problem is not that he writes the same story every week, but that he has no contacts in the Labour Party, which kinds of undermines the identical story that he writes every week.
Age of consent is perfectly fine at 16 tbh.
http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/cumbrian-teacher-in-berkshire-told-to-lose-accent-and-sound-more-southern-1.1099026
edit: for example the inevitable house price crash once all the banks' toxic mortgage assets have been transferred to the public via central bank purchase and the interest rates go up again.
2. Bankstas have spent the last 30 years looting Britain and transferring that wealth abroad. For example the tax scam where a UK company can register their brand in Monaco and use that to to transfer all their profits there tax-free. Is all the looted wealth from those tax scams and the income that derives from them counted in the UK's Gini coefficient. No.
Banksta (aka trickle-down) economics only benefits the rich as the last 30 years prove beyond any doubt - or at least they would only benefit the rich if they didn't always end in deflationary spirals so in the end they damage everyone.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100245764/so-now-we-know-ed-miliband-struck-a-deal-that-allowed-unite-to-rig-the-falkirk-selection/
This fundamentally changes the context for Ed Miliband’s speech launching the union link reforms in July this year. When he spoke, attacking “machine politics” and what had gone on in Falkirk, it is very likely Ed Miliband did so in the full knowledge that his team had given the green light to Unite’s activities in the constituency.
http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2013/11/13/when-ed-miliband-condemned-unites-machine-politics-in-falkirk-did-he-forget-his-office-had-signed-off-on-their-tactics/
And is launching the "biggest reform of Labour in a generation" based on, how to put it, "selective" presentation of the facts....
I don't think OGH's comment about people "betting with their hearts and not their heads" applies just to political betting. The number of people who back England at major sporting events out of sentiment at prices which bear no relation to the country's actual chances ensures we have High Streets full of bookmakers none of whom seem to have been affected by the recession.
Whether it be cricket, either rugby code or of course football, England are always much shorter than any reasonable analysis of form suggests but the bookies know the patriotic punter is always there to swell the balance sheet.
In politics, of course, wanting your side to win and coming up with convincing arguments as to why they should win are all very well and good but as we know the reasons why people vote the way they do often defy logic and rational analysis. At the moment, a solid and consistent bloc of those intending to vote intend to vote Labour but whether that is a vote for Labour or simply a vote against the Coalition parties doesn't much matter - the net effect is the same.
Whether it is correct is another matter.
Meanwhile Daniel Knowles spotted it too: "Clegg on Marr. Not particularly interesting, but striking how healthy he looks - more so than in 2010. In stark contrast to David Cameron"
Did any experts come back on the best way to bet on Ed out before the GE - is it the 5-1 with Ladbrokes?
A genuine question, I don't know. Having lived mainly in Labour areas when in the UK (except now, we certainly had people 'supporting' Labour who didn't really know about it, but were often told that if they were working class, they should be supporting Labour, so end of story.