They were making a joke about Oswald Mosley on “I’m sorry I haven’t a clue” and described him as a Shropshire lad who became a Conservative MP before founding the British Union of Fascists.
Technically true, but utterly utterly misleading, in a negative way about one party in an election period. They really need to be more careful
Absolutely disgusting. Mosley was a Staffordshire lad as any ful kno.
He was born in Mayfair, actually. That’s not, afaik, currently part of Staffordshire. (Yes, I know his parents were Staffs but we don’t want the bastard!)
In fact, @Charles, you could point out it it isn’t even technically correct as he was never a Conservative MP. He was a couponed Unionist for about a year, before sitting as an independent and then joining Labour.
On the 'old being born in a stable does not make you a horse' metric, I think that hardly counts for a member of the English upper classes of that period. We're constantly assured of the dear old queen mum's Scotchness but her umbilical cord was cut several hundred miles south of Gretna.
Can we also please remember that even in Labour Leave seats, the majority of Labour voters voted to Remain.
If Labour makes clear its policy of a second referendum (and despite the dire polling, I think they all agree Remainers are going back to Labour), they can harmonise the Labour vote in those seats.
I remain absolutely unconvinced that Labour seats who didn't back May when she tried Johnson's approach, are going to back an Etonian this time. I just don't see it.
Can any Northern voters chip in here? I spent some time in the North a couple of years ago and my perception was they'd rather have their eyes pulled out than vote Tory. Perhaps that's changed.
Do you know that the North is a large and varied place ?
Can any Northern voters chip in here? I spent some time in the North a couple of years ago and my perception was they'd rather have their eyes pulled out than vote Tory. Perhaps that's changed.
The in touch Labour Party.
Why did they vote Labour in 2017 then?
You're making silly sweeping generalisations about 'the North'.
In your day trip to the wilds I don't doubt you met some ex-miners who doffed their caps and spat at anything blue, but that is not quite the universal experience.
Can we also please remember that even in Labour Leave seats, the majority of Labour voters voted to Remain.
If Labour makes clear its policy of a second referendum (and despite the dire polling, I think they all agree Remainers are going back to Labour), they can harmonise the Labour vote in those seats.
I remain absolutely unconvinced that Labour seats who didn't back May when she tried Johnson's approach, are going to back an Etonian this time. I just don't see it.
Can any Northern voters chip in here? I spent some time in the North a couple of years ago and my perception was they'd rather have their eyes pulled out than vote Tory. Perhaps that's changed.
Do you know that the North is a large and varied place ?
And there was me thinking it was all flat caps and whippets.
Can we also please remember that even in Labour Leave seats, the majority of Labour voters voted to Remain.
If Labour makes clear its policy of a second referendum (and despite the dire polling, I think they all agree Remainers are going back to Labour), they can harmonise the Labour vote in those seats.
I remain absolutely unconvinced that Labour seats who didn't back May when she tried Johnson's approach, are going to back an Etonian this time. I just don't see it.
Can any Northern voters chip in here? I spent some time in the North a couple of years ago and my perception was they'd rather have their eyes pulled out than vote Tory. Perhaps that's changed.
Do you know that the North is a large and varied place ?
And there was me thinking it was all flat caps and whippets.
Can we also please remember that even in Labour Leave seats, the majority of Labour voters voted to Remain.
If Labour makes clear its policy of a second referendum (and despite the dire polling, I think they all agree Remainers are going back to Labour), they can harmonise the Labour vote in those seats.
I remain absolutely unconvinced that Labour seats who didn't back May when she tried Johnson's approach, are going to back an Etonian this time. I just don't see it.
Can any Northern voters chip in here? I spent some time in the North a couple of years ago and my perception was they'd rather have their eyes pulled out than vote Tory. Perhaps that's changed.
Do you know that the North is a large and varied place ?
Nonsense. The North is a wholly homogeneous bloc of districts populated by lumpenproletariat and monkeys. I spent a day there a couple of years ago, so I know.
Can we also please remember that even in Labour Leave seats, the majority of Labour voters voted to Remain.
If Labour makes clear its policy of a second referendum (and despite the dire polling, I think they all agree Remainers are going back to Labour), they can harmonise the Labour vote in those seats.
I remain absolutely unconvinced that Labour seats who didn't back May when she tried Johnson's approach, are going to back an Etonian this time. I just don't see it.
Can any Northern voters chip in here? I spent some time in the North a couple of years ago and my perception was they'd rather have their eyes pulled out than vote Tory. Perhaps that's changed.
Do you know that the North is a large and varied place ?
Can we also please remember that even in Labour Leave seats, the majority of Labour voters voted to Remain.
If Labour makes clear its policy of a second referendum (and despite the dire polling, I think they all agree Remainers are going back to Labour), they can harmonise the Labour vote in those seats.
I remain absolutely unconvinced that Labour seats who didn't back May when she tried Johnson's approach, are going to back an Etonian this time. I just don't see it.
Can any Northern voters chip in here? I spent some time in the North a couple of years ago and my perception was they'd rather have their eyes pulled out than vote Tory. Perhaps that's changed.
Do you know that the North is a large and varied place ?
Nonsense. The North is a wholly homogeneous bloc of districts populated by lumpenproletariat and monkeys. I spent a day there a couple of years ago, so I know.
While that is important, what is more important is what young voters believe is being offered. Supposedly plenty last time thought existing student debts would be cancelled and it wasn't, so whether that is now policy or not it matters more if peopel think it is.
The reason they thought it would be cancelled is because Corbyn said this on 31st May 2017:
“First of all, we want to get rid of student fees altogether,” Corbyn told NME. “We’ll do it as soon as we get in, and we’ll then introduce legislation to ensure that any student going from the 2017-18 academic year will not pay fees. They will pay them, but we’ll rebate them when we’ve got the legislation through – that’s fundamentally the principle behind it. Yes, there is a block of those that currently have a massive debt, and I’m looking at ways that we could reduce that, ameliorate that, lengthen the period of paying it off, or some other means of reducing that debt burden.”
Now that is deliberately ambiguous, of course, but it is something of a case of a nod is as good as a wink to a blind horse. He says he will get rid of tuition fees, and then say he will find some way of making sure he doesn’t penalise those who were at uni between Labour bringing tuition fees in following a Tory review and the Coalition tripling them in following a Labour review miss out. The inference is so obvious you would have to be as thick as Richard Burgon not to draw it.
Of course, the point is also noticeable that he talks about debt, but he isn’t very specific about what sort of debt. Did he mean student loans in toto? Because that’s not just tuition fees. Indeed, less than one-third of my own loan was tuition fees. Did he mean subsistence loans as well? If so, surely he would have to fund them for current Undergraduates also. That’s a huge, absolutely unfunded and completely unaffordable commitment. Did it mean student loan company debt only? But that isn’t really the problem. The big reason undergraduates and particularly postgraduates get into trouble is they have to take out bank debt as well which they can’t carry. Ironically therefore increasing the amount of SLC debt would ameliorate the debt situation (as the government has in fact done). (Continued below)
And as @OldKingCole rightly observes, ultimately a lot of this debt will be written off anyway, but quite gradually over many years rather than in a lump as Corbyn suggests. Confusingly, therefore, what he is proposing was current government policy but done in such a way as to leave a gaping hole in government finances.
Bottom line is, as Corbyn himself later admitted, this was a straightforward bribe. He had no idea what it would cost, no idea what mechanism he would use to implement it, and had given no thought to the practical ramifications of it. All he wanted is the votes of a lot of students. He got that. Then he admitted he had lied and ditched the commitment. Now he’s bringing it back. Question is, will students be dumb enough to fall for it again? Alas, initial evidence suggests yes, which does suggest much about how desperate they are but doesn’t say a lot for their critical faculties. As George W.Bush didn’t quite say, ‘you can fool some of the people all of the time, and these are the ones Corbyn is concentrating on.’
Would also welcome views on the Remain/Leave debate here in terms of voting.
If it's true that the country is now majority Remain, there are enough people who can vote and deny Johnson the majority he wants. The questions are: is this true; will these people be prepared to vote tactically; are these people in the right seats?
The UK voted 51.9% Leave, but the median Leave vote in constituencies was 53.6% (in Tewkesbury, Wells, Basingstoke, Banff and Buchan, and Salford and Eccles). This is because the Remain vote was more concentrated in the large cities, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
The consequence is that a 50:50 national split still has Leave leading in 363 constituencies and Remain would require a national lead of 51.7:48.3 to draw level.
The Lib Dems are stronger and Labour weaker than 2017. This seems likely to weaken tactical voting compared to 2017.
I'm not convinced by the scant evidence of a change in national opinion on EU membership.
So my answer to your questions is: probably not, not enough, no.
And as @OldKingCole rightly observes, ultimately a lot of this debt will be written off anyway, but quite gradually over many years rather than in a lump as he suggests. Confusingly, therefore, what he is proposing was current government policy but done in such a way as to leave a gaping hole in government finances.
Bottom line is, as Corbyn himself later admitted, this was a straightforward bribe. He had no idea what it would cost, no idea what mechanism he would use to implement it, and had given no thought to the practical ramifications of it. All he wanted is the votes of a lot of students. He got that. Then he admitted he had lied and ditched the commitment. Now he’s bringing it back. Question is, will students be dumb enough to fall for it again? Alas, initial evidence suggests yes, which does suggest much about how desperate they are but doesn’t say a lot for their critical faculties. As George W.Bush didn’t quite say, ‘you can fool some of the people all of the time, and these are the ones Corbyn is concentrating on.’
I agree it was a deliberate and cynical piece of electoral bribery. Everyone has them, but some are more obvious than others (the grey vote policies are well known).
And as @OldKingCole rightly observes, ultimately a lot of this debt will be written off anyway, but quite gradually over many years rather than in a lump as he suggests. Confusingly, therefore, what he is proposing was current government policy but done in such a way as to leave a gaping hole in government finances.
Bottom line is, as Corbyn himself later admitted, this was a straightforward bribe. He had no idea what it would cost, no idea what mechanism he would use to implement it, and had given no thought to the practical ramifications of it. All he wanted is the votes of a lot of students. He got that. Then he admitted he had lied and ditched the commitment. Now he’s bringing it back. Question is, will students be dumb enough to fall for it again? Alas, initial evidence suggests yes, which does suggest much about how desperate they are but doesn’t say a lot for their critical faculties. As George W.Bush didn’t quite say, ‘you can fool some of the people all of the time, and these are the ones Corbyn is concentrating on.’
The thing is for students, it isn't really debt, it is a capped graduate tax. And it isn't really a terrible deal. It is the state for which it is actually a bad deal, as so much of this debt will never be repaid.
Would also welcome views on the Remain/Leave debate here in terms of voting.
If it's true that the country is now majority Remain, there are enough people who can vote and deny Johnson the majority he wants. The questions are: is this true; will these people be prepared to vote tactically; are these people in the right seats?
Brexit is clearly important, but not decisive. Consider:
1. A lot of the people who do have strong feelings about Brexit will be brand loyalty voters, who will turn out for their preferred party regardless 2. Much of the population is not strongly aligned with one camp or the other, or at least not so strongly that this will outweigh their other concerns. Not all of the large numbers of voters who dislike Boris Johnson, or the enormous numbers of voters who dislike Jeremy Corbyn, are going to hold their noses and put someone they detest into Government just because they prefer their stance on Europe
I'm certainly not expecting the Liberal Democrats to make large numbers of gains off the back of their strong Remain stance. That will only work in contests where they are up against Lab or Con in heavily Remain-leaning areas, and where they don't have to overturn Albanian majorities. I know there's talk about South Cambs and Guildford maybe going yellow, and of various more distant targets based on the recent constituency polling. But I don't think they've much chance of making significant progress outside of their top 20 targets based on the 2017 result (i.e. as far down the list as Cambridge,) a number of those (e.g. Cornwall North) are Leave-leaning and probably unobtainable as a consequence, and I reckon that North Norfolk is going to go blue, and Brecon & Radnorshire and Eastbourne are both at some risk as well.
I figure that, starting from their 2017 total of 12, they make 4-7 net gains from Con and 3-5 net gains from the other parties. That'd get them up to, perhaps, 22 seats post-election. Rather more like 1992 than 2005.
And as @OldKingCole rightly observes, ultimately a lot of this debt will be written off anyway, but quite gradually over many years rather than in a lump as he suggests. Confusingly, therefore, what he is proposing was current government policy but done in such a way as to leave a gaping hole in government finances.
Bottom line is, as Corbyn himself later admitted, this was a straightforward bribe. He had no idea what it would cost, no idea what mechanism he would use to implement it, and had given no thought to the practical ramifications of it. All he wanted is the votes of a lot of students. He got that. Then he admitted he had lied and ditched the commitment. Now he’s bringing it back. Question is, will students be dumb enough to fall for it again? Alas, initial evidence suggests yes, which does suggest much about how desperate they are but doesn’t say a lot for their critical faculties. As George W.Bush didn’t quite say, ‘you can fool some of the people all of the time, and these are the ones Corbyn is concentrating on.’
The thing is for students, it isn't really debt, it is a capped graduate tax. And it isn't really a terrible deal. It is the state for which it is actually a bad deal, as so much of this debt will never be repaid.
I agree, but it isn’t only about SLC debt. Bank debt is a problem.
I would also add that a major snag about student loans is you have to deal with the Student Loan Company. Their Head of Repayments for 25 years, Kevin O’Connor, is so dim he actually does not know July is the month before August, or how to transfer money between accounts. (No, I have not made either of those up. I have corresponded with him directly and he got them both wrong.)
One advantage therefore of making it a formal tax is we could get rid of the SLC and work through the HMRC, who despite a disastrous decline since the merger of Customs and Revenue are still far, far better.
Would also welcome views on the Remain/Leave debate here in terms of voting.
If it's true that the country is now majority Remain, there are enough people who can vote and deny Johnson the majority he wants. The questions are: is this true; will these people be prepared to vote tactically; are these people in the right seats?
The country may well have a slight Remain majority. But it also has a bigger anti-socialist majority, and for Remain's vote to be optimised in a GE, enough people have to decide that their contempt for Brexit is greater than their contempt for socialism in order for Labour to win concentrated support in key seats.
The polling thankfully provides little evidence that this is the case...
Would also welcome views on the Remain/Leave debate here in terms of voting.
If it's true that the country is now majority Remain, there are enough people who can vote and deny Johnson the majority he wants. The questions are: is this true; will these people be prepared to vote tactically; are these people in the right seats?
The country may well have a slight Remain majority. But it also has a bigger anti-socialist majority.
Well you would say that, now being even bluer than you were before!
He says the manifesto will build on 2017 pledges such as eliminating student debt, building a million homes, abolishing zero-hour contracts and offering a £10 minimum wage for young people.
They are going to try this trick again.
The manifesto will be accompanied by a "grey book" outlining the detailed spending commitments and how they will be funded, he says.
Which will be about as grounded in realism as a Harry Potter book...
Can we also please remember that even in Labour Leave seats, the majority of Labour voters voted to Remain.
If Labour makes clear its policy of a second referendum (and despite the dire polling, I think they all agree Remainers are going back to Labour), they can harmonise the Labour vote in those seats.
I remain absolutely unconvinced that Labour seats who didn't back May when she tried Johnson's approach, are going to back an Etonian this time. I just don't see it.
Can any Northern voters chip in here? I spent some time in the North a couple of years ago and my perception was they'd rather have their eyes pulled out than vote Tory. Perhaps that's changed.
Do you know that the North is a large and varied place ?
Indeed. I'm from the North West. I'd rather have my eyes pulled out than vote Commie Corbyn.
A fair portion of the North West is already blue in the graphics. People seem to think for some reason the whole of the North West is in Manchester or Liverpool.
Can we also please remember that even in Labour Leave seats, the majority of Labour voters voted to Remain.
If Labour makes clear its policy of a second referendum (and despite the dire polling, I think they all agree Remainers are going back to Labour), they can harmonise the Labour vote in those seats.
I remain absolutely unconvinced that Labour seats who didn't back May when she tried Johnson's approach, are going to back an Etonian this time. I just don't see it.
Can any Northern voters chip in here? I spent some time in the North a couple of years ago and my perception was they'd rather have their eyes pulled out than vote Tory. Perhaps that's changed.
Do you know that the North is a large and varied place ?
And there was me thinking it was all flat caps and whippets.
I’m the most Northern person on PB.
I think rugby league is shite and I’ve never drunk bitter.
He says the manifesto will build on 2017 pledges such as eliminating student debt, building a million homes, abolishing zero-hour contracts and offering a £10 minimum wage for young people.
They are going to try this trick again.
The manifesto will be accompanied by a "grey book" outlining the detailed spending commitments and how they will be funded, he says.
Which will be about as grounded in realism as a Harry Potter book...
I seem to remember Blair made a pledge about building 5 million homes.
So if pledges with big numbers on work, how come 22 years later it still is an issue?
Can we also please remember that even in Labour Leave seats, the majority of Labour voters voted to Remain.
If Labour makes clear its policy of a second referendum (and despite the dire polling, I think they all agree Remainers are going back to Labour), they can harmonise the Labour vote in those seats.
I remain absolutely unconvinced that Labour seats who didn't back May when she tried Johnson's approach, are going to back an Etonian this time. I just don't see it.
Can any Northern voters chip in here? I spent some time in the North a couple of years ago and my perception was they'd rather have their eyes pulled out than vote Tory. Perhaps that's changed.
Do you know that the North is a large and varied place ?
And there was me thinking it was all flat caps and whippets.
I’m the most Northern person on PB.
I think rugby league is shite and I’ve never drunk bitter.
He says the manifesto will build on 2017 pledges such as eliminating student debt, building a million homes, abolishing zero-hour contracts and offering a £10 minimum wage for young people.
They are going to try this trick again.
The manifesto will be accompanied by a "grey book" outlining the detailed spending commitments and how they will be funded, he says.
Which will be about as grounded in realism as a Harry Potter book...
I seem to remember Blair made a pledge about building 5 million homes.
So if pledges with big numbers on work, how come 22 years later it still is an issue?
Because they don't work, but we fall for it from our 'team' each and every time.
Can we also please remember that even in Labour Leave seats, the majority of Labour voters voted to Remain.
If Labour makes clear its policy of a second referendum (and despite the dire polling, I think they all agree Remainers are going back to Labour), they can harmonise the Labour vote in those seats.
I remain absolutely unconvinced that Labour seats who didn't back May when she tried Johnson's approach, are going to back an Etonian this time. I just don't see it.
Can any Northern voters chip in here? I spent some time in the North a couple of years ago and my perception was they'd rather have their eyes pulled out than vote Tory. Perhaps that's changed.
Do you know that the North is a large and varied place ?
And there was me thinking it was all flat caps and whippets.
I’m the most Northern person on PB.
To be fair I think we have a few wildlings from beyond the wall who would consider themselves proper Northerners...
Can we also please remember that even in Labour Leave seats, the majority of Labour voters voted to Remain.
If Labour makes clear its policy of a second referendum (and despite the dire polling, I think they all agree Remainers are going back to Labour), they can harmonise the Labour vote in those seats.
I remain absolutely unconvinced that Labour seats who didn't back May when she tried Johnson's approach, are going to back an Etonian this time. I just don't see it.
Can any Northern voters chip in here? I spent some time in the North a couple of years ago and my perception was they'd rather have their eyes pulled out than vote Tory. Perhaps that's changed.
Do you know that the North is a large and varied place ?
And there was me thinking it was all flat caps and whippets.
I’m the most Northern person on PB.
I think rugby league is shite and I’ve never drunk bitter.
He says the manifesto will build on 2017 pledges such as eliminating student debt, building a million homes, abolishing zero-hour contracts and offering a £10 minimum wage for young people.
They are going to try this trick again.
The manifesto will be accompanied by a "grey book" outlining the detailed spending commitments and how they will be funded, he says.
Which will be about as grounded in realism as a Harry Potter book...
The biggest difficulty with professional gambling is surely getting on with sufficient size and for exchange the Betfair Premium charge ?
Yes, Paddypower are limiting me to £1.50 on constituencies, though other bookies have not caught up with me yet.
I bet on football, but not profitably (though if Leicester City win the PL again...). Politics is something that I feel that I have an edge on though and makes me £1000 or so per year. Not enough to live on though.
My Spreadex looks good, the spreads do seem to be lagging the polls. I reckon Con 355 should be the midpoint. The gearing keeps me from upping stakes too much.
If I do well this year, I expect PaddyPower will limit me subsequently just as Betfair Sportsbook have.
Hard to believe they don’t already, as they’re the same company now
Can we also please remember that even in Labour Leave seats, the majority of Labour voters voted to Remain.
If Labour makes clear its policy of a second referendum (and despite the dire polling, I think they all agree Remainers are going back to Labour), they can harmonise the Labour vote in those seats.
I remain absolutely unconvinced that Labour seats who didn't back May when she tried Johnson's approach, are going to back an Etonian this time. I just don't see it.
Can any Northern voters chip in here? I spent some time in the North a couple of years ago and my perception was they'd rather have their eyes pulled out than vote Tory. Perhaps that's changed.
Do you know that the North is a large and varied place ?
And there was me thinking it was all flat caps and whippets.
I’m the most Northern person on PB.
I think rugby league is shite and I’ve never drunk bitter.
Would also welcome views on the Remain/Leave debate here in terms of voting.
If it's true that the country is now majority Remain, there are enough people who can vote and deny Johnson the majority he wants. The questions are: is this true; will these people be prepared to vote tactically; are these people in the right seats?
The country may well have a slight Remain majority. But it also has a bigger anti-socialist majority, and for Remain's vote to be optimised in a GE, enough people have to decide that their contempt for Brexit is greater than their contempt for socialism in order for Labour to win concentrated support in key seats.
The polling thankfully provides little evidence that this is the case...
We have anecdotes here that peope in Tory-Labour marginals won't be seen dead voting for the Anti-semites.... It is a significant bar on tactical voting to help Labour. The libDems suffer no such problem. 2019 will herald ATV - Assymetric Tactical Voting.
That is scary as shit that half the population agree nobody should be a billionaire. That is literally saying Bill Gates, Elon Musk, and Warren Buffet should never be able to be in a position to change the world for the better.
What they do with their money is not relevant to the fact that they shouldn't have it. Every country should have a tax code that ensures that billionaires don't exist.
I'm certainly not about to argue they need such vast amounts of money and could not easily be taxed more, but how much should people be able to have?
If Corbyn gets it there won't be any billionaires left in the UK - at least not for a few years, until the hyperinflation really kicks in.
Yes yes, but I'm genuinely interested if people have some theorized upper limit on wealth which is acceptable, say as a multiplier of some basic low figure, given as you imply someone ok at 750 million now wont be given some inflation.
I dunno, what about the amount it would take a household with median income after tax and benefits 1000 years to earn if they didn't spend any money at all.
That would get you to almost 30 million quid in the UK. Seems a bit low but still a reasonable baseline for "more than anyone needs" or "more than is healthy for anyone to have"
I occasionally fantasise about how much I would want to retire
Modest house in central London (5m), holiday home somewhere (2m) school fees (0.5m) reserves to provide sizeable income (7.5mx3% = 225k pre tax pa)
I’m fully aware that these are very generous numbers and you could manage very well with much less.
The point is that it is very hard to come up with a need for more than £15-20m that will have a meaningful impact on someone’s quality of life.
Can we also please remember that even in Labour Leave seats, the majority of Labour voters voted to Remain.
If Labour makes clear its policy of a second referendum (and despite the dire polling, I think they all agree Remainers are going back to Labour), they can harmonise the Labour vote in those seats.
I remain absolutely unconvinced that Labour seats who didn't back May when she tried Johnson's approach, are going to back an Etonian this time. I just don't see it.
Can any Northern voters chip in here? I spent some time in the North a couple of years ago and my perception was they'd rather have their eyes pulled out than vote Tory. Perhaps that's changed.
Do you know that the North is a large and varied place ?
And there was me thinking it was all flat caps and whippets.
I’m the most Northern person on PB.
I think rugby league is shite and I’ve never drunk bitter.
Can we also please remember that even in Labour Leave seats, the majority of Labour voters voted to Remain.
If Labour makes clear its policy of a second referendum (and despite the dire polling, I think they all agree Remainers are going back to Labour), they can harmonise the Labour vote in those seats.
I remain absolutely unconvinced that Labour seats who didn't back May when she tried Johnson's approach, are going to back an Etonian this time. I just don't see it.
Can any Northern voters chip in here? I spent some time in the North a couple of years ago and my perception was they'd rather have their eyes pulled out than vote Tory. Perhaps that's changed.
Do you know that the North is a large and varied place ?
And there was me thinking it was all flat caps and whippets.
I’m the most Northern person on PB.
I think rugby league is shite and I’ve never drunk bitter.
Jennifer Arcuri: ‘I’ve kept Johnson’s secrets – now he’s cast me aside like a one-night stand’
She seems awfully upset, given that she's still not saying there was a sexual relationship between the pair of them - and that is key to whether Johnson's behaviour was okay or not.
This story is still my one big concern about the campaign though - Johnson could still be undone by it, and it's the sort of story that journalists love to talk about. If Arcuri admits a sexual relationship and has good evidence to prove the story, then it could turn the election overnight.
Boris doing the beast with 2 backs with her is what everyone understands happened. Already priced into vote Boris
The scandal isn't the sex aspect though, it's the combination of the sex and money aspects, the former being key to the latter.
We all know he can't keep his, erm, Johnson, in his pants, yes that's priced in - but if he's been doling out public money to his mistress (as opposed to a friend) then he's in big trouble and could well be forced to resign.
We know that she got money and we assume that she was having sex
The “smoking gun” is whether Johnson ever instructed one of the arms length bodies that gave her money to do so. I’d be surprised if there is evidence of that.
(I assume he got her invites on various foreign trade missions but that’s really not going to fuss people)
Lots of over and convoluted thinking today from thoswe who don't like the current polling. Far better to chillout and see what this week brings. Still too soon for a settled view. We're hearing little from on the ground from either side. Until we do....
Does anybody think it's genuinely possible to make a living as a "professional" gambler? I recently encountered a voluble chancer on a car forum who claimed his main source of income was betting on EPL football. He's got a TVR so he obviously knows fuck all about cars but could he know enough about football to beat the bookies?
I know several professional gamblers.
There's Tony Bloom, the owner of Brighton Football Club. Then there is Matthew Benham, who owns Brentwood FC. Finally there's Zeljko Ranogajec in Tasmania, although I'm slightly sceptical of whether he is as good (or as successful) as he is likes to make out.
I know a few tens of people below this mega level who make enough to live on.
And as @OldKingCole rightly observes, ultimately a lot of this debt will be written off anyway, but quite gradually over many years rather than in a lump as he suggests. Confusingly, therefore, what he is proposing was current government policy but done in such a way as to leave a gaping hole in government finances.
Bottom line is, as Corbyn himself later admitted, this was a straightforward bribe. He had no idea what it would cost, no idea what mechanism he would use to implement it, and had given no thought to the practical ramifications of it. All he wanted is the votes of a lot of students. He got that. Then he admitted he had lied and ditched the commitment. Now he’s bringing it back. Question is, will students be dumb enough to fall for it again? Alas, initial evidence suggests yes, which does suggest much about how desperate they are but doesn’t say a lot for their critical faculties. As George W.Bush didn’t quite say, ‘you can fool some of the people all of the time, and these are the ones Corbyn is concentrating on.’
The thing is for students, it isn't really debt, it is a capped graduate tax. And it isn't really a terrible deal. It is the state for which it is actually a bad deal, as so much of this debt will never be repaid.
I agree, but it isn’t only about SLC debt. Bank debt is a problem.
I would also add that a major snag about student loans is you have to deal with the Student Loan Company. Their Head of Repayments for 25 years, Kevin O’Connor, is so dim he actually does not know July is the month before August, or how to transfer money between accounts. (No, I have not made either of those up. I have corresponded with him directly and he got them both wrong.)
One advantage therefore of making it a formal tax is we could get rid of the SLC and work through the HMRC, who despite a disastrous decline since the merger of Customs and Revenue are still far, far better.
Their incompetence with overpayments is shocking. It’s a few years back now (pre-2010 system so normal to pay it off) but I remember being very angry that they managed to instruct HMRC to extract more that I owed despite me discussing the fact I had come to the end of my payment with my employer, SLC, and HMRC before the start of that tax year. Couldn’t get payments stopped to HMRC and it took months to get repaid. I assume it’s a deliberate means of generating cash flow and interest, probably for HMRC.
And as @OldKingCole rightly observes, ultimately a lot of this debt will be written off anyway, but quite gradually over many years rather than in a lump as he suggests. Confusingly, therefore, what he is proposing was current government policy but done in such a way as to leave a gaping hole in government finances.
Bottom line is, as Corbyn himself later admitted, this was a straightforward bribe. He had no idea what it would cost, no idea what mechanism he would use to implement it, and had given no thought to the practical ramifications of it. All he wanted is the votes of a lot of students. He got that. Then he admitted he had lied and ditched the commitment. Now he’s bringing it back. Question is, will students be dumb enough to fall for it again? Alas, initial evidence suggests yes, which does suggest much about how desperate they are but doesn’t say a lot for their critical faculties. As George W.Bush didn’t quite say, ‘you can fool some of the people all of the time, and these are the ones Corbyn is concentrating on.’
The thing is for students, it isn't really debt, it is a capped graduate tax. And it isn't really a terrible deal. It is the state for which it is actually a bad deal, as so much of this debt will never be repaid.
I agree, but it isn’t only about SLC debt. Bank debt is a problem.
I would also add that a major snag about student loans is you have to deal with the Student Loan Company. Their Head of Repayments for 25 years, Kevin O’Connor, is so dim he actually does not know July is the month before August, or how to transfer money between accounts. (No, I have not made either of those up. I have corresponded with him directly and he got them both wrong.)
One advantage therefore of making it a formal tax is we could get rid of the SLC and work through the HMRC, who despite a disastrous decline since the merger of Customs and Revenue are still far, far better.
Their incompetence with overpayments is shocking. It’s a few years back now (pre-2010 system so normal to pay it off) but I remember being very angry that they managed to instruct HMRC to extract more that I owed despite me discussing the fact I had come to the end of my payment with my employer, SLC, and HMRC before the start of that tax year. Couldn’t get payments stopped to HMRC and it took months to get repaid. I assume it’s a deliberate means of generating cash flow and interest, probably for HMRC.
No, I’m going for the fact that the boss has the intellect you are left with if you subtract Richard Burgon from Chris Grayling.
Multiplicative swing (favours "lumpiness" ie. bigger effect on larger shares) Con = 92% of 22,639 = 20,074 Lab = 74% of 27,400 = 20,276
I assume 80% additive and 20% multiplicative Con = 20,655 Lab = 21,301
As LibDems were less than 30% of lab vote last time, I assume 40% of LibDems vote tactically for Labour ie extra 1,126 making 22,427 for labour.
BXP stand in this seat (Labour seat) so no transfer to Tories from BXP.
So Labour retain the seat.
NB MRP have Tories taking the seat with a bigger LibDem vote splitting the remain vote. Could happen. I don't know anything about the local campaign.
This has been a useful check of my model and the arithmetic.
Where did you get Lab 30.2% from? The Greens are standing a candidate in Bristol NW. Why quote you are using a poll of 28.7% then use a poll of 30.2% instead? The figures quoted as being used were:
Multiplicative swing (favours "lumpiness" ie. bigger effect on larger shares) Con = 92% of 22,639 = 20,074 Lab = 70% of 27,400 = 19,180
If you assume 80% additive and 20% multiplicative Con = 20,655 Lab = 20,432
So Tory Gain. Based on Lab 28.7% and Tory 40.1% you said you were using from last night's polls.
The uplift in the Labour share is assumed to be 40% of the national Green share t model tactical voting by Green voters. There will be some tactical voting for Labour and Greens in Bristol West which you have totally left out in your calculation which makes it a Labour hold.
I am going to upgrade my model to make the Green tactical vote specific to each constituency (rather than have a crude uplift to the national Labour share.
I'm also going to follow a suggestion of @Richard_Tyndall that I explicitly model BXP tactical votes by constituency.
Later.
Where does the 40% tactical voting assumption come from. Instinctively that seems high. Perhaps you could run a sensitivity on that number?
Can we also please remember that even in Labour Leave seats, the majority of Labour voters voted to Remain.
If Labour makes clear its policy of a second referendum (and despite the dire polling, I think they all agree Remainers are going back to Labour), they can harmonise the Labour vote in those seats.
I remain absolutely unconvinced that Labour seats who didn't back May when she tried Johnson's approach, are going to back an Etonian this time. I just don't see it.
Can any Northern voters chip in here? I spent some time in the North a couple of years ago and my perception was they'd rather have their eyes pulled out than vote Tory. Perhaps that's changed.
Do you know that the North is a large and varied place ?
And there was me thinking it was all flat caps and whippets.
I’m the most Northern person on PB.
I think rugby league is shite and I’ve never drunk bitter.
For context on professional sports bettors, in particular Tony Bloom, in this day and age. It is believed he makes no more than an average of 3% ROI, and this is a guy who setup a firm of PhD stats / ML people to build the models for him to achieve this.
Thus in order to achieve a decent returns, most weekends he is having to bet millions across the Asian markets.
Does anybody think it's genuinely possible to make a living as a "professional" gambler? I recently encountered a voluble chancer on a car forum who claimed his main source of income was betting on EPL football. He's got a TVR so he obviously knows fuck all about cars but could he know enough about football to beat the bookies?
I know several professional gamblers.
There's Tony Bloom, the owner of Brighton Football Club. Then there is Matthew Benham, who owns Brentwood FC. Finally there's Zeljko Ranogajec in Tasmania, although I'm slightly sceptical of whether he is as good (or as successful) as he is likes to make out.
I know a few tens of people below this mega level who make enough to live on.
The uplift in the Labour share is assumed to be 40% of the national Green share t model tactical voting by Green voters. There will be some tactical voting for Labour and Greens in Bristol West which you have totally left out in your calculation which makes it a Labour hold.
I am going to upgrade my model to make the Green tactical vote specific to each constituency (rather than have a crude uplift to the national Labour share.
I'm also going to follow a suggestion of @Richard_Tyndall that I explicitly model BXP tactical votes by constituency.
Later.
Where does the 40% tactical voting assumption come from. Instinctively that seems high. Perhaps you could run a sensitivity on that number?
Indeed its worth remembering that in this constituency in 2017 the Green candidate pulled out [but after the ballots were printed] and the Greens explicitly requested that their voters vote Labour. Yet despite that the Greens still recorded 2.3% of the vote which is more than they got nationwide. Tactical voting in a General Election is not some panacea.
It seems to be hard to justify 40% tactical vote when the actual candidate joining the Labour campaign last time still left a substantial Green vote of 1,243 voes (2.3%) and the Greens have chosen to field a candidate this time.
How many votes have you got left for the Greens in this constituency then @Barnesian ?
Multiplicative swing (favours "lumpiness" ie. bigger effect on larger shares) Con = 92% of 22,639 = 20,074 Lab = 74% of 27,400 = 20,276
I assume 80% additive and 20% multiplicative Con = 20,655 Lab = 21,301
As LibDems were less than 30% of lab vote last time, I assume 40% of LibDems vote tactically for Labour ie extra 1,126 making 22,427 for labour.
BXP stand in this seat (Labour seat) so no transfer to Tories from BXP.
Where did you get Lab 30.2% from? The Greens are standing a candidate in Bristol NW. Why quote you are using a poll of 28.7% then use a poll of 30.2% instead? The figures quoted as being used were:
Multiplicative swing (favours "lumpiness" ie. bigger effect on larger shares) Con = 92% of 22,639 = 20,074 Lab = 70% of 27,400 = 19,180
If you assume 80% additive and 20% multiplicative Con = 20,655 Lab = 20,432
So Tory Gain. Based on Lab 28.7% and Tory 40.1% you said you were using from last night's polls.
The uplift in the Labour share is assumed to be 40% of the national Green share t model tactical voting by Green voters. There will be some tactical voting for Labour and Greens in Bristol West which you have totally left out in your calculation which makes it a Labour hold.
I am going to upgrade my model to make the Green tactical vote specific to each constituency (rather than have a crude uplift to the national Labour share.
I'm also going to follow a suggestion of @Richard_Tyndall that I explicitly model BXP tactical votes by constituency.
Later.
Where does the 40% tactical voting assumption come from. Instinctively that seems high. Perhaps you could run a sensitivity on that number?
I got it from a YouGov survey a few weeks ago.
Con/Lab/LD with 40% gives 323/224/32
With 25% gives 325/222/32
With zero gives 329/218/32
Not very sensitive but could make all the difference. It's odd that the LD seats don't change in spite of changes the assumed Green tactical to LD. I've checked the arithmetic and it is correct.
According to former employees, Starlizard’s syndicate are looking for a return of 1% to 3%, which means they’re turning over ridiculous sums of money. To make £100 million on a 3% margin the syndicate would have to be wagering £3.3 billion!
Imagine thinking you live in the ‘North’ when you live south of the Tyne.
I've gone from thinking the South started at Gateshead to thinking the North starts at Elephant and Castle. It all depends on where you're sitting I suppose.
That twitter account is some brilliant research, it is shocking it doesn't get more exposure as it absolutely smashes Jezza with his own words and actions.
It was utter incredible interview. If the charges against him weren't so serious, his denials would be laughable...something straight out of the mind of Sacha Baron Cohen.
I haz a condition blood, I don't ever sweat brov...well I do now, cos i iz better.
I remember tat day, cos I went Woking, to Pizza Express, you never forget that, Woking man, you get me.
Yeah I know I stayed at dat mans house for 4 days, but you see its like a train station there...you never know who iz coming and going.
The one thing that is clear from the polling is the huge lead that the Tories have over Labour amongst working class voters. Can this be really be sustainable over the period of an election campaign? A carefully scripted manifesto has the potential to being these Labour voters back home. Time will tell if the Labour brains trust can deliver on this...
Depends whether or not these voters have noticed the "free everything" pitch that has already been plastered all over the news.
If they have then they're apparently not impressed. The manifesto itself will probably be offering more of the same, so it won't help change minds.
Then again, if they haven't then they probably won't notice the manifesto launch, either.
Policy will likely only matter during this campaign if the Tories make a colossal hash of it again, which seems highly unlikely. No repetition of the dementia tax, plus new hospitals and the Brexit deal, should be enough to preserve the gargantuan Tory advantage amongst older electors.
In Tuesday's debate, looking like "Labour Lite" on the NHS and trying to appear Churchillian about Brexit is unlikely to keep the Tories where they are in the polls. They need to respond to Labour on "billionaires" and "students" too. (Foaming at the mouth and ranting about Marx and Stalin and Mao may not work.) The big Tory issue is immigration.
According to former employees, Starlizard’s syndicate are looking for a return of 1% to 3%, which means they’re turning over ridiculous sums of money. To make £100 million on a 3% margin the syndicate would have to be wagering £3.3 billion!
A great series of articles on the likes of Bloom, Haralabos Voulgaris (the greatest ever NBA bettor), Billy Walters and others.
There was a really in-depth article about Tony Bloom somewhere on the interwebs but I can't find it at the mo. It was fascinating reading.
Yes but that £3 billion is turnover, not spend. I expect any of the regular punters on here will be turning over many times their income. Harry Findlay's book, Gambling For Life, is interesting on Bloom from the other side.
The uplift in the Labour share is assumed to be 40% of the national Green share t model tactical voting by Green voters. There will be some tactical voting for Labour and Greens in Bristol West which you have totally left out in your calculation which makes it a Labour hold.
I am going to upgrade my model to make the Green tactical vote specific to each constituency (rather than have a crude uplift to the national Labour share.
I'm also going to follow a suggestion of @Richard_Tyndall that I explicitly model BXP tactical votes by constituency.
Later.
Where does the 40% tactical voting assumption come from. Instinctively that seems high. Perhaps you could run a sensitivity on that number?
Indeed its worth remembering that in this constituency in 2017 the Green candidate pulled out [but after the ballots were printed] and the Greens explicitly requested that their voters vote Labour. Yet despite that the Greens still recorded 2.3% of the vote which is more than they got nationwide. Tactical voting in a General Election is not some panacea.
It seems to be hard to justify 40% tactical vote when the actual candidate joining the Labour campaign last time still left a substantial Green vote of 1,243 voes (2.3%) and the Greens have chosen to field a candidate this time.
How many votes have you got left for the Greens in this constituency then @Barnesian ?
I have the Greens providing a tactical vote of 802. The Lab majority is shown as 1,082 so they still just retain it without the Green vote. Green remaining vote is 1,250. My estimate of the Green vote this time is based on the Green vote last time. If that was abnormally low, then my estimate for this time (tactical and remaining Green vote) will also be on the low side.
I think all the model shows is that this seat is very tight and could go either way. You can add your own gloss on it based on your interpretation of local factors. I don't/can't do that.
According to former employees, Starlizard’s syndicate are looking for a return of 1% to 3%, which means they’re turning over ridiculous sums of money. To make £100 million on a 3% margin the syndicate would have to be wagering £3.3 billion!
A great series of articles on the likes of Bloom, Haralabos Voulgaris (the greatest ever NBA bettor), Billy Walters and others.
There was a really in-depth article about Tony Bloom somewhere on the interwebs but I can't find it at the mo. It was fascinating reading.
Yes but that £3 billion is turnover, not spend. I expect any of the regular punters on here will be turning over many times their income. Harry Findlay's book, Gambling For Life, is interesting on Bloom from the other side.
Yes I know its turn-over...but just to put into perspective the sort of scale of the amount of cash flowing through his network over the course of a year.
What is the most amazing thing is how he has managed to keep all of this so much in the shadows. He owns a Premier League team, but never gives interviews. He owns his modelling company, but it basically doesn't leak any info. Other than betting in Asia, specializing in Asian handicap score predictions, nothing more is public knowledge, despite having been doing this for years.
According to former employees, Starlizard’s syndicate are looking for a return of 1% to 3%, which means they’re turning over ridiculous sums of money. To make £100 million on a 3% margin the syndicate would have to be wagering £3.3 billion!
Where does the 40% tactical voting assumption come from. Instinctively that seems high. Perhaps you could run a sensitivity on that number?
Indeed its worth remembering that in this constituency in 2017 the Green candidate pulled out [but after the ballots were printed] and the Greens explicitly requested that their voters vote Labour. Yet despite that the Greens still recorded 2.3% of the vote which is more than they got nationwide. Tactical voting in a General Election is not some panacea.
It seems to be hard to justify 40% tactical vote when the actual candidate joining the Labour campaign last time still left a substantial Green vote of 1,243 voes (2.3%) and the Greens have chosen to field a candidate this time.
How many votes have you got left for the Greens in this constituency then @Barnesian ?
I have the Greens providing a tactical vote of 802. The Lab majority is shown as 1,082 so they still just retain it without the Green vote. Green remaining vote is 1,250. My estimate of the Green vote this time is based on the Green vote last time. If that was abnormally low, then my estimate for this time (tactical and remaining Green vote) will also be on the low side.
I think all the model shows is that this seat is very tight and could go either way. You can add your own gloss on it based on your interpretation of local factors. I don't/can't do that.
How can Labour retain this on 28.7% of the vote without tactical votes?
On 28.7% of the vote Labour lose this don't they? You're saying they retain it solely on the basis of tactical votes you've assigned them not actual swing.
According to former employees, Starlizard’s syndicate are looking for a return of 1% to 3%, which means they’re turning over ridiculous sums of money. To make £100 million on a 3% margin the syndicate would have to be wagering £3.3 billion!
Apparently 30mbps is the ambition for Labour’s broadband.
That tells me, whatever they’re saying, they’re not planning FTTP. Moreover, since I would have thought almost all people will have those sort of speeds by 2022 on current roll out, it’s actually not likely that their meddling would do any good.
If they really were ambitious, then they should be going for 80mbps as standard. Even that would I think be slower than South Korea. But it would be expensive and take much longer than three years.
This plan is rapidly turning into smoke and mirrors as I burrow into it.
On the other hand, it does at least mean that their costings are probably not so much woefully inadequate as money pointlessly wasted.
According to former employees, Starlizard’s syndicate are looking for a return of 1% to 3%, which means they’re turning over ridiculous sums of money. To make £100 million on a 3% margin the syndicate would have to be wagering £3.3 billion!
A great series of articles on the likes of Bloom, Haralabos Voulgaris (the greatest ever NBA bettor), Billy Walters and others.
There was a really in-depth article about Tony Bloom somewhere on the interwebs but I can't find it at the mo. It was fascinating reading.
Tony Bloom IIRC had a poker betting site that he sold for zillions.. It needs corroboration, but I think that's where his Wonga came from.
Even in the poker boom, only PokerStars has been sold for mega bucks and they have a near monopoly on the poker market.
My understanding is he made good money out of poker / sports betting websites, but not zillions. The big one that he was involved in, was Tribeca Tables (and another associated business) to Playtech. The headline were £200 million, but the reality was it wasn't anywhere near that (more £50-75 million) as it was complex deal depending on future successes, and nobody know what % he had of that.
To put into perspective, he has put £200 million of his own money into Brighton.
Where does the 40% tactical voting assumption come from. Instinctively that seems high. Perhaps you could run a sensitivity on that number?
Indeed its worth remembering that in this constituency in 2017 the Green candidate pulled out [but after the ballots were printed] and the Greens explicitly requested that their voters vote Labour. Yet despite that the Greens still recorded 2.3% of the vote which is more than they got nationwide. Tactical voting in a General Election is not some panacea.
It seems to be hard to justify 40% tactical vote when the actual candidate joining the Labour campaign last time still left a substantial Green vote of 1,243 voes (2.3%) and the Greens have chosen to field a candidate this time.
How many votes have you got left for the Greens in this constituency then @Barnesian ?
I have the Greens providing a tactical vote of 802. The Lab majority is shown as 1,082 so they still just retain it without the Green vote. Green remaining vote is 1,250. My estimate of the Green vote this time is based on the Green vote last time. If that was abnormally low, then my estimate for this time (tactical and remaining Green vote) will also be on the low side.
I think all the model shows is that this seat is very tight and could go either way. You can add your own gloss on it based on your interpretation of local factors. I don't/can't do that.
How can Labour retain this on 28.7% of the vote without tactical votes?
On 28.7% of the vote Labour lose this don't they? You're saying they retain it solely on the basis of tactical votes you've assigned them not actual swing.
You did the detailed swing calculation last night on a 28.7% Labour share and it showed the Tories iirc about 300 ahead. I can't find your post at the moment. You then need to add the LD and Green tactical votes and it puts Labour just ahead. So yes, it is held based on assumed tactical votes. This is one of the few seats (about 20) where the tactical voting makes a difference.
If I turn off tactical voting altogether I get Con/Lab/LD 342/205/31
This is useful in illustrating how the model works. In most cases the result is much more clear cut. But there are quite a few close cases like this where it could go either way. The model has no political opinion or local knowledge.
Apparently 30mbps is the ambition for Labour’s broadband.
That tells me, whatever they’re saying, they’re not planning FTTP. Moreover, since I would have thought almost all people will have those sort of speeds by 2022 on current roll out, it’s actually not likely that their meddling would do any good.
If they really were ambitious, then they should be going for 80mbps as standard. Even that would I think be slower than South Korea. But it would be expensive and take much longer than three years.
This plan is rapidly turning into smoke and mirrors as I burrow into it.
On the other hand, it does at least mean that their costings are probably not so much woefully inadequate as money pointlessly wasted.
WTF....30Mbps....You can nearly get that now even in the countryside with last mile copper and it isn't enough now. If you are a family of 4, watch Netflix or Sky Go, one of your kids likes to game, 30Mbps isn't enough now, let alone what services will be provided in the future i.e. Google Stadia isn't going to work on 30Mbps when anybody else wants to use the internet in your home.
Also, 5G will easily provide that sort of speed.
Virgin have already rolled out 1Gb....with more to come. That should be the sort of thing they should be aiming for, given this is 10 years time.
It really is the Commie Cable Co, the Lada of ISPs.
Thing about betting is that if you are good then the more money you have to bet the lower your returns but the more consistent your return is.
Anyone with a tenner could pick the event and double their money.
With a million quid you can't just lump it on a good value evens bet.
When Betfair first started it was easy to make money. You could place speculative lays/backs when the cards went up the night before and invariably one or both would have been taken by lunchtime the following day. As people wised up the profitability of this method tailed of so that it wasn't worth it by around 2004.
Arbing was brilliant while it lasted, and to be fair some bookies would take some punishment before limiting you (I had 2 x£5,000+ wins off B365 in the space of a couple of days and they kept going).
Inevitably you are closed down, or limited, by so many bookies as to make it a waste of time.
Now I just lay my preferred outcomes when there is some event i'm particularly interested in. Con Maj and Con 340+ for the election.
If Dura_Ace's poster is claiming he's making bank by just selecting winners in the EPL then I would be sceptical. But given the plethora of other markets available on the EPL I'm sure there is scope to be making money.
The EPL is the sharpest market on the planet, and not generally a good area for the average punter to attack :-) There are some people making money on it, but that's with either inside info, or a genuinely professional team with a bankroll in the tens of millions.
A better approach is to look for less liquid markets, lower limits, where the prices are much less refined and larger advantages can be found.
Aren't all the folk replying to 'Good morning, islamophobes' with 'Good morning whatevs' making an admission?
LOL no. Just feeding the troll.
But of course if people were behaving like that when the topic was antisemitism, you'd all be up in arms about what a disgrace it is.
The unstated assumption is often that prejudice against Jews is wrong but prejudice against Muslims is only natural considering.
No I would not. The topic here is politics and it is @Noo trolling to change the topic.
If someone came here and started every day saying good morning antisemites I'd think they were trolling too.
If I thought everyone on a site I was going to was an antisemite then I wouldn't greet people like that, I'd stop going to that site.
I don't think everyone on this site is islamophobic. But you definitely are. Comparing Muslims to the KKK is like comparing Jews to Nazis. It's not acceptable in any world.
This place has an islamophobia problem. Until that is addressed, I will continue to call it out.
I didn't compare Muslims to KKK. I compared extremism to extremism.
In your eyes does Muslim = Burqa? Because it doesn't to me. In your eyes does KKK = Christian? Because it doesn't to me.
I would never compare all Muslims to the KKK but I'm happy to contrast hateful extremists with them.
If you are pandering some sort of notion that Muslims wear burqas then you are Islamophobic. I believe there's probably a billion plus Muslims across the globe who do not.
Maybe about 1% or 2% of women I see in Islamic dress have their faces covered - in an Islamic country, in the Middle East. The proportion in certain towns in the U.K. is likely much higher.
If Dura_Ace's poster is claiming he's making bank by just selecting winners in the EPL then I would be sceptical. But given the plethora of other markets available on the EPL I'm sure there is scope to be making money.
The EPL is the sharpest market on the planet, and not generally a good area for the average punter to attack :-) There are some people making money on it, but that's with either inside info, or a genuinely professional team with a bankroll in the tens of millions.
A better approach is to look for less liquid markets, lower limits, where the prices are much less refined and larger advantages can be found.
The easier way to beat major sports is DFS* (and even then you are against some super sharp people), because all markets for any sport people can put down really serious money on are extremely efficient.
If Tony Bloom only makes 1-3%, go figure.
* For those that don't know DFS, is Daily Fantasy Sports. It is basically a different way you can gamble on a days worth of a certain sports fixtures.
Aren't all the folk replying to 'Good morning, islamophobes' with 'Good morning whatevs' making an admission?
LOL no. Just feeding the troll.
But of course if people were behaving like that when the topic was antisemitism, you'd all be up in arms about what a disgrace it is.
The unstated assumption is often that prejudice against Jews is wrong but prejudice against Muslims is only natural considering.
No I would not. The topic here is politics and it is @Noo trolling to change the topic.
If someone came here and started every day saying good morning antisemites I'd think they were trolling too.
If I thought everyone on a site I was going to was an antisemite then I wouldn't greet people like that, I'd stop going to that site.
I don't think everyone on this site is islamophobic. But you definitely are. Comparing Muslims to the KKK is like comparing Jews to Nazis. It's not acceptable in any world.
This place has an islamophobia problem. Until that is addressed, I will continue to call it out.
I didn't compare Muslims to KKK. I compared extremism to extremism.
In your eyes does Muslim = Burqa? Because it doesn't to me. In your eyes does KKK = Christian? Because it doesn't to me.
I would never compare all Muslims to the KKK but I'm happy to contrast hateful extremists with them.
If you are pandering some sort of notion that Muslims wear burqas then you are Islamophobic. I believe there's probably a billion plus Muslims across the globe who do not.
Maybe about 1% or 2% of women I see in Islamic dress have their faces covered - in an Islamic country, in the Middle East. The proportion in certain towns in the U.K. is likely much higher.
I doubt they are, I just think they stand out like a sore thumb. Its a shame such misognystic attitudes are normalised by Islamophobes like @Noo who pretend it is mainstream and not extremism.
Where does the 40% tactical voting assumption come from. Instinctively that seems high. Perhaps you could run a sensitivity on that number?
Indeed its worth remembering that in this constituency in 2017 the Green candidate pulled out [but after the ballots were printed] and the Greens explicitly requested that their voters vote Labour. Yet despite that the Greens still recorded 2.3% of the vote which is more than they got nationwide. Tactical voting in a General Election is not some panacea.
It seems to be hard to justify 40% tactical vote when the actual candidate joining the Labour campaign last time still left a substantial Green vote of 1,243 voes (2.3%) and the Greens have chosen to field a candidate this time.
How many votes have you got left for the Greens in this constituency then @Barnesian ?
I have the Greens providing a tactical vote of 802. The Lab majority is shown as 1,082 so they still just retain it without the Green vote. Green remaining vote is 1,250. My estimate of the Green vote this time is based on the Green vote last time. If that was abnormally low, then my estimate for this time (tactical and remaining Green vote) will also be on the low side.
I think all the model shows is that this seat is very tight and could go either way. You can add your own gloss on it based on your interpretation of local factors. I don't/can't do that.
How can Labour retain this on 28.7% of the vote without tactical votes?
On 28.7% of the vote Labour lose this don't they? You're saying they retain it solely on the basis of tactical votes you've assigned them not actual swing.
You did the detailed swing calculation last night on a 28.7% Labour share and it showed the Tories iirc about 300 ahead. I can't find your post at the moment. You then need to add the LD and Green tactical votes and it puts Labour just ahead. So yes, it is held based on assumed tactical votes. This is one of the few seats (about 20) where the tactical voting makes a difference.
If I turn off tactical voting altogether I get Con/Lab/LD 342/205/31
This is useful in illustrating how the model works. In most cases the result is much more clear cut. But there are quite a few close cases like this where it could go either way. The model has no political opinion or local knowledge.
OK we're getting somewhere. 342/205/31 sounds much more believable.
So can I ask please for this constituency without any tactical voting - bearing in mind there are 4 candidates - what the vote share for the 4 parties would be?
And then after tactical voting what the vote share would be?
If Dura_Ace's poster is claiming he's making bank by just selecting winners in the EPL then I would be sceptical. But given the plethora of other markets available on the EPL I'm sure there is scope to be making money.
The EPL is the sharpest market on the planet, and not generally a good area for the average punter to attack :-) There are some people making money on it, but that's with either inside info, or a genuinely professional team with a bankroll in the tens of millions.
A better approach is to look for less liquid markets, lower limits, where the prices are much less refined and larger advantages can be found.
I don't think EPL is, I would say MLB or NBA are, because those sports can be really carefully and precisely mathematically modelled and people have been doing so for many many years. It has come into football, but due to the nature of the game and historical factors it has only been the past 10 years or so where it really has been focused on.
Precise "Big Data" is available stretching way back for MLB, and in NBA you can get total precise breakdown of every player during every second of every match.
So what does the Duke of York do now? Surely he’s done in a public capacity.
My advice? Shut up. Quietly dispense of the services of anyone who advised you this was a good idea. Drop charities before they drop you (a spokesman said, "The Prince doesn't want to be a distraction from the charity's wonderful work"). Don't plan any trips over the pond any time soon, or indeed ever.
There's no PR way around this that involves Andrew talking that doesn't fan the flames. He can't say now, "Oh, by the way, forgot to say in the interview, but I am genuinely desperately sorry for all Epstein's many victims, and will never forgive myself for my role in legitimising that vile excuse for a human being." It won't wash, and he hasn't the intellect or personality to pull it off. Only silence and absence can help him at all, and even then only to a limited extent.
So lets me get this right, under the wonderful Socialist Utopia the Commie Cable Co will provide me with an internet speed 1/10 as fast as my current speed in 10 years time....
Imagine thinking you live in the ‘North’ when you live south of the Tyne.
Some southerners think Birmingham is in the North.
I went to a gig a few years ago in Birmingham, where the guitarist said it was great to be playing in the North. He was rather quickly informed of his mistake by the crowd, to which he said but the signs on the motorway out of London all said the North....
Apparently 30mbps is the ambition for Labour’s broadband.
That tells me, whatever they’re saying, they’re not planning FTTP. Moreover, since I would have thought almost all people will have those sort of speeds by 2022 on current roll out, it’s actually not likely that their meddling would do any good.
If they really were ambitious, then they should be going for 80mbps as standard. Even that would I think be slower than South Korea. But it would be expensive and take much longer than three years.
This plan is rapidly turning into smoke and mirrors as I burrow into it.
On the other hand, it does at least mean that their costings are probably not so much woefully inadequate as money pointlessly wasted.
WTF....30Mbps....You can nearly get that now even in the countryside with last mile copper and it isn't enough now. If you are a family of 4, watch Netflix or Sky Go, one of your kids likes to game, 30Mbps isn't enough now, let alone what services will be provided in the future i.e. Google Stadia isn't going to work on 30Mbps when anybody else wants to use the internet in your home.
Also, 5G will easily provide that sort of speed.
Virgin have already rolled out 1Gb....with more to come. That should be the sort of thing they should be aiming for, given this is 10 years time.
It really is the Commie Cable Co, the Lada of ISPs.
I’m wondering if this is phase one, given the timeframe is 2022 not 2030. That would make more sense - everyone have FTTC, then later add the cables to the houses. Not much point doing it the other way around!
At the same time given I would have thought almost everywhere except absolutely the most rural and remote areas will have this by 2022 anyway under current circumstances. So it isn’t much of a benefit for a great deal of extra money.
I’m also dubious as to how useful it would be to extend FTTP to houses in such areas, given how expensive and difficult it is (we had three goes at putting a cable into our school and we still couldn’t get it right). Would it not be quicker and more cost effective to put in satellite tech or as you say increase 5G coverage?
Asked if Jeremy Corbyn was a "friend to business", Dame Carolyn (director-general CBI) says: "We look at the policies on the table and we have real concerns that they are going to crack the foundations of our economy."
That's a feature, not a bug.
Have you been canvassing like mad to save your businesses?
On the subject of welsh seats, I don't know if this local election in neath on 14 nov has been mentioned. Plaid won 53% (+23) Con won 24% (+1) Lab 22% (-24)
Apparently 30mbps is the ambition for Labour’s broadband.
That tells me, whatever they’re saying, they’re not planning FTTP. Moreover, since I would have thought almost all people will have those sort of speeds by 2022 on current roll out, it’s actually not likely that their meddling would do any good.
If they really were ambitious, then they should be going for 80mbps as standard. Even that would I think be slower than South Korea. But it would be expensive and take much longer than three years.
This plan is rapidly turning into smoke and mirrors as I burrow into it.
On the other hand, it does at least mean that their costings are probably not so much woefully inadequate as money pointlessly wasted.
WTF....30Mbps....You can nearly get that now even in the countryside with last mile copper and it isn't enough now. If you are a family of 4, watch Netflix or Sky Go, one of your kids likes to game, 30Mbps isn't enough now, let alone what services will be provided in the future i.e. Google Stadia isn't going to work on 30Mbps when anybody else wants to use the internet in your home.
Also, 5G will easily provide that sort of speed.
Virgin have already rolled out 1Gb....with more to come. That should be the sort of thing they should be aiming for, given this is 10 years time.
It really is the Commie Cable Co, the Lada of ISPs.
I’m wondering if this is phase one, given the timeframe is 2022 not 2030. That would make more sense - everyone have FTTC, then later add the cables to the houses. Not much point doing it the other way around!
At the same time given I would have thought almost everywhere except absolutely the most rural and remote areas will have this by 2022 anyway under current circumstances. So it isn’t much of a benefit for a great deal of extra money.
I’m also dubious as to how useful it would be to extend FTTP to houses in such areas, given how expensive and difficult it is (we had three goes at putting a cable into our school and we still couldn’t get it right). Would it not be quicker and more cost effective to put in satellite tech oras you say increase 5G coverage?
I would love to think McDonnell and co have carefully thought this through about a phased rollout, conversed with experts in the industry etc...but I think more likely they googled, found some number that sounded ok and said right tell people our policy is...
If this was about best practise, they wouldn't be proposing a single state owned ISP.
Apparently 30mbps is the ambition for Labour’s broadband.
That tells me, whatever they’re saying, they’re not planning FTTP. Moreover, since I would have thought almost all people will have those sort of speeds by 2022 on current roll out, it’s actually not likely that their meddling would do any good.
If they really were ambitious, then they should be going for 80mbps as standard. Even that would I think be slower than South Korea. But it would be expensive and take much longer than three years.
This plan is rapidly turning into smoke and mirrors as I burrow into it.
On the other hand, it does at least mean that their costings are probably not so much woefully inadequate as money pointlessly wasted.
I currently get (having just checked) 59mbps. I live in a small village.
I am still very bemused by how the Tories managed to have yet another absolutely crap week, still no real policies and yet still extend their lead in the polls.
Well it depends which polls you look at, doesn't it.
If Dura_Ace's poster is claiming he's making bank by just selecting winners in the EPL then I would be sceptical. But given the plethora of other markets available on the EPL I'm sure there is scope to be making money.
The EPL is the sharpest market on the planet, and not generally a good area for the average punter to attack :-) There are some people making money on it, but that's with either inside info, or a genuinely professional team with a bankroll in the tens of millions.
A better approach is to look for less liquid markets, lower limits, where the prices are much less refined and larger advantages can be found.
I find cricket quite lucrative, because the market is driven by people who don’t understand it. But then I only bet on tens of pounds. I imagine they let me play around because I do no harm.
If Dura_Ace's poster is claiming he's making bank by just selecting winners in the EPL then I would be sceptical. But given the plethora of other markets available on the EPL I'm sure there is scope to be making money.
The EPL is the sharpest market on the planet, and not generally a good area for the average punter to attack :-) There are some people making money on it, but that's with either inside info, or a genuinely professional team with a bankroll in the tens of millions.
A better approach is to look for less liquid markets, lower limits, where the prices are much less refined and larger advantages can be found.
I find cricket quite lucrative, because the market is driven by people who don’t understand it. But then I only bet on tens of pounds. I imagine they let me play around because I do no harm.
Cricket is also the most bent sports market around. Nobody who isn't involved with the Indian mafia and has any sense puts serious money on cricket matches.
Apparently 30mbps is the ambition for Labour’s broadband.
That tells me, whatever they’re saying, they’re not planning FTTP. Moreover, since I would have thought almost all people will have those sort of speeds by 2022 on current roll out, it’s actually not likely that their meddling would do any good.
If they really were ambitious, then they should be going for 80mbps as standard. Even that would I think be slower than South Korea. But it would be expensive and take much longer than three years.
This plan is rapidly turning into smoke and mirrors as I burrow into it.
On the other hand, it does at least mean that their costings are probably not so much woefully inadequate as money pointlessly wasted.
I currently get (having just checked) 59mbps. I live in a small village.
That’s a lot faster than mine (as in 33mbps faster) but TBH that doesn’t surprise me. One of the reasons my connection is quite slow is of course because every person in my street of 250 houses is using much the same copper line.
Where FTTP really scores is in situations like that, and a sensible policy would concentrate on rolling it out to every house in major conurbations as a top priority. But so far as I can judge that’s not what’s being proposed.
Comments
In your day trip to the wilds I don't doubt you met some ex-miners who doffed their caps and spat at anything blue, but that is not quite the universal experience.
https://uk.kantar.com/public-opinion/politics/2019/a-third-of-britons-say-that-britain’s-planned-exit-from-the-eu-is-the-most-important-issue-when-deciding-who-to-vote-for/
Will definitely vote:
18-24: 10% (-1)
25-34: 15% (-3)
35-44: 29% (-1)
45-54: 37% (-16)
55-64: 54% (+2)
65+: 75% (+4)
Will probably or definitely vote (NET 'Vote'):
18-24: 47% (-2)
25-34: 38% (+3)
35-44: 47% (-8)
45-54: 55% (-15)
55-64: 75% (+8)
65+: 82% (NC)
“First of all, we want to get rid of student fees altogether,” Corbyn told NME. “We’ll do it as soon as we get in, and we’ll then introduce legislation to ensure that any student going from the 2017-18 academic year will not pay fees. They will pay them, but we’ll rebate them when we’ve got the legislation through – that’s fundamentally the principle behind it. Yes, there is a block of those that currently have a massive debt, and I’m looking at ways that we could reduce that, ameliorate that, lengthen the period of paying it off, or some other means of reducing that debt burden.”
Read more at https://www.nme.com/news/jeremy-corbyn-will-deal-already-burdened-student-debt-2082478#z7OiV7U7tBZaSAyM.99
Now that is deliberately ambiguous, of course, but it is something of a case of a nod is as good as a wink to a blind horse. He says he will get rid of tuition fees, and then say he will find some way of making sure he doesn’t penalise those who were at uni between Labour bringing tuition fees in following a Tory review and the Coalition tripling them in following a Labour review miss out. The inference is so obvious you would have to be as thick as Richard Burgon not to draw it.
Of course, the point is also noticeable that he talks about debt, but he isn’t very specific about what sort of debt. Did he mean student loans in toto? Because that’s not just tuition fees. Indeed, less than one-third of my own loan was tuition fees. Did he mean subsistence loans as well? If so, surely he would have to fund them for current Undergraduates also. That’s a huge, absolutely unfunded and completely unaffordable commitment. Did it mean student loan company debt only? But that isn’t really the problem. The big reason undergraduates and particularly postgraduates get into trouble is they have to take out bank debt as well which they can’t carry. Ironically therefore increasing the amount of SLC debt would ameliorate the debt situation (as the government has in fact done).
(Continued below)
Bottom line is, as Corbyn himself later admitted, this was a straightforward bribe. He had no idea what it would cost, no idea what mechanism he would use to implement it, and had given no thought to the practical ramifications of it. All he wanted is the votes of a lot of students. He got that. Then he admitted he had lied and ditched the commitment. Now he’s bringing it back. Question is, will students be dumb enough to fall for it again? Alas, initial evidence suggests yes, which does suggest much about how desperate they are but doesn’t say a lot for their critical faculties. As George W.Bush didn’t quite say, ‘you can fool some of the people all of the time, and these are the ones Corbyn is concentrating on.’
The consequence is that a 50:50 national split still has Leave leading in 363 constituencies and Remain would require a national lead of 51.7:48.3 to draw level.
The Lib Dems are stronger and Labour weaker than 2017. This seems likely to weaken tactical voting compared to 2017.
I'm not convinced by the scant evidence of a change in national opinion on EU membership.
So my answer to your questions is: probably not, not enough, no.
EEK!
1. A lot of the people who do have strong feelings about Brexit will be brand loyalty voters, who will turn out for their preferred party regardless
2. Much of the population is not strongly aligned with one camp or the other, or at least not so strongly that this will outweigh their other concerns. Not all of the large numbers of voters who dislike Boris Johnson, or the enormous numbers of voters who dislike Jeremy Corbyn, are going to hold their noses and put someone they detest into Government just because they prefer their stance on Europe
I'm certainly not expecting the Liberal Democrats to make large numbers of gains off the back of their strong Remain stance. That will only work in contests where they are up against Lab or Con in heavily Remain-leaning areas, and where they don't have to overturn Albanian majorities. I know there's talk about South Cambs and Guildford maybe going yellow, and of various more distant targets based on the recent constituency polling. But I don't think they've much chance of making significant progress outside of their top 20 targets based on the 2017 result (i.e. as far down the list as Cambridge,) a number of those (e.g. Cornwall North) are Leave-leaning and probably unobtainable as a consequence, and I reckon that North Norfolk is going to go blue, and Brecon & Radnorshire and Eastbourne are both at some risk as well.
I figure that, starting from their 2017 total of 12, they make 4-7 net gains from Con and 3-5 net gains from the other parties. That'd get them up to, perhaps, 22 seats post-election. Rather more like 1992 than 2005.
I would also add that a major snag about student loans is you have to deal with the Student Loan Company. Their Head of Repayments for 25 years, Kevin O’Connor, is so dim he actually does not know July is the month before August, or how to transfer money between accounts. (No, I have not made either of those up. I have corresponded with him directly and he got them both wrong.)
One advantage therefore of making it a formal tax is we could get rid of the SLC and work through the HMRC, who despite a disastrous decline since the merger of Customs and Revenue are still far, far better.
The polling thankfully provides little evidence that this is the case...
It's been deathly silent on that front this time.
Just sayin'.
He says the manifesto will build on 2017 pledges such as eliminating student debt, building a million homes, abolishing zero-hour contracts and offering a £10 minimum wage for young people.
They are going to try this trick again.
The manifesto will be accompanied by a "grey book" outlining the detailed spending commitments and how they will be funded, he says.
Which will be about as grounded in realism as a Harry Potter book...
A fair portion of the North West is already blue in the graphics. People seem to think for some reason the whole of the North West is in Manchester or Liverpool.
I think rugby league is shite and I’ve never drunk bitter.
So if pledges with big numbers on work, how come 22 years later it still is an issue?
Modest house in central London (5m), holiday home somewhere (2m) school fees (0.5m) reserves to provide sizeable income (7.5mx3% = 225k pre tax pa)
I’m fully aware that these are very generous numbers and you could manage very well with much less.
The point is that it is very hard to come up with a need for more than £15-20m that will have a meaningful impact on someone’s quality of life.
The “smoking gun” is whether Johnson ever instructed one of the arms length bodies that gave her money to do so. I’d be surprised if there is evidence of that.
(I assume he got her invites on various foreign trade missions but that’s really not going to fuss people)
Thus in order to achieve a decent returns, most weekends he is having to bet millions across the Asian markets.
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/1196058509986746369
It seems to be hard to justify 40% tactical vote when the actual candidate joining the Labour campaign last time still left a substantial Green vote of 1,243 voes (2.3%) and the Greens have chosen to field a candidate this time.
How many votes have you got left for the Greens in this constituency then @Barnesian ?
Con/Lab/LD with 40% gives
323/224/32
With 25% gives
325/222/32
With zero gives
329/218/32
Not very sensitive but could make all the difference. It's odd that the LD seats don't change in spite of changes the assumed Green tactical to LD. I've checked the arithmetic and it is correct.
https://www.blog.tradematesports.com/jonas-gjelstad-professional-sports-bettor/2019/8/13/how-the-brighton-football-club-owner-tony-bloom-got-rich-on-sports-betting-10-people-who-got-rich-on-sports-betting
A great series of articles on the likes of Bloom, Haralabos Voulgaris (the greatest ever NBA bettor), Billy Walters and others.
There was a really in-depth article about Tony Bloom somewhere on the interwebs but I can't find it at the mo. It was fascinating reading.
I haz a condition blood, I don't ever sweat brov...well I do now, cos i iz better.
I remember tat day, cos I went Woking, to Pizza Express, you never forget that, Woking man, you get me.
Yeah I know I stayed at dat mans house for 4 days, but you see its like a train station there...you never know who iz coming and going.
I think all the model shows is that this seat is very tight and could go either way. You can add your own gloss on it based on your interpretation of local factors. I don't/can't do that.
What is the most amazing thing is how he has managed to keep all of this so much in the shadows. He owns a Premier League team, but never gives interviews. He owns his modelling company, but it basically doesn't leak any info. Other than betting in Asia, specializing in Asian handicap score predictions, nothing more is public knowledge, despite having been doing this for years.
On 28.7% of the vote Labour lose this don't they? You're saying they retain it solely on the basis of tactical votes you've assigned them not actual swing.
Anyone with a tenner could pick the event and double their money.
With a million quid you can't just lump it on a good value evens bet.
That tells me, whatever they’re saying, they’re not planning FTTP. Moreover, since I would have thought almost all people will have those sort of speeds by 2022 on current roll out, it’s actually not likely that their meddling would do any good.
If they really were ambitious, then they should be going for 80mbps as standard. Even that would I think be slower than South Korea. But it would be expensive and take much longer than three years.
This plan is rapidly turning into smoke and mirrors as I burrow into it.
On the other hand, it does at least mean that their costings are probably not so much woefully inadequate as money pointlessly wasted.
My understanding is he made good money out of poker / sports betting websites, but not zillions. The big one that he was involved in, was Tribeca Tables (and another associated business) to Playtech. The headline were £200 million, but the reality was it wasn't anywhere near that (more £50-75 million) as it was complex deal depending on future successes, and nobody know what % he had of that.
To put into perspective, he has put £200 million of his own money into Brighton.
It just might be a tad reckless.
Edit - still, can happen. See this example:
https://metro.co.uk/2010/01/15/ashley-revell-the-man-who-put-it-all-on-roulette-red-34233/
If I turn off tactical voting altogether I get Con/Lab/LD 342/205/31
This is useful in illustrating how the model works. In most cases the result is much more clear cut. But there are quite a few close cases like this where it could go either way. The model has no political opinion or local knowledge.
Also, 5G will easily provide that sort of speed.
Virgin have already rolled out 1Gb....with more to come. That should be the sort of thing they should be aiming for, given this is 10 years time.
It really is the Commie Cable Co, the Lada of ISPs.
Arbing was brilliant while it lasted, and to be fair some bookies would take some punishment before limiting you (I had 2 x£5,000+ wins off B365 in the space of a couple of days and they kept going).
Inevitably you are closed down, or limited, by so many bookies as to make it a waste of time.
Now I just lay my preferred outcomes when there is some event i'm particularly interested in. Con Maj and Con 340+ for the election.
Putting the figures through both Flavible and ElectoralCalculus gives the following numbers:
Flavible: Con 385, Lab 173, SNP 41, LD 28, PC 4, Grn 1.
ElectoralCalculus: Con 361, Lab 209, SNP 39, LD 18, PC 4, Grn 1.
A better approach is to look for less liquid markets, lower limits, where the prices are much less refined and larger advantages can be found.
If Tony Bloom only makes 1-3%, go figure.
* For those that don't know DFS, is Daily Fantasy Sports. It is basically a different way you can gamble on a days worth of a certain sports fixtures.
So can I ask please for this constituency without any tactical voting - bearing in mind there are 4 candidates - what the vote share for the 4 parties would be?
And then after tactical voting what the vote share would be?
Precise "Big Data" is available stretching way back for MLB, and in NBA you can get total precise breakdown of every player during every second of every match.
There's no PR way around this that involves Andrew talking that doesn't fan the flames. He can't say now, "Oh, by the way, forgot to say in the interview, but I am genuinely desperately sorry for all Epstein's many victims, and will never forgive myself for my role in legitimising that vile excuse for a human being." It won't wash, and he hasn't the intellect or personality to pull it off. Only silence and absence can help him at all, and even then only to a limited extent.
At the same time given I would have thought almost everywhere except absolutely the most rural and remote areas will have this by 2022 anyway under current circumstances. So it isn’t much of a benefit for a great deal of extra money.
I’m also dubious as to how useful it would be to extend FTTP to houses in such areas, given how expensive and difficult it is (we had three goes at putting a cable into our school and we still couldn’t get it right). Would it not be quicker and more cost effective to put in satellite tech or as you say increase 5G coverage?
Plaid won 53% (+23)
Con won 24% (+1)
Lab 22% (-24)
not much love for labour there...
If this was about best practise, they wouldn't be proposing a single state owned ISP.
age 2017 / 2019
18-24: 35.8 / 35.0
25-34: 33.1 / 29.5
35-44: 14.7 / 15.2
45-54: 8.3 / 9.6
55-64: 4.6 / 6.1
65-74: 2.4 / 3.1
75+: 1.1 / 1.6
I dont know, but there is no youth surge in registrations. (I stole this from polling home.com)
Where FTTP really scores is in situations like that, and a sensible policy would concentrate on rolling it out to every house in major conurbations as a top priority. But so far as I can judge that’s not what’s being proposed.