Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The polling that’s persuaded me that turnout will be greater t

245

Comments

  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,677

    Mr. Mango, easier to deride those who wish to leave the EU as stooges of Putin than to consider what their genuine grievances might be.

    Leave voters may well have genuine grievances. No-one doubts that. The question is whether these will be resolved by Brexit.

    ETA: it is not the voters who were Putin's stooges but those who campaigned for Brexit.
    Brexit is a double win for Putin as it not only weakens the EU but elevates Macron, with whom Putin aligns very closely on many foreign policy and security matters, to the de facto leadership of it.

    Putin, who is far more candid in the Russophone media, recently spelled it out on Russian TV when he simply said: Макрон - наш. (Macron is ours.)
  • Mr. glw, are you saying it's a papier-mache HIP replacement?
  • nunu2nunu2 Posts: 1,453

    SandraMc said:

    Can I say as a WASPI woman that when I first learnt of the pension age increase I was hopping mad. I didn't have the option of continuing work as I was a carer so it did hit me financially. When I realised that it was to be phased in so my pension was delayed by just over a year, I was a bit happier. I understand the reasons for it but whatever the pros and cons of the argument to say that women did not know about it in advance is nonsense.

    My own pennyworth is that there may be a case for compensating some women in real hardship.

    There are big pension subsidies given to the very well-off (which many on pb.com no doubt avail themselves of).

    I don't see any problem in a means-tested one-off payment to some WASPI women in real hardship. I don't think it would cost that much.

    Labour's plan is ridiculous, as it will involve "compensating" some very well-off people.
    The women who are in real hardship would have their compensation clawed back in benefit cuts.

    This policy from Labour is a bung to older middle class women.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,077
    https://twitter.com/LBCNews/status/1198905270182776832

    I wonder if we will get any comments regarding immigration.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,080

    HYUFD said:
    5% (+3%) of Leave voters back Jo Swinson as Best PM? WTF?
    The elusive slice of the electorate that has realised the error of their ways since voting for Brexit and now wants Swinson to make it all go away by Revoking and trying to forget the last four years ever happened.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,077

    Uber loses licence to operate in London.

    However will da yoof get to the polling stations?

    No surprise after they were found to be allowing drivers to drive without the correct insurance.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,361
    edited November 2019

    HYUFD said:
    5% (+3%) of Leave voters back Jo Swinson as Best PM? WTF?
    But down three with current LibDem voters! lol. Even her own supporters are put off by her "Prime Minister" schtick.
  • nunu2nunu2 Posts: 1,453

    HYUFD said:
    5% (+3%) of Leave voters back Jo Swinson as Best PM? WTF?
    Bregret?
  • eekeek Posts: 28,077
    camel said:

    Mr. Camel, they'll throw billions at everything, hoping something sticks.

    It might. Or the electorate might take the view they're off their rocker.

    Mr. Tang, be fair. The sudden shift in Labour happened because of the idiocy of changing the rules and Labour MPs failing to understand their own system. They went from having substantial influence in the vote itself to becoming gatekeepers to keep our lunatics.

    Then they put Corbyn on the shortlist.

    There's a tipping point in terms of the fatness of the cheque.

    The point where you'd be 'off your rocker' to refuse.
    It's worth reading the BBC article on OneCoin. One of the few people who could actually create a blockchain refused such an offer.
  • camelcamel Posts: 815
    eek said:

    camel said:

    Mr. Camel, they'll throw billions at everything, hoping something sticks.

    It might. Or the electorate might take the view they're off their rocker.

    Mr. Tang, be fair. The sudden shift in Labour happened because of the idiocy of changing the rules and Labour MPs failing to understand their own system. They went from having substantial influence in the vote itself to becoming gatekeepers to keep our lunatics.

    Then they put Corbyn on the shortlist.

    There's a tipping point in terms of the fatness of the cheque.

    The point where you'd be 'off your rocker' to refuse.
    It's worth reading the BBC article on OneCoin. One of the few people who could actually create a blockchain refused such an offer.
    It is an excellent article.
    Magic Beans have always held an attraction.
  • eekeek Posts: 28,077
    edited November 2019
    eek said:

    Uber loses licence to operate in London.

    However will da yoof get to the polling stations?

    No surprise after they were found to be allowing drivers to drive without the correct insurance.
    To add - Uber have 21 days before the decision is finalised (so will still be running on the 12th) and can appeal. If they appeal they can continue to operate until the appeal is heard.

    So it's not a problem for the election but possibly for the London Mayor.
  • Just caught up with the Boris manifesto. Wow! Boris is a Marxist.
  • glwglw Posts: 9,871

    Mr. glw, are you saying it's a papier-mache HIP replacement?

    Very good.

    A quick bit of Googling and the ONS says there are 4.5 million private rented properties, at say £200 a pop (for a minimum) it needs a billion a year business to carry out all these inspections. It might even be a good idea — I'm not against it out of any anti-regulation bias — but Labour really ought to be able to explain how they intend to do things, otherwise it could be another HIPs.
  • rkrkrk said:

    How many of those 3.7 million do you think will be gullible enough to fall for this when it wasn't in the manifesto and isn't costed?

    You mean you think Labour would not honour its promise?
    I think that's very unlikely. Having made a public pledge like this, to not honour it would be electoral suicide.
    Yes I do. Its clearly not a priority to Labour which is why it was not in the manifesto originally.

    We are supposed to believe that Labour is going to magic out of thin air £58bn on top of the £700bn or so to nationalise industries its going to magic out of thin air and the £83bn it is going to get from increased taxes on corporations etc that supposedly will be magically received without impacting the economy or causing unemployment.

    Lets suppose for one second this magic proves impossible. In order to get into debt there must be people willing to buy the bonds in the first place [unless you think they will literally just print money].

    If bond auctions fail and it proves harder to get £758 billion out of thin air than they expected what do you think will be first item on the chopping block? Something these Marxists really believe in and have spent decades campaigning for? Or a last minute bung to the voters who have already voted and was never a priority to go into the manifesto in the first place?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,774

    HYUFD said:
    5% (+3%) of Leave voters back Jo Swinson as Best PM? WTF?
    But down three with current LibDem voters! lol. Even her own supporters are put off by her "Prime Minister" schtick.
    In a poll where your Bozo is down 4% and Swinson is up 1%. Desperate stuff, Mr Mark.

    I'd punt that 16% for the leader of the third UK party in response to "who would make the best PM" is historically extremely high.
  • HYUFD said:
    5% (+3%) of Leave voters back Jo Swinson as Best PM? WTF?
    Not all that difficult to understand, if integrity and competence are what you want from a PM, rather than adherence to your particular position on Brexit. I believe Stodge of this parish would be one of that 5%
    What about Jo Swinson says integrity and competence for you?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,851
    llef said:

    I think we can expect a welsh opinion poll later today

    https://twitter.com/roger_scully/status/1198892130913181696

    That is really powerful! Much more effective than that dirge of a Labour PPB last week. Having said that after reading the last thread it's not going to make much differnce. Whether we like it or not we've moved drastially to the right. A very brutal nationalism with posts about immigration that we've rarely seen on here before are now commonplace.
  • IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:
    5% (+3%) of Leave voters back Jo Swinson as Best PM? WTF?
    But down three with current LibDem voters! lol. Even her own supporters are put off by her "Prime Minister" schtick.
    In a poll where your Bozo is down 4% and Swinson is up 1%. Desperate stuff, Mr Mark.

    I'd punt that 16% for the leader of the third UK party in response to "who would make the best PM" is historically extremely high.
    Is it? Do we have comparable figures for Nick Clegg?
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 5,060

    When I started teaching it was common for teachers to be offered early retirement at 50; indeed I got my present job by replacing a teacher who had done just that.
    I am now 50 myself and faced with the prospect of 17 more years of teaching.

    Do you think I could persuade the Labour Party to cough up for the missed 17 years of pension?

    The key word above is "offered". The official retirement age was 65/60
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 5,331

    HYUFD said:
    5% (+3%) of Leave voters back Jo Swinson as Best PM? WTF?
    Not all that difficult to understand, if integrity and competence are what you want from a PM, rather than adherence to your particular position on Brexit. I believe Stodge of this parish would be one of that 5%
    What about Jo Swinson says integrity and competence for you?
    Not being Corbyn or Johnson is a very good start!
  • MangoMango Posts: 1,017

    Mr. Mango, easier to deride those who wish to leave the EU as stooges of Putin than to consider what their genuine grievances might be.

    They are stooges of Putin.

    Those with very genuine grievances (abject failure of government since 1951, dysfunctional politics, a pile of strategic issues that will never be addressed as it stands) will find that leaving the EU does the square root of sod all to fix them.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 5,060

    On topic is there a party-split on this question?

    Ie is there a difference between which parties supporters are saying that whoever wins is important to them?

    Or an age split?
  • Some Local Authorities are a year behind with selective licensing applications which IIRC last for three years/

    How do we think they'd cope with yearly MOTs?
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 10,037
    edited November 2019
    I had an election dream last night. For anyone wanting to bet based on my powers of premonition I remember 2 facts - it was 7pm on election day and 'early rumours' said the Tories would 'just hold on' in Chelmsford and the LDs were predicted to get 79% in Wells!!
    I have a very odd brain
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,947
    I have also bought turnout. I sense it will be in the high sixties.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,361
    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:
    5% (+3%) of Leave voters back Jo Swinson as Best PM? WTF?
    But down three with current LibDem voters! lol. Even her own supporters are put off by her "Prime Minister" schtick.
    In a poll where your Bozo is down 4% and Swinson is up 1%. Desperate stuff, Mr Mark.

    I'd punt that 16% for the leader of the third UK party in response to "who would make the best PM" is historically extremely high.
    That's it, run along to her defence, like some little lap dog.

    Because she can't cut it without you yapping to protect her?
  • camelcamel Posts: 815

    Some Local Authorities are a year behind with selective licensing applications which IIRC last for three years/

    How do we think they'd cope with yearly MOTs?

    So the MOTs won't be carried out by the Ministry of Transport then?

    Misleading. :smile:
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    eek said:

    Uber loses licence to operate in London.

    However will da yoof get to the polling stations?

    No surprise after they were found to be allowing drivers to drive without the correct insurance.
    Also super common with Air BnB's. People don't have insurance to cover commercially let their property.
  • camelcamel Posts: 815
    kinabalu said:

    I have also bought turnout. I sense it will be in the high sixties.

    Am on 5/1 at 70-75. Seems unlikely to be honest. Still, 5/1 sucked me in.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,113
    Ladbrokes has a GE specials market where they have:

    "Labour To Gain No Individual Seat Not Won In 2017" at 6/4

    I`m tempted to play. What do you think? If you think that this is not value, which seat/s do you think Labour could win this time?
  • IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:
    5% (+3%) of Leave voters back Jo Swinson as Best PM? WTF?
    But down three with current LibDem voters! lol. Even her own supporters are put off by her "Prime Minister" schtick.
    In a poll where your Bozo is down 4% and Swinson is up 1%. Desperate stuff, Mr Mark.

    I'd punt that 16% for the leader of the third UK party in response to "who would make the best PM" is historically extremely high.
    That's it, run along to her defence, like some little lap dog.

    Because she can't cut it without you yapping to protect her?
    Your determination to rubbish her, particularly when the two main party leaders are both misogynistic males, and so shockingly shit just makes you look like a misogynist. Are you one?
  • NorthernPowerhouseNorthernPowerhouse Posts: 557
    edited November 2019
    eristdoof said:

    When I started teaching it was common for teachers to be offered early retirement at 50; indeed I got my present job by replacing a teacher who had done just that.
    I am now 50 myself and faced with the prospect of 17 more years of teaching.

    Do you think I could persuade the Labour Party to cough up for the missed 17 years of pension?

    The key word above is "offered". The official retirement age was 65/60
    The official retirement for teachers is still 65/60 depending on which scheme the person is in, if 50, likely to be in the 60 retirement.
  • AlistairMAlistairM Posts: 2,005
    On WASPI. They're protesting the removal of an inequality in their favour. They were warned. They did know. They just don't like it and want a free bung of money. They think this money comes from the government "blob" and the government has to pay.

    I wonder what their reaction would be if they were told their children and grandchildren would need to take out loans and pay them off the rest of their lives to give them their money?

    Someone needs to tell them that this is the way it is and to stop grumbling as their children and grandchildren will already have to work for many years longer than they have done. It is not unfair. To give the WASPIs compensation would be massively unfair.
  • eristdoof said:

    When I started teaching it was common for teachers to be offered early retirement at 50; indeed I got my present job by replacing a teacher who had done just that.
    I am now 50 myself and faced with the prospect of 17 more years of teaching.

    Do you think I could persuade the Labour Party to cough up for the missed 17 years of pension?

    The key word above is "offered". The official retirement age was 65/60
    It was 60 for all teachers.

    I’m not really expecting any sympathy on this one, but I am contrasting it with the WASPI crowd.
  • How many of those 3.7 million do you think will be gullible enough to fall for this when it wasn't in the manifesto and isn't costed?

    Brexit is not costed in the Conservative manifesto. Should we doubt Boris's good intentions?
  • I had an election dream last night. For anyone wanting to bet based on my powers of premonition I remember 2 facts - it was 7pm on election day and 'early rumours' said the Tories would 'just hold on' in Chelmsford and the LDs were predicted to get 79% in Wells!!
    I have a very odd brain

    Maybe you were tuned into Jo Swinson's brain waves
  • I had an election dream last night. For anyone wanting to bet based on my powers of premonition I remember 2 facts - it was 7pm on election day and 'early rumours' said the Tories would 'just hold on' in Chelmsford and the LDs were predicted to get 79% in Wells!!
    I have a very odd brain

    Theres a netflix documentary of a man who wrongly served for ten years in jail based on a dream..
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 10,037
    Stocky said:

    Ladbrokes has a GE specials market where they have:

    "Labour To Gain No Individual Seat Not Won In 2017" at 6/4

    I`m tempted to play. What do you think? If you think that this is not value, which seat/s do you think Labour could win this time?

    Broxtowe through the middle
  • How many of those 3.7 million do you think will be gullible enough to fall for this when it wasn't in the manifesto and isn't costed?

    Brexit is not costed in the Conservative manifesto. Should we doubt Boris's good intentions?
    Let's get self-harm done! Doesn't sound quite as appealing to the generally gullible.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 10,037
    edited November 2019

    I had an election dream last night. For anyone wanting to bet based on my powers of premonition I remember 2 facts - it was 7pm on election day and 'early rumours' said the Tories would 'just hold on' in Chelmsford and the LDs were predicted to get 79% in Wells!!
    I have a very odd brain

    Maybe you were tuned into Jo Swinson's brain waves
    There was something about a Leeds seat too, Tories falling short in their Leeds target
  • MattWMattW Posts: 22,703
    eek said:

    Streeter said:

    MattW said:

    Hmmm.

    Labour going to force developers to build and pay for 50k "starter homes", to be sold at approx 40% discount by the look of it.

    "Healey said in Boris Johnson’s constituency of Uxbridge, in London, where the average house price is £350,000, the price of new homes built in this way could be just £190,000. The properties would be earmarked as first-time buyer homes in perpetuity, and would have to be sold on at a discount to market rates."
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/24/jeremy-corbyn-vows-to-take-on-exploitative-landlords-if-elected-pm

    At an average UK house price of 250k, I make that a subsidy of 5 billion.

    How many years profit is that for the entire industry?

    It will come off the value of the land. Fewer yachts for farmers.
    Yep - land prices = value of built house less building costs (plus a bit of profit).

    When Help to Buy was created the excess builders profits have come from the pieces of land they purchased prior to HtB increasing land prices.
    Won't happen, or will have horrible consequences. There is not the headroom.

    LAs already get North of 5 billion pa from planning gain taxes from S106 alone, which is alleged to come from land prices not inflated house prices for First Time Buyers etc.

    CIL was brought in in addition in 2010, and much of the country as not implemented it as there is not the scope to extract enough cash to make it worthwhile. If there was scope, we would have active Community Infrastructure Levy in more than the approx third of Planning Authorities that have done it.

    The proposal is to take another 30-40k out of the price of every new (average 250k) house, on top of the 25-35k which is already taken.

    I do not believe that it adds up in any way. The impact imo would be to liquidate the entire industry profit for several years.

  • I had an election dream last night. For anyone wanting to bet based on my powers of premonition I remember 2 facts - it was 7pm on election day and 'early rumours' said the Tories would 'just hold on' in Chelmsford and the LDs were predicted to get 79% in Wells!!
    I have a very odd brain

    You have opened the gin advent calendar a week early. Or possibly it is the cheese advent calendar which has given you nightmares.
  • eristdoof said:

    When I started teaching it was common for teachers to be offered early retirement at 50; indeed I got my present job by replacing a teacher who had done just that.
    I am now 50 myself and faced with the prospect of 17 more years of teaching.

    Do you think I could persuade the Labour Party to cough up for the missed 17 years of pension?

    The key word above is "offered". The official retirement age was 65/60
    The official retirement for teachers is still 65/60 depending on which scheme the person is in, if 50, likely to be in the 60 retirement.
    As I understand it, my pension is now split between the two. One is final salary and the other average salary. I’m not really sure when I will be able to claim it, but given how much time I’ve been in hospital or off ill in the last few years I spect the whole thing is moot anyway.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,113
    kinabalu said:

    "I have also bought turnout. I sense it will be in the high sixties."

    camel said:

    "Am on 5/1 at 70-75. Seems unlikely to be honest. Still, 5/1 sucked me in."


    I`m on 50-59.99% at 7/1. Not one of my better bets, I fear.

    But then again - I`m ashamed to say - I had 2.4/1 on Boris exit date 2019 and I unbelievably backed Tories to win 199 seats or less (when their position looked really bleak, missing 31/10, having no deal in place and BXP were looking to be a real threat).

    Anyone have any worse bets that that??
  • Stocky said:

    kinabalu said:

    "I have also bought turnout. I sense it will be in the high sixties."

    camel said:

    "Am on 5/1 at 70-75. Seems unlikely to be honest. Still, 5/1 sucked me in."


    I`m on 50-59.99% at 7/1. Not one of my better bets, I fear.

    But then again - I`m ashamed to say - I had 2.4/1 on Boris exit date 2019 and I unbelievably backed Tories to win 199 seats or less (when their position looked really bleak, missing 31/10, having no deal in place and BXP were looking to be a real threat).

    Anyone have any worse bets that that??

    Do lottery tickets count?
    Or drawing to an inside straight?
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,214

    rkrkrk said:

    How many of those 3.7 million do you think will be gullible enough to fall for this when it wasn't in the manifesto and isn't costed?

    You mean you think Labour would not honour its promise?
    I think that's very unlikely. Having made a public pledge like this, to not honour it would be electoral suicide.
    Yes I do. Its clearly not a priority to Labour which is why it was not in the manifesto originally.

    We are supposed to believe that Labour is going to magic out of thin air £58bn on top of the £700bn or so to nationalise industries its going to magic out of thin air and the £83bn it is going to get from increased taxes on corporations etc that supposedly will be magically received without impacting the economy or causing unemployment.

    Lets suppose for one second this magic proves impossible. In order to get into debt there must be people willing to buy the bonds in the first place [unless you think they will literally just print money].

    If bond auctions fail and it proves harder to get £758 billion out of thin air than they expected what do you think will be first item on the chopping block? Something these Marxists really believe in and have spent decades campaigning for? Or a last minute bung to the voters who have already voted and was never a priority to go into the manifesto in the first place?
    58bn of borrowing over 5 years is less than 1bn a month.
    We currently borrow 11bn/month. So this is asking for less than 10% extra borrowing. It's a lot of money, but it's certainly possible.

    The nationalisations are separate and won't cost anything like what you're suggesting. There's a nice explainer here: https://www.ft.com/content/5648dd08-0d55-11ea-b2d6-9bf4d1957a67

    In any case, the nationalisations (except perhaps rail) are very unlikely to happen unless Labour win a majority.
  • Stocky said:

    Ladbrokes has a GE specials market where they have:

    "Labour To Gain No Individual Seat Not Won In 2017" at 6/4

    I`m tempted to play. What do you think? If you think that this is not value, which seat/s do you think Labour could win this time?

    Putney, Pudsey, Milton Keynes North seem plausible gains based on my model. A few others are in play. I am not sure I would bet on no gains at all.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 10,037

    I had an election dream last night. For anyone wanting to bet based on my powers of premonition I remember 2 facts - it was 7pm on election day and 'early rumours' said the Tories would 'just hold on' in Chelmsford and the LDs were predicted to get 79% in Wells!!
    I have a very odd brain

    You have opened the gin advent calendar a week early. Or possibly it is the cheese advent calendar which has given you nightmares.
    I write a poem a couple of years ago based on the premise that I'm in a Jacob's Ladder style drug induced coma back at Uni in 92 and everything since has been a coma fantasy.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,774
    Stocky said:

    kinabalu said:

    "I have also bought turnout. I sense it will be in the high sixties."

    camel said:

    "Am on 5/1 at 70-75. Seems unlikely to be honest. Still, 5/1 sucked me in."


    I`m on 50-59.99% at 7/1. Not one of my better bets, I fear.

    But then again - I`m ashamed to say - I had 2.4/1 on Boris exit date 2019 and I unbelievably backed Tories to win 199 seats or less (when their position looked really bleak, missing 31/10, having no deal in place and BXP were looking to be a real threat).

    Anyone have any worse bets that that??

    I too had a bet on the 50-60% range, but think it wise to sell out, and have just done so. The price must have moved slightly in my direction as I was able to cash out with a very small profit.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 13,585

    Stocky said:

    Ladbrokes has a GE specials market where they have:

    "Labour To Gain No Individual Seat Not Won In 2017" at 6/4

    I`m tempted to play. What do you think? If you think that this is not value, which seat/s do you think Labour could win this time?

    Putney, Pudsey, Milton Keynes North seem plausible gains based on my model. A few others are in play. I am not sure I would bet on no gains at all.
    Arfon is plausible.
  • I had an election dream last night. For anyone wanting to bet based on my powers of premonition I remember 2 facts - it was 7pm on election day and 'early rumours' said the Tories would 'just hold on' in Chelmsford and the LDs were predicted to get 79% in Wells!!
    I have a very odd brain

    You have opened the gin advent calendar a week early. Or possibly it is the cheese advent calendar which has given you nightmares.
    I write a poem a couple of years ago based on the premise that I'm in a Jacob's Ladder style drug induced coma back at Uni in 92 and everything since has been a coma fantasy.
    Does that mean we are all figments of your imagination? Shades of the Red King...
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,361
    AlistairM said:

    On WASPI. They're protesting the removal of an inequality in their favour. They were warned. They did know. They just don't like it and want a free bung of money. They think this money comes from the government "blob" and the government has to pay.

    I wonder what their reaction would be if they were told their children and grandchildren would need to take out loans and pay them off the rest of their lives to give them their money?

    Someone needs to tell them that this is the way it is and to stop grumbling as their children and grandchildren will already have to work for many years longer than they have done. It is not unfair. To give the WASPIs compensation would be massively unfair.

    One thing the WASPI issue has demonstrated is just how vast the extra cost of pensions would have been if they had stayed at 60 for women and 65 for men.

    And I suspect that before Boris's term is out, he will have to confront a further extension towards 70 for both.
  • Model updated with latest Survation poll: Con 342, Lab 214, LD 20, SNP 50, PC 4, GRN 1, BXP 0. Tory majority 40.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 22,703
    edited November 2019

    When I started teaching it was common for teachers to be offered early retirement at 50; indeed I got my present job by replacing a teacher who had done just that.
    I am now 50 myself and faced with the prospect of 17 more years of teaching.

    Do you think I could persuade the Labour Party to cough up for the missed 17 years of pension?

    You should have worked for TFL.

    I hear that they have been offering senior people 5 years of full salary after they leave if they went early. I believe starting at 55 to bridge to the 60 age. Approved individually, but that is perhaps what is being done with Londoners' money.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 10,037

    I had an election dream last night. For anyone wanting to bet based on my powers of premonition I remember 2 facts - it was 7pm on election day and 'early rumours' said the Tories would 'just hold on' in Chelmsford and the LDs were predicted to get 79% in Wells!!
    I have a very odd brain

    You have opened the gin advent calendar a week early. Or possibly it is the cheese advent calendar which has given you nightmares.
    I write a poem a couple of years ago based on the premise that I'm in a Jacob's Ladder style drug induced coma back at Uni in 92 and everything since has been a coma fantasy.
    Does that mean we are all figments of your imagination? Shades of the Red King...
    Cartesian ghosts all
  • Model updated with latest Survation poll: Con 342, Lab 214, LD 20, SNP 50, PC 4, GRN 1, BXP 0. Tory majority 40.

    I think Boris would take that if offered.
  • Cookie said:

    Stocky said:

    Ladbrokes has a GE specials market where they have:

    "Labour To Gain No Individual Seat Not Won In 2017" at 6/4

    I`m tempted to play. What do you think? If you think that this is not value, which seat/s do you think Labour could win this time?

    Putney, Pudsey, Milton Keynes North seem plausible gains based on my model. A few others are in play. I am not sure I would bet on no gains at all.
    Arfon is plausible.
    I have it as a close PC hold, but it's more or less 50:50. Arfon and Arfoff.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 22,703

    I had an election dream last night. For anyone wanting to bet based on my powers of premonition I remember 2 facts - it was 7pm on election day and 'early rumours' said the Tories would 'just hold on' in Chelmsford and the LDs were predicted to get 79% in Wells!!
    I have a very odd brain

    You have opened the gin advent calendar a week early. Or possibly it is the cheese advent calendar which has given you nightmares.
    I have to decide what to do with my scented tea light advent calendar. Tempted expel the cat for 2 hours then burn them all at once to account for the lost heat.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,774
    edited November 2019

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:
    5% (+3%) of Leave voters back Jo Swinson as Best PM? WTF?
    But down three with current LibDem voters! lol. Even her own supporters are put off by her "Prime Minister" schtick.
    In a poll where your Bozo is down 4% and Swinson is up 1%. Desperate stuff, Mr Mark.

    I'd punt that 16% for the leader of the third UK party in response to "who would make the best PM" is historically extremely high.
    Is it? Do we have comparable figures for Nick Clegg?
    There are some here:

    Clegg was at 10% or below until Cleggmania, when he briefly topped 20% and maxed at 29%

    Kennedy regularly polled in the same range as Swinson - which given Kennedy's profile and tenure is actually a pretty good starting point for someone who is currently very new in the job and not well known )(as evidenced by all the don't knows in the good job/bad job polling).

    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/leaders

    Edit/ And some more here. In 1992 Paddy was around 20%. In 1997 he was around 15%. In 2001 Kennedy was around 11%. In 2005 Kennedy at 15%. 2015 Clegg at 6%. 2017 they didn't even bother asking about Farron.

    https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/most-capable-prime-minister-trends
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,153

    Model updated with latest Survation poll: Con 342, Lab 214, LD 20, SNP 50, PC 4, GRN 1, BXP 0. Tory majority 40.

    Con Majority between 30-40 is what I've always expected. Enough to Get Brexit Done and provide us with a functioning government for four or five years but no landslide.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 41,798
    edited November 2019

    I had an election dream last night. For anyone wanting to bet based on my powers of premonition I remember 2 facts - it was 7pm on election day and 'early rumours' said the Tories would 'just hold on' in Chelmsford and the LDs were predicted to get 79% in Wells!!
    I have a very odd brain

    You have opened the gin advent calendar a week early. Or possibly it is the cheese advent calendar which has given you nightmares.
    I write a poem a couple of years ago based on the premise that I'm in a Jacob's Ladder style drug induced coma back at Uni in 92 and everything since has been a coma fantasy.
    And then you hear Matt Hancock spoxxing away and realise such inanity can only exist in shitey old reality.
  • MattW said:

    When I started teaching it was common for teachers to be offered early retirement at 50; indeed I got my present job by replacing a teacher who had done just that.
    I am now 50 myself and faced with the prospect of 17 more years of teaching.

    Do you think I could persuade the Labour Party to cough up for the missed 17 years of pension?

    You should have worked for TFL.

    I hear that they have been offering senior people 5 years of full salary after they leave if they went early. I believe starting at 55 to bridge to the 60 age. Approved individually, but that is what is being done with Londoners' money.
    My understanding was that the county paid the teacher’s wages, but the government paid the pension. This gave an incentive for councils to get rid of expensive older teachers.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 22,703

    eristdoof said:

    When I started teaching it was common for teachers to be offered early retirement at 50; indeed I got my present job by replacing a teacher who had done just that.
    I am now 50 myself and faced with the prospect of 17 more years of teaching.

    Do you think I could persuade the Labour Party to cough up for the missed 17 years of pension?

    The key word above is "offered". The official retirement age was 65/60
    The official retirement for teachers is still 65/60 depending on which scheme the person is in, if 50, likely to be in the 60 retirement.
    As I understand it, my pension is now split between the two. One is final salary and the other average salary. I’m not really sure when I will be able to claim it, but given how much time I’ve been in hospital or off ill in the last few years I spect the whole thing is moot anyway.
    Final salary pensions are being bought out at 40-45x income for a lump sum in your pension pot. Not sure if it is in the public sector, mind.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 10,037

    I had an election dream last night. For anyone wanting to bet based on my powers of premonition I remember 2 facts - it was 7pm on election day and 'early rumours' said the Tories would 'just hold on' in Chelmsford and the LDs were predicted to get 79% in Wells!!
    I have a very odd brain

    You have opened the gin advent calendar a week early. Or possibly it is the cheese advent calendar which has given you nightmares.
    I write a poem a couple of years ago based on the premise that I'm in a Jacob's Ladder style drug induced coma back at Uni in 92 and everything since has been a coma fantasy.
    And then you see Matt Hancock spoxxing away and realise such inanity can only exist in shitey old reality.
    When I went into this coma I promised myself I'd not invent a shit future, I've let myself and all you ghosts down.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,361
    Some of the details in the Flavible projections are incorrect. They seem to have more Brexit candidates in Wales than there are, for example wrongly standing in Montgomeryshire and in Brecon and Radnorshire.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,113
    Fysics_Teacher said:

    "As I understand it, my pension is now split between the two. One is final salary and the other average salary. I’m not really sure when I will be able to claim it, but given how much time I’ve been in hospital or off ill in the last few years I spect the whole thing is moot anyway."

    MattW said:

    "Final salary pensions are being bought out at 40-45x income for a lump sum in your pension pot. Not sure if it is in the public sector, mind."

    Not for a public sector unfunded scheme.

    Fysics_Teacher: you should look into this now. May be some ill health benefits you are not aware of. You are very lucky indeed to have a FS scheme. Worth 40% on top of your salary, I`d estimate.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 5,060

    eristdoof said:

    When I started teaching it was common for teachers to be offered early retirement at 50; indeed I got my present job by replacing a teacher who had done just that.
    I am now 50 myself and faced with the prospect of 17 more years of teaching.

    Do you think I could persuade the Labour Party to cough up for the missed 17 years of pension?

    The key word above is "offered". The official retirement age was 65/60
    It was 60 for all teachers.

    I’m not really expecting any sympathy on this one, but I am contrasting it with the WASPI crowd.
    Ah yes I forgot about 60 in the public sector at that time. It was clear that you were trying to make a comparison, but I don't think it is a very good one.

    But I do agree that there are many more important problems in British society than this. This group have had many years forewarning, it is sensible to make the rules the same for women and men, which strengthens the argument for sexual equality in much more important areas.
  • MattW said:

    eristdoof said:

    When I started teaching it was common for teachers to be offered early retirement at 50; indeed I got my present job by replacing a teacher who had done just that.
    I am now 50 myself and faced with the prospect of 17 more years of teaching.

    Do you think I could persuade the Labour Party to cough up for the missed 17 years of pension?

    The key word above is "offered". The official retirement age was 65/60
    The official retirement for teachers is still 65/60 depending on which scheme the person is in, if 50, likely to be in the 60 retirement.
    As I understand it, my pension is now split between the two. One is final salary and the other average salary. I’m not really sure when I will be able to claim it, but given how much time I’ve been in hospital or off ill in the last few years I spect the whole thing is moot anyway.
    Final salary pensions are being bought out at 40-45x income for a lump sum in your pension pot. Not sure if it is in the public sector, mind.
    The funding for the teachers’ pension is a complete mess. The nominal deficit is billions.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 22,703

    MattW said:

    eristdoof said:

    When I started teaching it was common for teachers to be offered early retirement at 50; indeed I got my present job by replacing a teacher who had done just that.
    I am now 50 myself and faced with the prospect of 17 more years of teaching.

    Do you think I could persuade the Labour Party to cough up for the missed 17 years of pension?

    The key word above is "offered". The official retirement age was 65/60
    The official retirement for teachers is still 65/60 depending on which scheme the person is in, if 50, likely to be in the 60 retirement.
    As I understand it, my pension is now split between the two. One is final salary and the other average salary. I’m not really sure when I will be able to claim it, but given how much time I’ve been in hospital or off ill in the last few years I spect the whole thing is moot anyway.
    Final salary pensions are being bought out at 40-45x income for a lump sum in your pension pot. Not sure if it is in the public sector, mind.
    The funding for the teachers’ pension is a complete mess. The nominal deficit is billions.
    Phone up his office, and perhaps Mr McDonnell can borrow it from the Leprechaun's pot of gold :-o .

    (Sorry)
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,947
    eek said:

    It's worth reading the BBC article on OneCoin. One of the few people who could actually create a blockchain refused such an offer.

    Yes. Fascinating and appalling in equal measure. Millions of people hoodwinked by the false promises of a charismatic charlatan. All of them so desperate to believe in the nonsense they had signed up to that they remained blind to the clear and mounting evidence that it was a scam invented purely for the benefit of a small group of insiders at the top.

    But I am sick of talking about Brexit now.

    To get away from it for a few hours I not only read the BBC article on OneCoin you refer to, I listened to the whole of the associated podcast. Brilliantly done. And what a sad sad affair.
  • When is someone going to tell the Waspi women that increasing their retirement age was proposed by Ken Clark when John Major was PM and enacted by Tony Blair? All the Tory government has done is bring forward the date slightly.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 10,037

    Some of the details in the Flavible projections are incorrect. They seem to have more Brexit candidates in Wales than there are, for example wrongly standing in Montgomeryshire and in Brecon and Radnorshire.

    They also have the UUP on 1% in North Down which given that Hermon was holding it as UUP until 2010 seems rather low
  • CookieCookie Posts: 13,585
    Anyone else getting bombarded with social media stories from neutral-sounding sites like 'businessinsider.com' and 'thelondoneconomic.com' which are looking suspiciously like fronts for Momentum?
  • rkrkrk said:

    rkrkrk said:

    How many of those 3.7 million do you think will be gullible enough to fall for this when it wasn't in the manifesto and isn't costed?

    You mean you think Labour would not honour its promise?
    I think that's very unlikely. Having made a public pledge like this, to not honour it would be electoral suicide.
    Yes I do. Its clearly not a priority to Labour which is why it was not in the manifesto originally.

    We are supposed to believe that Labour is going to magic out of thin air £58bn on top of the £700bn or so to nationalise industries its going to magic out of thin air and the £83bn it is going to get from increased taxes on corporations etc that supposedly will be magically received without impacting the economy or causing unemployment.

    Lets suppose for one second this magic proves impossible. In order to get into debt there must be people willing to buy the bonds in the first place [unless you think they will literally just print money].

    If bond auctions fail and it proves harder to get £758 billion out of thin air than they expected what do you think will be first item on the chopping block? Something these Marxists really believe in and have spent decades campaigning for? Or a last minute bung to the voters who have already voted and was never a priority to go into the manifesto in the first place?
    58bn of borrowing over 5 years is less than 1bn a month.
    We currently borrow 11bn/month. So this is asking for less than 10% extra borrowing. It's a lot of money, but it's certainly possible.

    The nationalisations are separate and won't cost anything like what you're suggesting. There's a nice explainer here: https://www.ft.com/content/5648dd08-0d55-11ea-b2d6-9bf4d1957a67

    In any case, the nationalisations (except perhaps rail) are very unlikely to happen unless Labour win a majority.
    It is indeed a lot of money and is on top of all the other commitments they're making.

    And if Labour get into Downing Street but doesn't get a majority that just means they'll need to bung money to all their other partners priorities on top of their own spending priorities in order to buy votes in the Commons. Buying votes in the Commons will be more important than commitments they didn't give a damn about made during an election campaign.

    If this was Labour's only spending pledge this could be believable. But when this costs an absolute fortune and comes on top of everything else and was deemed by Labour so unimportant and low priority as to not be in the manifesto then I expect this would be the first thing dropped like a lead balloon after an election.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,361
    On topic, far fewer will have fallen off the electoral roll by having moved house, died or emigrated/gone to work abroad in December. Could account for maybe 1-2% increase in a December poll versus a May/June one because of the more accurate electoral roll. Might push it into the next band. Just sayin'
  • Cookie said:

    Anyone else getting bombarded with social media stories from neutral-sounding sites like 'businessinsider.com' and 'thelondoneconomic.com' which are looking suspiciously like fronts for Momentum?

    In the run up to an election the closest I’m going to a social media site is here.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,361
    edited November 2019

    When is someone going to tell the Waspi women that increasing their retirement age was proposed by Ken Clark when John Major was PM and enacted by Tony Blair? All the Tory government has done is bring forward the date slightly.

    Think it was the Coalition that brought it forward.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,661
    edited November 2019

    When is someone going to tell the Waspi women that increasing their retirement age was proposed by Ken Clark when John Major was PM and enacted by Tony Blair? All the Tory government has done is bring forward the date slightly.

    Cummings should put McDonnell's £58bn on the side of a bus.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    edited November 2019
    Dura_Ace said:

    Mr. Mango, easier to deride those who wish to leave the EU as stooges of Putin than to consider what their genuine grievances might be.

    Leave voters may well have genuine grievances. No-one doubts that. The question is whether these will be resolved by Brexit.

    ETA: it is not the voters who were Putin's stooges but those who campaigned for Brexit.
    Brexit is a double win for Putin as it not only weakens the EU but elevates Macron, with whom Putin aligns very closely on many foreign policy and security matters, to the de facto leadership of it.

    Putin, who is far more candid in the Russophone media, recently spelled it out on Russian TV when he simply said: Макрон - наш. (Macron is ours.)
    Note for Ian Fleming scholars: in From Russia With Love Tatiana is correctly suspicious of the Russian plant Nash, partly because his name = наш = one of ours.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,153
    Tony Blair's speaking out again... Should see Con tick up 1-2% in the mid-week polls? :D
  • IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:
    5% (+3%) of Leave voters back Jo Swinson as Best PM? WTF?
    But down three with current LibDem voters! lol. Even her own supporters are put off by her "Prime Minister" schtick.
    In a poll where your Bozo is down 4% and Swinson is up 1%. Desperate stuff, Mr Mark.

    I'd punt that 16% for the leader of the third UK party in response to "who would make the best PM" is historically extremely high.
    Is it? Do we have comparable figures for Nick Clegg?
    There are some here:

    Clegg was at 10% or below until Cleggmania, when he briefly topped 20% and maxed at 29%

    Kennedy regularly polled in the same range as Swinson - which given Kennedy's profile and tenure is actually a pretty good starting point for someone who is currently very new in the job and not well known )(as evidenced by all the don't knows in the good job/bad job polling).

    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/leaders

    Edit/ And some more here. In 1992 Paddy was around 20%. In 1997 he was around 15%. In 2001 Kennedy was around 11%. In 2005 Kennedy at 15%. 2015 Clegg at 6%. 2017 they didn't even bother asking about Farron.

    https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/most-capable-prime-minister-trends
    It is an interesting one. A question that asks a question that is fundamentally unrealistic is unlikely to produce a meaningful answer.

    A more interesting question might be: Who would you put in charge of something important to you, Swinson, Corbyn or Johnson, none? I suspect Mr/Ms None would win, but I suspect the two misogynists would do no better than Swinson.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,360
    nunu2 said:

    HYUFD said:
    5% (+3%) of Leave voters back Jo Swinson as Best PM? WTF?
    Bregret?
    No. It is how to interpret the question. I would back Jo Swinson as best PM out of the choices - and I would say the same of Ken Clarke, Hilary Benn and a few others. It a judgement about ability and competence, not policies.

  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,576
    edited November 2019


    If this was Labour's only spending pledge this could be believable. But when this costs an absolute fortune and comes on top of everything else and was deemed by Labour so unimportant and low priority as to not be in the manifesto then I expect this would be the first thing dropped like a lead balloon after an election.

    There was polling evidence that Labour lost in 2015 because voters believed Labour was right but did not believe Labour could enact its proposals to solve the problems it had identified. (Even the government took to cherrypicking the Edstone.)

    This 2019 manifesto runs the same risks, on steroids. As you suggest, it is easily possible voters might agree that (say) these women have been hard done by, but doubt Labour will be able to compensate them (or build more houses, or negotiate a new Brexit deal or whatever floats each voter's boat). There is just too much in there, with no clear philosophy or rationale.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,113
    geoffw said: "Cummings should put McDonnell's £58bn on the side of a bus."

    Regarding Labour`s plans to target dividend income: this will of course affect everyone who runs a ltd company - and on the investment side I can`t see any exemption in the Labour announcement regarding dividend income received within an ISA or pension wrapper.

    One would hope this would be exempt, but I can`t help wondering. A couple with, say, £100k in ISAs plus, say, £200k in pensions could easily be earning £10k pa dividends into these wrappers.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,947
    camel said:

    Am on 5/1 at 70-75. Seems unlikely to be honest. Still, 5/1 sucked me in.

    5/1 is good for that IMO.
  • Dura_Ace said:

    Mr. Mango, easier to deride those who wish to leave the EU as stooges of Putin than to consider what their genuine grievances might be.

    Leave voters may well have genuine grievances. No-one doubts that. The question is whether these will be resolved by Brexit.

    ETA: it is not the voters who were Putin's stooges but those who campaigned for Brexit.
    Brexit is a double win for Putin as it not only weakens the EU but elevates Macron, with whom Putin aligns very closely on many foreign policy and security matters, to the de facto leadership of it.

    Putin, who is far more candid in the Russophone media, recently spelled it out on Russian TV when he simply said: Макрон - наш. (Macron is ours.)
    I think it is far more than a double win for Vlad. Amongst many things, it also weakens the UK, which like many of his predecessors, Putin obsesses over for irrational reasons. He has said he would like the UK to be broken up. Brexit is likely to achieve this. Brexiteers = useful idiots.
  • geoffw said:

    When is someone going to tell the Waspi women that increasing their retirement age was proposed by Ken Clark when John Major was PM and enacted by Tony Blair? All the Tory government has done is bring forward the date slightly.

    Cummings should put McDonnell's £58bn on the side of a bus.
    Cummings will have wargamed £58bn for the NHS against 58 billion reasons Tories hate women! which might also be inferred from the bus slogan. You're never alone with a Strand, and all that.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,344
    algarkirk said:

    nunu2 said:

    HYUFD said:
    5% (+3%) of Leave voters back Jo Swinson as Best PM? WTF?
    Bregret?
    No. It is how to interpret the question. I would back Jo Swinson as best PM out of the choices - and I would say the same of Ken Clarke, Hilary Benn and a few others. It a judgement about ability and competence, not policies.

    I'm afraid I went right off Ms Swinson when she said that if PM (I know, I know) she'd be prepared to use nuclear weapons.
    Very competent and council experienced Green candidate locally, too; Looks ,like him or Labour for me now.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,774

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:
    5% (+3%) of Leave voters back Jo Swinson as Best PM? WTF?
    But down three with current LibDem voters! lol. Even her own supporters are put off by her "Prime Minister" schtick.
    In a poll where your Bozo is down 4% and Swinson is up 1%. Desperate stuff, Mr Mark.

    I'd punt that 16% for the leader of the third UK party in response to "who would make the best PM" is historically extremely high.
    Is it? Do we have comparable figures for Nick Clegg?
    There are some here:

    Clegg was at 10% or below until Cleggmania, when he briefly topped 20% and maxed at 29%

    Kennedy regularly polled in the same range as Swinson - which given Kennedy's profile and tenure is actually a pretty good starting point for someone who is currently very new in the job and not well known )(as evidenced by all the don't knows in the good job/bad job polling).

    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/leaders

    Edit/ And some more here. In 1992 Paddy was around 20%. In 1997 he was around 15%. In 2001 Kennedy was around 11%. In 2005 Kennedy at 15%. 2015 Clegg at 6%. 2017 they didn't even bother asking about Farron.

    https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/most-capable-prime-minister-trends
    It is an interesting one. A question that asks a question that is fundamentally unrealistic is unlikely to produce a meaningful answer.

    A more interesting question might be: Who would you put in charge of something important to you, Swinson, Corbyn or Johnson, none? I suspect Mr/Ms None would win, but I suspect the two misogynists would do no better than Swinson.
    Jo's rating is of course helped by being up against bozo and grandpa. But it's worth noting that there is also a don't know option - chosen by 20% - so for Jo to be already up there with Kennedy and Paddy is pretty good.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,677

    I had an election dream last night. For anyone wanting to bet based on my powers of premonition I remember 2 facts - it was 7pm on election day and 'early rumours' said the Tories would 'just hold on' in Chelmsford and the LDs were predicted to get 79% in Wells!!
    I have a very odd brain

    Maybe you were tuned into Jo Swinson's brain waves
    There was something about a Leeds seat too, Tories falling short in their Leeds target
    The White Walkers are coming back to the Premier League as an added bonus.
  • King Cole, no point having nukes if they're not a credible deterrent.
  • algarkirk said:

    nunu2 said:

    HYUFD said:
    5% (+3%) of Leave voters back Jo Swinson as Best PM? WTF?
    Bregret?
    No. It is how to interpret the question. I would back Jo Swinson as best PM out of the choices - and I would say the same of Ken Clarke, Hilary Benn and a few others. It a judgement about ability and competence, not policies.

    I'm afraid I went right off Ms Swinson when she said that if PM (I know, I know) she'd be prepared to use nuclear weapons.
    Very competent and council experienced Green candidate locally, too; Looks ,like him or Labour for me now.
    Any potential PM of the UK who SAYS they would not use the deterrent is a fecking idiot that puts this country's security at risk. Ah, Jeremy Corbyn.

    Saying so and actually doing so are two very different things. This is a rare situation where IMO it is perfectly acceptable for a politician to lie.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 10,037
    Dura_Ace said:

    I had an election dream last night. For anyone wanting to bet based on my powers of premonition I remember 2 facts - it was 7pm on election day and 'early rumours' said the Tories would 'just hold on' in Chelmsford and the LDs were predicted to get 79% in Wells!!
    I have a very odd brain

    Maybe you were tuned into Jo Swinson's brain waves
    There was something about a Leeds seat too, Tories falling short in their Leeds target
    The White Walkers are coming back to the Premier League as an added bonus.
    Damn straight! For the scousers and mancs winter is coming
  • Stocky said:

    kinabalu said:

    "I have also bought turnout. I sense it will be in the high sixties."

    camel said:

    "Am on 5/1 at 70-75. Seems unlikely to be honest. Still, 5/1 sucked me in."


    I`m on 50-59.99% at 7/1. Not one of my better bets, I fear.

    But then again - I`m ashamed to say - I had 2.4/1 on Boris exit date 2019 and I unbelievably backed Tories to win 199 seats or less (when their position looked really bleak, missing 31/10, having no deal in place and BXP were looking to be a real threat).

    Anyone have any worse bets that that??

    If it's looking like a clear Tory win, and the weather is bad, you may still have a chance...
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,113
    What would the procedure be if Boris lost his seat but Tories won a majority?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,774

    When is someone going to tell the Waspi women that increasing their retirement age was proposed by Ken Clark when John Major was PM and enacted by Tony Blair? All the Tory government has done is bring forward the date slightly.

    Think it was the Coalition that brought it forward.
    Arent these women asking for more than reversal of the Cameron tweak to the timing, though?
  • IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:
    5% (+3%) of Leave voters back Jo Swinson as Best PM? WTF?
    But down three with current LibDem voters! lol. Even her own supporters are put off by her "Prime Minister" schtick.
    In a poll where your Bozo is down 4% and Swinson is up 1%. Desperate stuff, Mr Mark.

    I'd punt that 16% for the leader of the third UK party in response to "who would make the best PM" is historically extremely high.
    That's it, run along to her defence, like some little lap dog.

    Because she can't cut it without you yapping to protect her?
    That's all you ever do about the Tories!

    YapYap
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,677
    Stocky said:

    What would the procedure be if Boris lost his seat but Tories won a majority?

    Pretty sure HYUFD becomes God-Emperor in those circumstances.
  • Stocky said:

    What would the procedure be if Boris lost his seat but Tories won a majority?

    I believe he would still be leader of the Conservative and Unionist Party (misnomer alert!). The PCP would have to appoint a leader in parliament.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,153
    Stocky said:

    What would the procedure be if Boris lost his seat but Tories won a majority?

    Presumably there would be a meeting of the Parliamentary Party sometime on 13th December and they'd have to agree on an MP who would go and visit HMQ to say they are forming a government?
This discussion has been closed.