The devastating figures for Labour there are while the LDs were able to win 22% of 2017 Tory Remainers they barely won any while losing 33% of 2017 Labour Leave voters to the Tories.
They clearly need a more centrist leader
That data suggests Boris has 3 routes to a GE5 victory:
a) Retain the labour Leave votes that were "lent". b) Gain the Labour Leave votes that went to "others" this time around - principally BXP. Once tribal voters have broken the cycle once, if BJ delivers some gain to the former red wall, he has an opportunity to secure more. c) Regain the Conservative Leave voters who went to Lib Dem.
I think all of these are plausible prospects if the new government works flat out on widening opportunity and infrastructure investment.
BJ has framed the delivery in really simple terms for voters to audit in GE2024. Did he deliver:
Get Brexit Done 20k more police 50k more nurses 40 hospitals (started) Levelled-up school funding Spread opportunity
It's a pledge card without chiseling it on a lump of granite.
Unemployment is at a low, demographics are against us and public sector workers in their 50s are in positions to retire early or reduce to part time.
We therefore arent getting 70k more police and nurses without continued high levels of immigration. As plenty of people (not all) equate Brexit with low immigration that is the biggest challenge on your list.
The idea of dividing education by "degree" really needs a more nuanced categorisation given 50% of 18 year olds now go to uni compared to 15% in the 90s. All it really captures these days is young vs old.
The devastating figures for Labour there are while the LDs were able to win 22% of 2017 Tory Remainers they barely won any while losing 33% of 2017 Labour Leave voters to the Tories.
They clearly need a more centrist leader
Yup. Tory Remainers are, I think I read, the most economically right wing part of the electorate, so we're never going to swing behind Corbyn in significant numbers.
And without Tory Remainers Labour can never win a majority, many of those Tory Remainers will have voted for Blair
Some of them. They're not generally centrists in an economic sense though, as I noted above. They are actually in many cases previously nailed on Tories who just think that Brexit is crazy. I actually know some of these people - it's interesting that Brexit seems to have revealed a more meaningful divide in political views, since basically all my Tory friends have abandoned the party over Brexit.
Culturally they might vote for Starmer who is economically more centrist and opposes a harder Brexit, they would not vote for Corbyn and will not vote for Long-Bailey or Rayner
If you look at the poll movement graphs, you can make some sort of case it was Nige what won it. Does he want a knighthood though? No platform in the Lords and it might not play well with his supporters here or in America.
If you look at the poll movement graphs, you can make some sort of case it was Nige what won it. Does he want a knighthood though? No platform in the Lords and it might not play well with his supporters here or in America.
To refuse one when offered means kudos all round. If I were Nige, I'd take that option.
If you look at the poll movement graphs, you can make some sort of case it was Nige what won it. Does he want a knighthood though? No platform in the Lords and it might not play well with his supporters here or in America.
Id have thought Americans love it?
As much as I dislike him and his politics, I think he deserves one based on the current selection criteria.
The Tories and Labour now more the parties of average earners, the LDs the party of the rich and the Brexit Party and SNP the parties of the poor
Voting LD is the ultimate virtue signal.
You can show how “nice” you are, but they aren’t threatening in the way Labour are. And, if you earn a very high income, it doesn’t really matter if they win anyway.
You can vote whichever way you want and tell people differently so voting for virtue signalling sounds bizarre.
I'm on the tablet and the work filter is stopping me looking at sites. Can anybody tellme if anybody has a betting market on "No Deal" in 2020?
I’d be very careful about the terms of that bet.
There’ll almost certainly be “a” deal, even if it falls way short of a comprehensive FTA and economically isn’t far off being as disruptive as No Deal.
The devastating figures for Labour there are while the LDs were able to win 22% of 2017 Tory Remainers they barely won any while losing 33% of 2017 Labour Leave voters to the Tories.
They clearly need a more centrist leader
That data suggests Boris has 3 routes to a GE5 victory:
a) Retain the labour Leave votes that were "lent". b) Gain the Labour Leave votes that went to "others" this time around - principally BXP. Once tribal voters have broken the cycle once, if BJ delivers some gain to the former red wall, he has an opportunity to secure more. c) Regain the Conservative Leave voters who went to Lib Dem.
I think all of these are plausible prospects if the new government works flat out on widening opportunity and infrastructure investment.
BJ has framed the delivery in really simple terms for voters to audit in GE2024. Did he deliver:
Get Brexit Done 20k more police 50k more nurses 40 hospitals (started) Levelled-up school funding Spread opportunity
It's a pledge card without chiseling it on a lump of granite.
Unemployment is at a low, demographics are against us and public sector workers in their 50s are in positions to retire early or reduce to part time.
We therefore arent getting 70k more police and nurses without continued high levels of immigration. As plenty of people (not all) equate Brexit with low immigration that is the biggest challenge on your list.
My b) should have been Conservative Remain voters who went to Lib Dem, not Leave.
I think immigration is essentially resolved as a political issue by Brexit and ending FoM - as the practical impact on the ground in northern constituencies is frequently negligible.
If uncontrolled FoM is replaced by some kind of points-based systems that ensures "high value" immigration continues (in terms of meeting our skills gaps) and is under democratic control, then I think the issue is one that is ticked off for most pro and anti-immigration voters.
The Long Bailey moves look to be correlated to the Rayner price which has moved in. Some speculation she might go for it herself ? Starmer has moved in with that relatively favourable Labour list poll I think.
Even if that LabourList poll is accurate, it's not actually very favourable for Starmer, since it doesn't take any account of how second preferences are likely to be distributed. I'd expect the bulk of the RLB and Rayner support to end up behind one or the other, with little transferring to Starmer.
If you look at the poll movement graphs, you can make some sort of case it was Nige what won it. Does he want a knighthood though? No platform in the Lords and it might not play well with his supporters here or in America.
Boris winning a big majority and Farage getting a knighthood just shows how unsuccessful they have both been.
The devastating figures for Labour there are while the LDs were able to win 22% of 2017 Tory Remainers they barely won any while losing 33% of 2017 Labour Leave voters to the Tories.
They clearly need a more centrist leader
That data suggests Boris has 3 routes to a GE5 victory:
a) Retain the labour Leave votes that were "lent". b) Gain the Labour Leave votes that went to "others" this time around - principally BXP. Once tribal voters have broken the cycle once, if BJ delivers some gain to the former red wall, he has an opportunity to secure more. c) Regain the Conservative Leave voters who went to Lib Dem.
I think all of these are plausible prospects if the new government works flat out on widening opportunity and infrastructure investment.
BJ has framed the delivery in really simple terms for voters to audit in GE2024. Did he deliver:
Get Brexit Done 20k more police 50k more nurses 40 hospitals (started) Levelled-up school funding Spread opportunity
It's a pledge card without chiseling it on a lump of granite.
Unemployment is at a low, demographics are against us and public sector workers in their 50s are in positions to retire early or reduce to part time.
We therefore arent getting 70k more police and nurses without continued high levels of immigration. As plenty of people (not all) equate Brexit with low immigration that is the biggest challenge on your list.
My b) should have been Conservative Remain voters who went to Lib Dem, not Leave.
I think immigration is essentially resolved as a political issue by Brexit and ending FoM - as the practical impact on the ground in northern constituencies is frequently negligible.
If uncontrolled FoM is replaced by some kind of points-based systems that ensures "high value" immigration continues (in terms of meeting our skills gaps) and is under democratic control, then I think the issue is one that is ticked off for most pro and anti-immigration voters.
It is still a big IF. The EU are surely going to demand FoM, as they will bang on about it is a core value.
Can you give someone a Knighthood even if they haven't and won't accept it?
I believe approaches are made beforehand to see if the offer will be warmly received. People saying they have refused an honor are usually referring to that stage.
Perhaps Prince Andrew's rehabilitation can involve him being the one that does the knighting?
The Long Bailey moves look to be correlated to the Rayner price which has moved in. Some speculation she might go for it herself ? Starmer has moved in with that relatively favourable Labour list poll I think.
Even if that LabourList poll is accurate, it's not actually very favourable for Starmer, since it doesn't take any account of how second preferences are likely to be distributed. I'd expect the bulk of the RLB and Rayner support to end up behind one or the other, with little transferring to Starmer.
Long-Bailey first with Labour List readers for next Labour leader on 14.4%, Starmer second on 13.8%, Rayner 3rd on 13.5%.
The Tories and Labour now more the parties of average earners, the LDs the party of the rich and the Brexit Party and SNP the parties of the poor
Voting LD is the ultimate virtue signal.
You can show how “nice” you are, but they aren’t threatening in the way Labour are. And, if you earn a very high income, it doesn’t really matter if they win anyway.
You can vote whichever way you want and tell people differently so voting for virtue signalling sounds bizarre.
Have you ever met a Lib Dem voter?
They’re not exactly shy about it.
Of course I have met people who told me they voted for each of the parties. I have no way of knowing which way they voted and would be amazed if they were all 100% honest.
I appreciate that the age bands there were chosen to represent different life-stages e.g. 18-24 is "students and young people" though the reality is the majority of them are young workers and students the minority, 65+ is "retired" but in reality some of them will be working part-time and there will be plenty of retired people in the 50-64 class and so on.
Broad-brush they're still useful categories but the charts can be misleading as eg 18-24 is only a very small sliver of the voting population!
Taking them as proportions of all adults 18+ (I don't know if data is available on UK citizens / eligible voters only) we get
18-24 = 11% 25-49 = 42% 50-64 = 24% 65+ = 23%
I had to do some interpolation but these should be accurate to the nearest percent or so.
A really good rule of thumb is a "rectangular" age distribution that becomes "triangular" once you get past 60 - any 5-year age band of the UK 18+ population represents around 8% of the 18+ population until you start including people aged 60+, at which point you start knocking 1% off, and then you subtract a further 1% for each 5-year band you go up. So for example, by the 80-84 year old band you have subtracted 1% at ages 60, 65, 70, 75 and 80 so in total have knocked off 5% and the age-band contains only 8% - 5% = 3%.
For a bit more accuracy, to account for fluctuations in birth rates etc over time, you need to slightly ramp up any 5-year band aged between mid-40s and mid-50s ramp to 9%. And today's teenagers went through a temporary population dip so when that cohort gets into adulthood their 5-year age-bands will be 7% rather than 8%.
Incidentally, if YouGov was going to split all 18+ voters into four equally sized age categories, they should really be:
18-31 32-46 47-61 62+
This would make it much easier to see if a Lab lead in one age group was cancelled out by a Con lead in another!
If the age groups were collapsed to slightly tidier numbers, then
18-34 35-49 50-64 65+
Wouldn't be a bad shout - too many people in the lower age groups, too few in the higher age group, but once you weight these by the turnout in each group then I suspect (I should check the figures really) the number of actual votes would be rather closer to equal between groups.
The devastating figures for Labour there are while the LDs were able to win 22% of 2017 Tory Remainers they barely won any while losing 33% of 2017 Labour Leave voters to the Tories.
They clearly need a more centrist leader
That data suggests Boris has 3 routes to a GE5 victory:
a) Retain the labour Leave votes that were "lent". b) Gain the Labour Leave votes that went to "others" this time around - principally BXP. Once tribal voters have broken the cycle once, if BJ delivers some gain to the former red wall, he has an opportunity to secure more. c) Regain the Conservative Leave voters who went to Lib Dem.
I think all of these are plausible prospects if the new government works flat out on widening opportunity and infrastructure investment.
BJ has framed the delivery in really simple terms for voters to audit in GE2024. Did he deliver:
Get Brexit Done 20k more police 50k more nurses 40 hospitals (started) Levelled-up school funding Spread opportunity
It's a pledge card without chiseling it on a lump of granite.
Unemployment is at a low, demographics are against us and public sector workers in their 50s are in positions to retire early or reduce to part time.
We therefore arent getting 70k more police and nurses without continued high levels of immigration. As plenty of people (not all) equate Brexit with low immigration that is the biggest challenge on your list.
My b) should have been Conservative Remain voters who went to Lib Dem, not Leave.
I think immigration is essentially resolved as a political issue by Brexit and ending FoM - as the practical impact on the ground in northern constituencies is frequently negligible.
If uncontrolled FoM is replaced by some kind of points-based systems that ensures "high value" immigration continues (in terms of meeting our skills gaps) and is under democratic control, then I think the issue is one that is ticked off for most pro and anti-immigration voters.
Our employment gaps are mostly low skilled (someone to put the pigs in their blankets for Wetherspoon for example). High skilled can generally contribute to an economy and society whether there is a skills gap or not so its always good to have them but no-one is being honest that we actually need these levels of immigration because of low unemployment, demographics and an unusually well off 50-65 cohort.
The devastating figures for Labour there are while the LDs were able to win 22% of 2017 Tory Remainers they barely won any while losing 33% of 2017 Labour Leave voters to the Tories.
They clearly need a more centrist leader
That data suggests Boris has 3 routes to a GE5 victory:
a) Retain the labour Leave votes that were "lent". b) Gain the Labour Leave votes that went to "others" this time around - principally BXP. Once tribal voters have broken the cycle once, if BJ delivers some gain to the former red wall, he has an opportunity to secure more. c) Regain the Conservative Leave voters who went to Lib Dem.
I think all of these are plausible prospects if the new government works flat out on widening opportunity and infrastructure investment.
BJ has framed the delivery in really simple terms for voters to audit in GE2024. Did he deliver:
Get Brexit Done 20k more police 50k more nurses 40 hospitals (started) Levelled-up school funding Spread opportunity
It's a pledge card without chiseling it on a lump of granite.
Unemployment is at a low, demographics are against us and public sector workers in their 50s are in positions to retire early or reduce to part time.
We therefore arent getting 70k more police and nurses without continued high levels of immigration. As plenty of people (not all) equate Brexit with low immigration that is the biggest challenge on your list.
My b) should have been Conservative Remain voters who went to Lib Dem, not Leave.
I think immigration is essentially resolved as a political issue by Brexit and ending FoM - as the practical impact on the ground in northern constituencies is frequently negligible.
If uncontrolled FoM is replaced by some kind of points-based systems that ensures "high value" immigration continues (in terms of meeting our skills gaps) and is under democratic control, then I think the issue is one that is ticked off for most pro and anti-immigration voters.
It is still a big IF. The EU are surely going to demand FoM, as they will bang on about it is a core value.
That's a huge red line to break; possibly the biggest.
I am no expert, but I imagine the FTA negotiations will be significantly about balancing the extent of UK access to the single market with the extent of free movement of labour after Brexit.
Presumably the pivot from the UK will be to have some form of limit/skills assessment for a degree of "freer" movement, in return for more access to the SM. But it will be an interesting balancing act.
On the Lab leadership election, Thornberry is out at 89/1. That looks too long. I'm not so sure she has given up. I think she'll struggle but am hoping her price comes in a bit.
The devastating figures for Labour there are while the LDs were able to win 22% of 2017 Tory Remainers they barely won any while losing 33% of 2017 Labour Leave voters to the Tories.
They clearly need a more centrist leader
That data suggests Boris has 3 routes to a GE5 victory:
a) Retain the labour Leave votes that were "lent". b) Gain the Labour Leave votes that went to "others" this time around - principally BXP. Once tribal voters have broken the cycle once, if BJ delivers some gain to the former red wall, he has an opportunity to secure more. c) Regain the Conservative Leave voters who went to Lib Dem.
I think all of these are plausible prospects if the new government works flat out on widening opportunity and infrastructure investment.
BJ has framed the delivery in really simple terms for voters to audit in GE2024. Did he deliver:
Get Brexit Done 20k more police 50k more nurses 40 hospitals (started) Levelled-up school funding Spread opportunity
It's a pledge card without chiseling it on a lump of granite.
Unemployment is at a low, demographics are against us and public sector workers in their 50s are in positions to retire early or reduce to part time.
We therefore arent getting 70k more police and nurses without continued high levels of immigration. As plenty of people (not all) equate Brexit with low immigration that is the biggest challenge on your list.
My b) should have been Conservative Remain voters who went to Lib Dem, not Leave.
I think immigration is essentially resolved as a political issue by Brexit and ending FoM - as the practical impact on the ground in northern constituencies is frequently negligible.
If uncontrolled FoM is replaced by some kind of points-based systems that ensures "high value" immigration continues (in terms of meeting our skills gaps) and is under democratic control, then I think the issue is one that is ticked off for most pro and anti-immigration voters.
Our employment gaps are mostly low skilled (someone to put the pigs in their blankets for Wetherspoon for example). High skilled can generally contribute to an economy and society whether there is a skills gap or not so its always good to have them but no-one is being honest that we actually need these levels of immigration because of low unemployment, demographics and an unusually well off 50-65 cohort.
Thanks - I'm not an expert. But delivering a democratically controlled "points-based" system should be able to accommodate all of those issues transparently, whilst at the same time ending uncontrolled/unlimited immigration - which seems to be the concern of some.
So the £ has sunk pretty much back to where it was before the Tories won.
I was surprised that the currency markets saw a Johnson Brexit as better than a 2nd ref, it was swings and roundabouts imo, both had their challenges and issues which were fairly reflected in the £ pre election.
That may be swings and roundabouts but any Brexit is better than Corbyn's nationalise anything that moves and tax corporations to the hilt shady economics.
We shall see, lets hope you are right. Corbynomics was never a realistic proposition at the GE, but hung parliament and 2nd ref was. Markets have swung back to my view that neither is a good outcome after the initial swing.
Sterling is not an indicator of good or bad.
Im sure youd be saying that if Corbynomics was being implemented and the £ dropped 15%.
If Corbynomics was being implemented there'd be far more than just Sterling to worry about!
I wonder why you didnt rebut any of the Tory fanboys cheering the £ going up 3% by informing them sterling wasnt an indicator of good or bad? When the Ministry for Propaganda is created you should be hired.
I can't speak for others but I am not on 24/7 and never engaged in any conversation discussing that in the past week. I have very consistently written here that Sterling by itself doesn't matter in its value and that it is other metrics like employment, inflation, growth etc that do matter.
A sinking pound (Corbynomics style) leading to Stagflation would be awful. But we have inflation consistently at or even below target currently so there is no worry there for me as it stands. And I've consistently said the same thing thank you very much.
I'm on the tablet and the work filter is stopping me looking at sites. Can anybody tellme if anybody has a betting market on "No Deal" in 2020?
I’d be very careful about the terms of that bet.
There’ll almost certainly be “a” deal, even if it falls way short of a comprehensive FTA and economically isn’t far off being as disruptive as No Deal.
I agree, but I'm working on the basis that "a" deal, even if nominal or stupid, will be met well by the markets and the pound will rise, and no-deal will be met with the opposite. Hence the request.
The devastating figures for Labour there are while the LDs were able to win 22% of 2017 Tory Remainers they barely won any while losing 33% of 2017 Labour Leave voters to the Tories.
They clearly need a more centrist leader
Unemployment is at a low, demographics are against us and public sector workers in their 50s are in positions to retire early or reduce to part time.
We therefore arent getting 70k more police and nurses without continued high levels of immigration. As plenty of people (not all) equate Brexit with low immigration that is the biggest challenge on your list.
My b) should have been Conservative Remain voters who went to Lib Dem, not Leave.
I think immigration is essentially resolved as a political issue by Brexit and ending FoM - as the practical impact on the ground in northern constituencies is frequently negligible.
If uncontrolled FoM is replaced by some kind of points-based systems that ensures "high value" immigration continues (in terms of meeting our skills gaps) and is under democratic control, then I think the issue is one that is ticked off for most pro and anti-immigration voters.
Our employment gaps are mostly low skilled (someone to put the pigs in their blankets for Wetherspoon for example). High skilled can generally contribute to an economy and society whether there is a skills gap or not so its always good to have them but no-one is being honest that we actually need these levels of immigration because of low unemployment, demographics and an unusually well off 50-65 cohort.
Thanks - I'm not an expert. But delivering a democratically controlled "points-based" system should be able to accommodate all of those issues transparently, whilst at the same time ending uncontrolled/unlimited immigration - which seems to be the concern of some.
How do you award points for putting blankets on pigs? A lot of the work just requires a willingness to accept unsecure, seasonal, boring, low paid shift work. Obviously it is unattractive to Brits with low unemployment, and would remain so even if they offered slightly higher wages.
On the Lab leadership election, Thornberry is out at 89/1. That looks too long. I'm not so sure she has given up. I think she'll struggle but am hoping her price comes in a bit.
A betting question please.
Punters on here often cite that the odds on something are too long - eg 89/1 and the reality is say, 20/1. This makes is a value bet and it seems people take it.
Why? I understand that occasionally these bets come off and win big. But surely there is finite limit to the attractiveness of this kind of strategy? A point past which the even if the odds are considered value, it is too unlikely to come off?
For example - I could possibly have had 50 or 100 bets in the election where a candidate was priced at 100-1 but the reality was shorter. Had I put 10 quid on each I'm pretty sure I'd be a grand down at the end.
I can't speak for others but I am not on 24/7 and never engaged in any conversation discussing that in the past week. I have very consistently written here that Sterling by itself doesn't matter in its value and that it is other metrics like employment, inflation, growth etc that do matter.
I can confirm that this has always been your position as long as I've seen you posting on here and you've been pretty strident about it.
Weird how we all know each other's views on all kind of policy minutiae, yet I have to confess I've often got no idea what our actual politicians (i.e. the ones whose views genuinely matter on any of this stuff) think about most of them. Even when they say something in public you rarely know if it's just "party line" stuff, or in the context of a leadership election, nothing more than a pitch for potential followers than a deeply-held conviction.
Thanks - I'm not an expert. But delivering a democratically controlled "points-based" system should be able to accommodate all of those issues transparently, whilst at the same time ending uncontrolled/unlimited immigration - which seems to be the concern of some.
The problem is that that uncontrolled unlimited immigration is just people moving to take the low paid jobs the locals mainly don't want. No points system is going to fix that issue.
The Tories won, the potential Corbyn Sturgeon Government was defeated
Strange, nairy a mention of Corbyn in wee Annie's tweet.
It was a Westminster election not a Holyrood election
And yet Annie Wells, a SCon msp campaigning for a SCon MP (who lost btw), only mentions Sturgeon. Weird, eh?
Not really. Tweets are character-limited. The point repeatedly made in full speeches including by Sturgeon herself and Johnson himself is that if that if Sturgeon won enough MPs to support Corbyn into Downing Street then a referendum would be the price of that support. Sturgeon and Johnson both agreed on this point and Wells is referring to this.
Sturgeon's side lost. She got MPs but not enough to put Corbyn into Downing Street. Oh diddums.
Thanks - I'm not an expert. But delivering a democratically controlled "points-based" system should be able to accommodate all of those issues transparently, whilst at the same time ending uncontrolled/unlimited immigration - which seems to be the concern of some.
The problem is that that uncontrolled unlimited immigration is just people moving to take the low paid jobs the locals mainly don't want. No points system is going to fix that issue.
Local people would take them if they were the only people available. The rate of pay would rise until someone was interested.
Thanks - I'm not an expert. But delivering a democratically controlled "points-based" system should be able to accommodate all of those issues transparently, whilst at the same time ending uncontrolled/unlimited immigration - which seems to be the concern of some.
The problem is that that uncontrolled unlimited immigration is just people moving to take the low paid jobs the locals mainly don't want. No points system is going to fix that issue.
Local people would take them if they were the only people available.
Some of the jobs simply wouldn't exist I suspect - I'm not sure what the array of East European staffed hand car-washes popping up in all the closed petrol stations has done for our productivity figures! It will have shown up as a rise in our GDP of course. And a fall in our GDP per capita...
Thanks - I'm not an expert. But delivering a democratically controlled "points-based" system should be able to accommodate all of those issues transparently, whilst at the same time ending uncontrolled/unlimited immigration - which seems to be the concern of some.
The problem is that that uncontrolled unlimited immigration is just people moving to take the low paid jobs the locals mainly don't want. No points system is going to fix that issue.
Local people would take them if they were the only people available. The rate of pay would rise until someone was interested.
No. People in Wetherspoon just wont get their pigs in blankets, or farmers wont grow as much fruit which requires hand picking. Not all jobs need to be done.
A lot of the near minimum wages that actually have to be done are paid for by the taxpayer, directly or indirectly. So increasing wages for those faster than the private sector will mean tax rises.
On the Lab leadership election, Thornberry is out at 89/1. That looks too long. I'm not so sure she has given up. I think she'll struggle but am hoping her price comes in a bit.
A betting question please.
Punters on here often cite that the odds on something are too long - eg 89/1 and the reality is say, 20/1. This makes is a value bet and it seems people take it.
Why? I understand that occasionally these bets come off and win big. But surely there is finite limit to the attractiveness of this kind of strategy? A point past which the even if the odds are considered value, it is too unlikely to come off?
For example - I could possibly have had 50 or 100 bets in the election where a candidate was priced at 100-1 but the reality was shorter. Had I put 10 quid on each I'm pretty sure I'd be a grand down at the end.
Individual constituency bets in an election are contingent on each other, they are not truly independent. So you wouldn't have been making 50-100 £10 bets but actually 3 or 4 large bets on party, not candidate, performance.
Value betting on independent events is, in the long run, a guaranteed money maker.
The difficulty is estimating the true odds and bankroll management.
@AlastairMeeks made so much money in 2015 because pre IndyRef in 2014 he spotted the true odds on SNP constituency odds were way out of line with reality.
They had been priced as if no IndyRef was taking place.
On the Lab leadership election, Thornberry is out at 89/1. That looks too long. I'm not so sure she has given up. I think she'll struggle but am hoping her price comes in a bit.
A betting question please.
Punters on here often cite that the odds on something are too long - eg 89/1 and the reality is say, 20/1. This makes is a value bet and it seems people take it.
Why? I understand that occasionally these bets come off and win big. But surely there is finite limit to the attractiveness of this kind of strategy? A point past which the even if the odds are considered value, it is too unlikely to come off?
For example - I could possibly have had 50 or 100 bets in the election where a candidate was priced at 100-1 but the reality was shorter. Had I put 10 quid on each I'm pretty sure I'd be a grand down at the end.
Let's say a bet is priced at being a 1% chance, and you correctly think it's a 2% chance. If you make 100 such bets, you may still lose them all. In fact there is a 13.3% chance you'll lose them all.
But if you win one of those bets, you'll break even. And if you win two or more, you'll win money.
Edit to add: you may well run out of money before you get a positive expected return, particularly if the odds are very, very long.
But in practice - if you're losing money, it's very likely going to be because you're bad at betting, not that you're unlucky and in the long run things will come around.
On the Lab leadership election, Thornberry is out at 89/1. That looks too long. I'm not so sure she has given up. I think she'll struggle but am hoping her price comes in a bit.
A betting question please.
Punters on here often cite that the odds on something are too long - eg 89/1 and the reality is say, 20/1. This makes is a value bet and it seems people take it.
Why? I understand that occasionally these bets come off and win big. But surely there is finite limit to the attractiveness of this kind of strategy? A point past which the even if the odds are considered value, it is too unlikely to come off?
For example - I could possibly have had 50 or 100 bets in the election where a candidate was priced at 100-1 but the reality was shorter. Had I put 10 quid on each I'm pretty sure I'd be a grand down at the end.
No. Individually a value bet will fail but if you put on sufficient independent bets that are value then you will win.
If you place 100 £10 bets at 100/1 where the value is really 20/1 then afterwards . . .
95% of the bets should lose: 95 * £10 = £950 lost 5% of the bets should win: 5 * £1000 won plus stakes back = £5000 won
Thanks - I'm not an expert. But delivering a democratically controlled "points-based" system should be able to accommodate all of those issues transparently, whilst at the same time ending uncontrolled/unlimited immigration - which seems to be the concern of some.
The problem is that that uncontrolled unlimited immigration is just people moving to take the low paid jobs the locals mainly don't want. No points system is going to fix that issue.
Local people would take them if they were the only people available.
Some of the jobs simply wouldn't exist I suspect - I'm not sure what the array of East European staffed hand car-washes popping up in all the closed petrol stations has done for our productivity figures! It will have shown up as a rise in our GDP of course. And a fall in our GDP per capita...
Well it did result in anyone who invested in an automated car wash lost money on their investment. but apart from that it does show how bad Britain has been in finding value added work.
Thanks - I'm not an expert. But delivering a democratically controlled "points-based" system should be able to accommodate all of those issues transparently, whilst at the same time ending uncontrolled/unlimited immigration - which seems to be the concern of some.
The problem is that that uncontrolled unlimited immigration is just people moving to take the low paid jobs the locals mainly don't want. No points system is going to fix that issue.
Why don't the locals want the low paid jobs? And why are they low paid?
Do we think McDonnell really didn't have a clue? Did they not do any internal polling? We know Ed Miliband internal polling was so wrong, they honestly thought they were in with a shout.
I still can't quite work out what both leaders were doing in the final week of the campaign.
Which of the Labour leader candidates is most likely to put aside tribalism and work with the lib Dems and Greens on some sort of non aggression pact or Coupon election? That is the easiest way to regain seats and hold more for both parties at the next election (look how helpful the BXP withdrawal was in helping tories hold off LD threats in the South).
Keir Starmer probably. Maybe Lisa Nandy. Not RLB as she will be more along the "one more Heave for true socialism" lines. Jess Philips strikes me as "tribal" Labour so not sure.
Layla Moran for the Lib Dems seems very much open to some sort of truce with Labour.
Do we think McDonnell really didn't have a clue? Did they not do any internal polling? We know Ed Miliband internal polling was so wrong, they honestly thought they were in with a shout.
I still can't quite work out what both leaders were doing in the final week of the campaign.
Do we think McDonnell really didn't have a clue? Did they not do any internal polling? We know Ed Miliband internal polling was so wrong, they honestly thought they were in with a shout.
I still can't quite work out what both leaders were doing in the final week of the campaign.
Do we think McDonnell really didn't have a clue? Did they not do any internal polling? We know Ed Miliband internal polling was so wrong, they honestly thought they were in with a shout.
I still can't quite work out what both leaders were doing in the final week of the campaign.
"Corbyn's MRP".
I think it probably consisted of looking at twitter.
On the Lab leadership election, Thornberry is out at 89/1. That looks too long. I'm not so sure she has given up. I think she'll struggle but am hoping her price comes in a bit.
A betting question please.
Punters on here often cite that the odds on something are too long - eg 89/1 and the reality is say, 20/1. This makes is a value bet and it seems people take it.
Why? I understand that occasionally these bets come off and win big. But surely there is finite limit to the attractiveness of this kind of strategy? A point past which the even if the odds are considered value, it is too unlikely to come off?
For example - I could possibly have had 50 or 100 bets in the election where a candidate was priced at 100-1 but the reality was shorter. Had I put 10 quid on each I'm pretty sure I'd be a grand down at the end.
You may also be interested in the Kelly Criterion - even if you do have an "edge" and have correctly identified a value bet, it's still possible to cock things up badly. An important decision is what proportion of your pot to stake on each bet, which partly depends on how big an edge you think you have and partly on your probability of winning. The Kelly-optimal bet when you have no identified edge is not to gamble at all.
In one study, each participant was given $25 and asked to bet on a coin that would land heads 60% of the time. Participants had 30 minutes to play, so could place about 300 bets, and the prizes were capped at $250. The behavior of the test subjects was far from optimal:
Remarkably, 28% of the participants went bust, and the average payout was just $91. Only 21% of the participants reached the maximum. 18 of the 61 participants bet everything on one toss, while two-thirds gambled on tails at some stage in the experiment.
Using the Kelly criterion and based on the odds in the experiment (ignoring the cap of $250 and the finite duration of the test), the right approach would be to bet 20% of the pot on each toss of the coin (see first example below). If losing, the size of the bet gets cut; if winning, the stake increases. If the bettors had followed this rule (assuming that bets have infinite granularity and there up to 300 coin tosses per game and that a player who reaches the cap would stop betting after that), an average of 94% of them would have reached the cap, and the average payout would be $237.36.
The Tories won, the potential Corbyn Sturgeon Government was defeated
Strange, nairy a mention of Corbyn in wee Annie's tweet.
It was a Westminster election not a Holyrood election
Oh, in that case the Scottish Government already have a Mandate for SindyRef2.
Cue the grinding of gears as folk (with whom it actually has fuck all to do) recalibrate other 'reasons' for no indyref II.
The manifesto of the party that won the UK General Election:
Twelve years of SNP government have led to an obsessive focus on independence – all while Scotland’s public services and its economy have been neglected. So long as the SNP are in power, Scottish schools and hospitals will always take second place to the pursuit of another independence referendum.
We are opposed to a second independence referendum and stand with the majority of people in Scotland, who do not want to return to division and uncertainty. Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP promised that the 2014 referendum would be a ‘once in a generation’ vote and the result was decisive. We believe that outcome should be respected.
On the Lab leadership election, Thornberry is out at 89/1. That looks too long. I'm not so sure she has given up. I think she'll struggle but am hoping her price comes in a bit.
A betting question please.
Punters on here often cite that the odds on something are too long - eg 89/1 and the reality is say, 20/1. This makes is a value bet and it seems people take it.
Why? I understand that occasionally these bets come off and win big. But surely there is finite limit to the attractiveness of this kind of strategy? A point past which the even if the odds are considered value, it is too unlikely to come off?
For example - I could possibly have had 50 or 100 bets in the election where a candidate was priced at 100-1 but the reality was shorter. Had I put 10 quid on each I'm pretty sure I'd be a grand down at the end.
You may also be interested in the Kelly Criterion - even if you do have an "edge" and have correctly identified a value bet, it's still possible to cock things up badly. An important decision is what proportion of your pot to stake on each bet, which partly depends on how big an edge you think you have and partly on your probability of winning. The Kelly-optimal bet when you have no identified edge is not to gamble at all.
In one study, each participant was given $25 and asked to bet on a coin that would land heads 60% of the time. Participants had 30 minutes to play, so could place about 300 bets, and the prizes were capped at $250. The behavior of the test subjects was far from optimal:
Remarkably, 28% of the participants went bust, and the average payout was just $91. Only 21% of the participants reached the maximum. 18 of the 61 participants bet everything on one toss, while two-thirds gambled on tails at some stage in the experiment.
Using the Kelly criterion and based on the odds in the experiment (ignoring the cap of $250 and the finite duration of the test), the right approach would be to bet 20% of the pot on each toss of the coin (see first example below). If losing, the size of the bet gets cut; if winning, the stake increases. If the bettors had followed this rule (assuming that bets have infinite granularity and there up to 300 coin tosses per game and that a player who reaches the cap would stop betting after that), an average of 94% of them would have reached the cap, and the average payout would be $237.36.
Thanks for this explanation and to others who answered up thread.
It seems to be a successful gambler, aside from successfully spotting lots of value bets and being able to assess realistic probability of events occurring, you need to have a large wallet and lots of time?
I can't speak for others but I am not on 24/7 and never engaged in any conversation discussing that in the past week. I have very consistently written here that Sterling by itself doesn't matter in its value and that it is other metrics like employment, inflation, growth etc that do matter.
I can confirm that this has always been your position as long as I've seen you posting on here and you've been pretty strident about it.
Weird how we all know each other's views on all kind of policy minutiae, yet I have to confess I've often got no idea what our actual politicians (i.e. the ones whose views genuinely matter on any of this stuff) think about most of them. Even when they say something in public you rarely know if it's just "party line" stuff, or in the context of a leadership election, nothing more than a pitch for potential followers than a deeply-held conviction.
Thank you. Yes it is a good question. The advantage I find in a site like this is there is much more no "party line". Sometimes people stick to the party line but a lot of people are quite happy to state their own opinions even when it differs from their parties line.
On the Lab leadership election, Thornberry is out at 89/1. That looks too long. I'm not so sure she has given up. I think she'll struggle but am hoping her price comes in a bit.
A betting question please.
Punters on here often cite that the odds on something are too long - eg 89/1 and the reality is say, 20/1. This makes is a value bet and it seems people take it.
Why? I understand that occasionally these bets come off and win big. But surely there is finite limit to the attractiveness of this kind of strategy? A point past which the even if the odds are considered value, it is too unlikely to come off?
For example - I could possibly have had 50 or 100 bets in the election where a candidate was priced at 100-1 but the reality was shorter. Had I put 10 quid on each I'm pretty sure I'd be a grand down at the end.
You may also be interested in the Kelly Criterion - even if you do have an "edge" and have correctly identified a value bet, it's still possible to cock things up badly. An important decision is what proportion of your pot to stake on each bet, which partly depends on how big an edge you think you have and partly on your probability of winning. The Kelly-optimal bet when you have no identified edge is not to gamble at all.
In one study, each participant was given $25 and asked to bet on a coin that would land heads 60% of the time. Participants had 30 minutes to play, so could place about 300 bets, and the prizes were capped at $250. The behavior of the test subjects was far from optimal:
Remarkably, 28% of the participants went bust, and the average payout was just $91. Only 21% of the participants reached the maximum. 18 of the 61 participants bet everything on one toss, while two-thirds gambled on tails at some stage in the experiment.
Using the Kelly criterion and based on the odds in the experiment (ignoring the cap of $250 and the finite duration of the test), the right approach would be to bet 20% of the pot on each toss of the coin (see first example below). If losing, the size of the bet gets cut; if winning, the stake increases. If the bettors had followed this rule (assuming that bets have infinite granularity and there up to 300 coin tosses per game and that a player who reaches the cap would stop betting after that), an average of 94% of them would have reached the cap, and the average payout would be $237.36.
The Kelly criterion runs heavily into allowed stake limits
The Tories won, the potential Corbyn Sturgeon Government was defeated
Strange, nairy a mention of Corbyn in wee Annie's tweet.
It was a Westminster election not a Holyrood election
Oh, in that case the Scottish Government already have a Mandate for SindyRef2.
Cue the grinding of gears as folk (with whom it actually has fuck all to do) recalibrate other 'reasons' for no indyref II.
The manifesto of the party that won the UK General Election:
Twelve years of SNP government have led to an obsessive focus on independence – all while Scotland’s public services and its economy have been neglected. So long as the SNP are in power, Scottish schools and hospitals will always take second place to the pursuit of another independence referendum.
We are opposed to a second independence referendum and stand with the majority of people in Scotland, who do not want to return to division and uncertainty. Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP promised that the 2014 referendum would be a ‘once in a generation’ vote and the result was decisive. We believe that outcome should be respected.
Indeed. @Theuniondivvie seems to be in some bizarre parallel universe where Sturgeon's side won rather than lost the UK General Election.
The Tories won, the potential Corbyn Sturgeon Government was defeated
Strange, nairy a mention of Corbyn in wee Annie's tweet.
It was a Westminster election not a Holyrood election
Oh, in that case the Scottish Government already have a Mandate for SindyRef2.
Cue the grinding of gears as folk (with whom it actually has fuck all to do) recalibrate other 'reasons' for no indyref II.
The manifesto of the party that won the UK General Election:
Twelve years of SNP government have led to an obsessive focus on independence – all while Scotland’s public services and its economy have been neglected. So long as the SNP are in power, Scottish schools and hospitals will always take second place to the pursuit of another independence referendum.
We are opposed to a second independence referendum and stand with the majority of people in Scotland, who do not want to return to division and uncertainty. Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP promised that the 2014 referendum would be a ‘once in a generation’ vote and the result was decisive. We believe that outcome should be respected.
I see the fuck all to do with it folk are starting a wee choir. How festive!
Remind me how that 'gloriously unspecific' manifesto went down in Scotland?
In an interview with the BBC in September, due to be broadcast on Tuesday evening, the shadow foreign secretary said a neutral position would "make it more difficult" to win an election.
"What worries me is that every single interview he does will all be about Brexit," she told the BBC documentary, The Brexit Storm Continues.
Which of the Labour leader candidates is most likely to put aside tribalism and work with the lib Dems and Greens
I'm not sure what's in it for the Lib Dems to be honest. Anyone up for election night on PB will remember someone - I presumed it to be a troll - arguing the Lib Dems should disband themselves because otherwise they're basically Tories. Well...
"The Lib Dems helped the Tories to victory again. Now they should disband" - Simon Jenkins
The party’s only achievement was to split the vote. It should now merge with Labour and become a moderate influence
Seems we were actually getting a visitation from Simon Jenkins as he drafted his post-mortem column!
The argument "Lib Dems and Labour should put tribalism aside and work together" is making a similar mistake (IMO) as the one that says "Lib Dems should just disband". It assumes the LDs are just there for Labour's benefit, and they basically have the same values and programme. That's not true, and many wouldn't vote for the LDs if they were seen as nothing more than an orange version of the Cooperative Party.
Moreover, the LDs have always been a "building project" - activists grinding away to build up bases in constituencies scattered across the country. Once a concentration of support emerges, it may eventually culminate in an MP ... but at the same time, they're running against a treadmill as existing power bases can deteriorate and rapidly blow away with the political wind:
Anyone else noticed that of the eight seats won by the LibDems in 2015 six have now been lost:
Carshalton Ceredigion Leeds NW Norfolk N Sheffield Hallam Southport
And in Ceredigion, Leeds NW and Southport the LibDems are now in a very poor third place.
Constituencies where the LDs are big enough to have a "spoiler" effect and Labour would like them to stand down, are exactly the kind of place the LDs are working on "turning" into a seat in 10 years' time or so. If you look at their history, when incumbent parties have been smashed (as happened to many Tories in '97 and Labour in '10), the LDs have often moved past them into 2nd place at the next election then gone on to convert the seat later. Seats liable to change hands and where LDs are in a good 3rd place are extremely valuable to them.
Do we think McDonnell really didn't have a clue? Did they not do any internal polling? We know Ed Miliband internal polling was so wrong, they honestly thought they were in with a shout.
I still can't quite work out what both leaders were doing in the final week of the campaign.
Boris was out there grafting and winning in his hi-viz coat. Corbyn, err?
Punters on here often cite that the odds on something are too long - eg 89/1 and the reality is say, 20/1. This makes is a value bet and it seems people take it.
Why? I understand that occasionally these bets come off and win big. But surely there is finite limit to the attractiveness of this kind of strategy? A point past which the even if the odds are considered value, it is too unlikely to come off?
For example - I could possibly have had 50 or 100 bets in the election where a candidate was priced at 100-1 but the reality was shorter. Had I put 10 quid on each I'm pretty sure I'd be a grand down at the end.
You may also be interested in the Kelly Criterion - even if you do have an "edge" and have correctly identified a value bet, it's still possible to cock things up badly. An important decision is what proportion of your pot to stake on each bet, which partly depends on how big an edge you think you have and partly on your probability of winning. The Kelly-optimal bet when you have no identified edge is not to gamble at all.
In one study, each participant was given $25 and asked to bet on a coin that would land heads 60% of the time. Participants had 30 minutes to play, so could place about 300 bets, and the prizes were capped at $250. The behavior of the test subjects was far from optimal:
Remarkably, 28% of the participants went bust, and the average payout was just $91. Only 21% of the participants reached the maximum. 18 of the 61 participants bet everything on one toss, while two-thirds gambled on tails at some stage in the experiment.
Using the Kelly criterion and based on the odds in the experiment (ignoring the cap of $250 and the finite duration of the test), the right approach would be to bet 20% of the pot on each toss of the coin (see first example below). If losing, the size of the bet gets cut; if winning, the stake increases. If the bettors had followed this rule (assuming that bets have infinite granularity and there up to 300 coin tosses per game and that a player who reaches the cap would stop betting after that), an average of 94% of them would have reached the cap, and the average payout would be $237.36.
The Kelly criterion runs heavily into allowed stake limits
Yes I intended to mention this then forgot - very important in practice. My main point was that even if you believe you've found a bunch of value bets, it's not guaranteed you're going to make a killing - in fact Robin's intuition that if you split your bankroll and bet on a whole bunch of good-value long-shots you're likely to go bust was fundamentally correct. Just wanted to show him the theoretical way of analysing it from that perspective.
On the Lab leadership election, Thornberry is out at 89/1. That looks too long. I'm not so sure she has given up. I think she'll struggle but am hoping her price comes in a bit.
A betting question please.
Punters on here often cite that the odds on something are too long - eg 89/1 and the reality is say, 20/1. This makes is a value bet and it seems people take it.
Why? I understand that occasionally these bets come off and win big. But surely there is finite limit to the attractiveness of this kind of strategy? A point past which the even if the odds are considered value, it is too unlikely to come off?
For example - I could possibly have had 50 or 100 bets in the election where a candidate was priced at 100-1 but the reality was shorter. Had I put 10 quid on each I'm pretty sure I'd be a grand down at the end.
No. Individually a value bet will fail but if you put on sufficient independent bets that are value then you will win.
If you place 100 £10 bets at 100/1 where the value is really 20/1 then afterwards . . .
95% of the bets should lose: 95 * £10 = £950 lost 5% of the bets should win: 5 * £1000 won plus stakes back = £5000 won
So net you would be up £4050 net profit!
Also, if you use Betfair Exchange you should be able to profit on some of the unlikely candidates starting to look less unlikely, and can lay them off (or wait to see if they improve further), so you don't need to wait as long as if you only cash on winners. But of course you do need confidence that you know more than the market and enough cash to cover the string of losses that you'll probably have before you strike lucky.
The Tories won, the potential Corbyn Sturgeon Government was defeated
Strange, nairy a mention of Corbyn in wee Annie's tweet.
It was a Westminster election not a Holyrood election
Oh, in that case the Scottish Government already have a Mandate for SindyRef2.
Cue the grinding of gears as folk (with whom it actually has fuck all to do) recalibrate other 'reasons' for no indyref II.
The manifesto of the party that won the UK General Election:
Twelve years of SNP government have led to an obsessive focus on independence – all while Scotland’s public services and its economy have been neglected. So long as the SNP are in power, Scottish schools and hospitals will always take second place to the pursuit of another independence referendum.
We are opposed to a second independence referendum and stand with the majority of people in Scotland, who do not want to return to division and uncertainty. Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP promised that the 2014 referendum would be a ‘once in a generation’ vote and the result was decisive. We believe that outcome should be respected.
I see the fuck all to do with it folk are starting a wee choir. How festive!
Remind me how that 'gloriously unspecific' manifesto went down in Scotland?
Remind me when Scotland voted to become an independent country?
This was a UK General Election and this is a UK matter and they won a UK majority for that. If Scotland wanted to make independent decisions it should have become an independent country, shouldn't it?
The Tories won, the potential Corbyn Sturgeon Government was defeated
Strange, nairy a mention of Corbyn in wee Annie's tweet.
It was a Westminster election not a Holyrood election
Oh, in that case the Scottish Government already have a Mandate for SindyRef2.
Cue the grinding of gears as folk (with whom it actually has fuck all to do) recalibrate other 'reasons' for no indyref II.
The manifesto of the party that won the UK General Election:
Twelve years of SNP government have led to an obsessive focus on independence – all while Scotland’s public services and its economy have been neglected. So long as the SNP are in power, Scottish schools and hospitals will always take second place to the pursuit of another independence referendum.
We are opposed to a second independence referendum and stand with the majority of people in Scotland, who do not want to return to division and uncertainty. Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP promised that the 2014 referendum would be a ‘once in a generation’ vote and the result was decisive. We believe that outcome should be respected.
I see the fuck all to do with it folk are starting a wee choir. How festive!
Remind me how that 'gloriously unspecific' manifesto went down in Scotland?
45% voted for the SNP.....long ago and far away "no referendum before support consistently above 60%"
Which of the Labour leader candidates is most likely to put aside tribalism and work with the lib Dems and Greens
I'm not sure what's in it for the Lib Dems to be honest. Anyone up for election night on PB will remember someone - I presumed it to be a troll - arguing the Lib Dems should disband themselves because otherwise they're basically Tories. Well...
"The Lib Dems helped the Tories to victory again. Now they should disband" - Simon Jenkins
The party’s only achievement was to split the vote. It should now merge with Labour and become a moderate influence
Seems we were actually getting a visitation from Simon Jenkins as he drafted his post-mortem column!
The argument "Lib Dems and Labour should put tribalism aside and work together" is making a similar mistake (IMO) as the one that says "Lib Dems should just disband". It assumes the LDs are just there for Labour's benefit, and they basically have the same values and programme. That's not true, and many wouldn't vote for the LDs if they were seen as nothing more than an orange version of the Cooperative Party.
Moreover, the LDs have always been a "building project" - activists grinding away to build up bases in constituencies scattered across the country. Once a concentration of support emerges, it may eventually culminate in an MP ... but at the same time, they're running against a treadmill as existing power bases can deteriorate and rapidly blow away with the political wind:
Anyone else noticed that of the eight seats won by the LibDems in 2015 six have now been lost:
Carshalton Ceredigion Leeds NW Norfolk N Sheffield Hallam Southport
And in Ceredigion, Leeds NW and Southport the LibDems are now in a very poor third place.
Constituencies where the LDs are big enough to have a "spoiler" effect and Labour would like them to stand down, are exactly the kind of place the LDs are working on "turning" into a seat in 10 years' time or so. If you look at their history, when incumbent parties have been smashed (as happened to many Tories in '97 and Labour in '10), the LDs have often moved past them into 2nd place at the next election then gone on to convert the seat later. Seats liable to change hands and where LDs are in a good 3rd place are extremely valuable to them.
Seems a sensible summation to me. I particularly agree with the inference that Labour should help itself rather than look to the LibDems (or anyone else),
Comments
So no incentive to put up with a Sammy Wilson speech on the parliament channel any more.
We therefore arent getting 70k more police and nurses without continued high levels of immigration. As plenty of people (not all) equate Brexit with low immigration that is the biggest challenge on your list.
https://twitter.com/AnnieWellsMSP/status/1204730398967816193?s=20
As much as I dislike him and his politics, I think he deserves one based on the current selection criteria.
They’re not exactly shy about it.
Same thing happened to Boris, he moved odds on before all the first round candidates declared before moving odds against at the off.
There’ll almost certainly be “a” deal, even if it falls way short of a comprehensive FTA and economically isn’t far off being as disruptive as No Deal.
I think immigration is essentially resolved as a political issue by Brexit and ending FoM - as the practical impact on the ground in northern constituencies is frequently negligible.
If uncontrolled FoM is replaced by some kind of points-based systems that ensures "high value" immigration continues (in terms of meeting our skills gaps) and is under democratic control, then I think the issue is one that is ticked off for most pro and anti-immigration voters.
Perhaps Prince Andrew's rehabilitation can involve him being the one that does the knighting?
Rayner preferred as Deputy
https://labourlist.org/2019/12/long-bailey-and-rayner-picked-for-top-jobs-by-labourlist-readers/
a) Racist
b) Secretly posh
c) Transphobic
No, really.
18-31
32-46
47-61
62+
This would make it much easier to see if a Lab lead in one age group was cancelled out by a Con lead in another!
If the age groups were collapsed to slightly tidier numbers, then
18-34
35-49
50-64
65+
Wouldn't be a bad shout - too many people in the lower age groups, too few in the higher age group, but once you weight these by the turnout in each group then I suspect (I should check the figures really) the number of actual votes would be rather closer to equal between groups.
I am no expert, but I imagine the FTA negotiations will be significantly about balancing the extent of UK access to the single market with the extent of free movement of labour after Brexit.
Presumably the pivot from the UK will be to have some form of limit/skills assessment for a degree of "freer" movement, in return for more access to the SM. But it will be an interesting balancing act.
I'm not so sure she has given up. I think she'll struggle but am hoping her price comes in a bit.
A sinking pound (Corbynomics style) leading to Stagflation would be awful. But we have inflation consistently at or even below target currently so there is no worry there for me as it stands. And I've consistently said the same thing thank you very much.
https://twitter.com/bbckirstenc/status/1206931165749432326?s=20
Can't we do a little better than this?
Stugeon would have won if she had enough MPs to demand a referendum from Corbyn as price for making him PM. She doesn't.
Punters on here often cite that the odds on something are too long - eg 89/1 and the reality is say, 20/1. This makes is a value bet and it seems people take it.
Why? I understand that occasionally these bets come off and win big. But surely there is finite limit to the attractiveness of this kind of strategy? A point past which the even if the odds are considered value, it is too unlikely to come off?
For example - I could possibly have had 50 or 100 bets in the election where a candidate was priced at 100-1 but the reality was shorter. Had I put 10 quid on each I'm pretty sure I'd be a grand down at the end.
Weird how we all know each other's views on all kind of policy minutiae, yet I have to confess I've often got no idea what our actual politicians (i.e. the ones whose views genuinely matter on any of this stuff) think about most of them. Even when they say something in public you rarely know if it's just "party line" stuff, or in the context of a leadership election, nothing more than a pitch for potential followers than a deeply-held conviction.
Sturgeon's side lost. She got MPs but not enough to put Corbyn into Downing Street. Oh diddums.
Nobody mentions Johnson's hair, or Cameron getting a bit chubby let alone the colour of the orange turd across the pond do they?
Is Betfair favourite a position of political power?!
Anyway, saying a politician of either sex has a small mouth and looks miserable is hardly outrageous, I’d not get too wound up about it
A lot of the near minimum wages that actually have to be done are paid for by the taxpayer, directly or indirectly. So increasing wages for those faster than the private sector will mean tax rises.
Value betting on independent events is, in the long run, a guaranteed money maker.
The difficulty is estimating the true odds and bankroll management.
@AlastairMeeks made so much money in 2015 because pre IndyRef in 2014 he spotted the true odds on SNP constituency odds were way out of line with reality.
They had been priced as if no IndyRef was taking place.
But if you win one of those bets, you'll break even.
And if you win two or more, you'll win money.
Edit to add: you may well run out of money before you get a positive expected return, particularly if the odds are very, very long.
But in practice - if you're losing money, it's very likely going to be because you're bad at betting, not that you're unlucky and in the long run things will come around.
If you place 100 £10 bets at 100/1 where the value is really 20/1 then afterwards . . .
95% of the bets should lose: 95 * £10 = £950 lost
5% of the bets should win: 5 * £1000 won plus stakes back = £5000 won
So net you would be up £4050 net profit!
I still can't quite work out what both leaders were doing in the final week of the campaign.
Keir Starmer probably. Maybe Lisa Nandy. Not RLB as she will be more along the "one more Heave for true socialism" lines. Jess Philips strikes me as "tribal" Labour so not sure.
Layla Moran for the Lib Dems seems very much open to some sort of truce with Labour.
In one study, each participant was given $25 and asked to bet on a coin that would land heads 60% of the time. Participants had 30 minutes to play, so could place about 300 bets, and the prizes were capped at $250. The behavior of the test subjects was far from optimal:
Remarkably, 28% of the participants went bust, and the average payout was just $91. Only 21% of the participants reached the maximum. 18 of the 61 participants bet everything on one toss, while two-thirds gambled on tails at some stage in the experiment.
Using the Kelly criterion and based on the odds in the experiment (ignoring the cap of $250 and the finite duration of the test), the right approach would be to bet 20% of the pot on each toss of the coin (see first example below). If losing, the size of the bet gets cut; if winning, the stake increases. If the bettors had followed this rule (assuming that bets have infinite granularity and there up to 300 coin tosses per game and that a player who reaches the cap would stop betting after that), an average of 94% of them would have reached the cap, and the average payout would be $237.36.
"He's [Ian Blackford] probably the only SNP MP who has reason to be grateful for a Tory majority," said a Whitehall insider.
https://news.sky.com/story/snp-mp-blackford-rings-up-payday-from-telecoms-sale-11885740
Milne is one of the people most responsible for Labour’s mess.
All the hypothetical arguments are moot when your side lost the election UK-wide and this is a UK-wide decision to be made.
Twelve years of SNP government have led to an obsessive focus on independence – all while Scotland’s public services and its economy have been neglected. So long as the SNP are in power, Scottish schools and hospitals will always take second place to the pursuit of another independence referendum.
We are opposed to a second independence referendum and stand with the majority of people in Scotland, who do not want to return to division and uncertainty. Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP promised that the 2014 referendum would be a ‘once in a generation’ vote and the result was decisive. We believe that outcome should be respected.
It seems to be a successful gambler, aside from successfully spotting lots of value bets and being able to assess realistic probability of events occurring, you need to have a large wallet and lots of time?
If part of a body politic does not vote for something it does not have to be "imprisoned against its will" and "ripped out of the EU UK?
So, for example, if Orkney & Shetland vote against Leaving the UK, they shouldn't have to?
Remind me how that 'gloriously unspecific' manifesto went down in Scotland?
"What worries me is that every single interview he does will all be about Brexit," she told the BBC documentary, The Brexit Storm Continues.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/12/17/emily-thornberry-warned-corbyns-neutral-brexit-stance-pre-election/
Is that because so many of the voters are thick?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/16/lib-dems-tories-split-vote-labour
"The Lib Dems helped the Tories to victory again. Now they should disband" - Simon Jenkins
The party’s only achievement was to split the vote. It should now merge with Labour and become a moderate influence
Seems we were actually getting a visitation from Simon Jenkins as he drafted his post-mortem column!
The argument "Lib Dems and Labour should put tribalism aside and work together" is making a similar mistake (IMO) as the one that says "Lib Dems should just disband". It assumes the LDs are just there for Labour's benefit, and they basically have the same values and programme. That's not true, and many wouldn't vote for the LDs if they were seen as nothing more than an orange version of the Cooperative Party.
Moreover, the LDs have always been a "building project" - activists grinding away to build up bases in constituencies scattered across the country. Once a concentration of support emerges, it may eventually culminate in an MP ... but at the same time, they're running against a treadmill as existing power bases can deteriorate and rapidly blow away with the political wind: Constituencies where the LDs are big enough to have a "spoiler" effect and Labour would like them to stand down, are exactly the kind of place the LDs are working on "turning" into a seat in 10 years' time or so. If you look at their history, when incumbent parties have been smashed (as happened to many Tories in '97 and Labour in '10), the LDs have often moved past them into 2nd place at the next election then gone on to convert the seat later. Seats liable to change hands and where LDs are in a good 3rd place are extremely valuable to them.
This was a UK General Election and this is a UK matter and they won a UK majority for that. If Scotland wanted to make independent decisions it should have become an independent country, shouldn't it?
https://twitter.com/1SVN/status/1206882259560812544?s=20
How's Nicola's 'Top Brexit' going?
https://twitter.com/dhothersall/status/1206594147001483269?s=20