politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Marf…on the day James Murdoch stepped aside

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Marf…on the day James Murdoch stepped aside

politicalbetting.com is proudly powered by WordPress with "Neat!" theme. Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).

Read the full story here

Mexicanpete

First

Philip_Thompson

FPT

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

ydoethur said:

kinabalu said:

Casino_Royale said:

IshmaelZ said:

I give it a couple of months, and I think Jenrick and corruption will be major factors.

Corruption, self-interest, incompetence, bad economy, "time for a change".. decent Labour leader etc.

Remind you of something?

It could be a solid Labour win in 2024 (not a landslide, because.. culture wars) but very solid - say, 350 seats or so.

Yep. The ruling out of a Labour majority I often come across is imo stale thinking.

To get a majority of one Starmer needs to make a net gain of 124 seats.

To put that in context, only one party has gained that many seats at a single election since the Second World War - Tony Blair in 1997, who gained 145.

It has only happened twice more in the age of universal suffrage - in 1931, when the Conservatives gained 210 seats, and 1945 (during the war but very near the end of it) when Labour gained 239 seats.

That is not to say it is impossible. This government is already a shambles and the shit has yet to really hit the fan. Starmer, meanwhile, is exuding calm competence, moderation and dignity.

It is however going to be bloody difficult and Starmer would be wise not to raise any expectations he will struggle to meet.

Well it's 3.25 on Betfair. In English that is "deemed quite likely" - which is how I would put it if I hadn't looked up the odds first. I'm not backing it right now, tbf, but neither am I laying it.

Is 3.25 "quite likely"?

I may not be understanding the way it works right but I thought that was a 30% chance which is certainly quite possible but not quite likely.

If someone said that for instance in the Liverpool v Aston Villa game there was a 70% chance of a Liverpool victory then I wouldn't say it had been "deemed quite likely" that Liverpool would drop points against Villa even if its certainly quite possible.

Well I would go with -

10% - unlikely
30% - quite likely
50% - likely
75% - very likely

I wouldn't.

I'd think "quite likely" is more likely than merely "likely" but not as likely as "very likely".

So it's good we've had this exchange because we now know that we use the word "likely" in a different way. Also the word "quite" - where I maintain you are being exotic and niche. It is normally a qualifier which mutes an adjective rather than amplifies it.

For example, "Marti Pellow is a good singer. Ronan Keating is quite a good singer."

If someone says this, I would suggest that they consider Pellow to be a better singer than Keating. Per you, it's the other way around.

That's odd. It's not going on the list, but it is odd.

Quite is defined as adding emphasis not as a diminutive but less emphasis than eg very. So someone being a quite good singer (odd phrase) is better than a good sing but not quite a very good singer. It should go likely < quite likely < very likely.

Philip_Thompson

@Charles I'm surprised to see you getting hung up on the "once in a generation" remark by Salmond like HYUFD does.

Do you agree with the principle that no Parliament can bind its successor? Do you agree that no PM/FM can bind their successors?

Constitutionally Johnson isn't bound by comments May made. Sturgeon isn't bound by comments Salmond made.

isam

Philip_Thompson said:

@Charles I'm surprised to see you getting hung up on the "once in a generation" remark by Salmond like HYUFD does.

Do you agree with the principle that no Parliament can bind its successor? Do you agree that no PM/FM can bind their successors?

Constitutionally Johnson isn't bound by comments May made. Sturgeon isn't bound by comments Salmond made.

How can the decison to Leave the EU not annul promises/pledges made in the IndyRef? It seems clear as crystal that there are grounds for another one

ydoethur

A James Murdoch story wasn't top of mind for a thread header.

dixiedean

Philip_Thompson said:

FPT

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

ydoethur said:

kinabalu said:

Casino_Royale said:

IshmaelZ said:

I give it a couple of months, and I think Jenrick and corruption will be major factors.

Corruption, self-interest, incompetence, bad economy, "time for a change".. decent Labour leader etc.

Remind you of something?

It could be a solid Labour win in 2024 (not a landslide, because.. culture wars) but very solid - say, 350 seats or so.

Yep. The ruling out of a Labour majority I often come across is imo stale thinking.

To get a majority of one Starmer needs to make a net gain of 124 seats.

To put that in context, only one party has gained that many seats at a single election since the Second World War - Tony Blair in 1997, who gained 145.

It has only happened twice more in the age of universal suffrage - in 1931, when the Conservatives gained 210 seats, and 1945 (during the war but very near the end of it) when Labour gained 239 seats.

That is not to say it is impossible. This government is already a shambles and the shit has yet to really hit the fan. Starmer, meanwhile, is exuding calm competence, moderation and dignity.

It is however going to be bloody difficult and Starmer would be wise not to raise any expectations he will struggle to meet.

Well it's 3.25 on Betfair. In English that is "deemed quite likely" - which is how I would put it if I hadn't looked up the odds first. I'm not backing it right now, tbf, but neither am I laying it.

Is 3.25 "quite likely"?

I may not be understanding the way it works right but I thought that was a 30% chance which is certainly quite possible but not quite likely.

If someone said that for instance in the Liverpool v Aston Villa game there was a 70% chance of a Liverpool victory then I wouldn't say it had been "deemed quite likely" that Liverpool would drop points against Villa even if its certainly quite possible.

Well I would go with -

10% - unlikely
30% - quite likely
50% - likely
75% - very likely

I wouldn't.

I'd think "quite likely" is more likely than merely "likely" but not as likely as "very likely".

So it's good we've had this exchange because we now know that we use the word "likely" in a different way. Also the word "quite" - where I maintain you are being exotic and niche. It is normally a qualifier which mutes an adjective rather than amplifies it.

For example, "Marti Pellow is a good singer. Ronan Keating is quite a good singer."

If someone says this, I would suggest that they consider Pellow to be a better singer than Keating. Per you, it's the other way around.

That's odd. It's not going on the list, but it is odd.

Quite is defined as adding emphasis not as a diminutive but less emphasis than eg very. So someone being a quite good singer (odd phrase) is better than a good sing but not quite a very good singer. It should go likely < quite likely < very

This is a NA English modifier difference. Quite is close to very in NA. An intensifier.
In British English it is a softener.
No idea about Oz, but maybe this is where the confusion lies.
Tell an American and an English girl you think they are quite good looking and see which works.

ydoethur

There are two threads running in parallel. THis is deeply confusing.

CorrectHorseBattery

Labour minority Government seems like an astute bet

ydoethur

Hey guys, this is the wrong thread. Check out this one:

https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/07/04/biden-77yo-just-beating-trump-74yo-as-having-the-mental-and-physical-stamina-to-be-president/