Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The PB 2013 Prediction Competition Results
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The PB 2013 Prediction Competition Results
Compared to the busy 2012, 2013 was a fairly quiet year, and not a great one for betting, as Our Genial Host has pointed out. There were just three UK by-elections, but of more significance was UKIP’s strong showing in the May locals. Abroad, Israel, Italy, Iran, Australia, and Germany were probably the most noteworthy elections.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
A worthy winner and smart arse. ; )
It is just a suggestion to separate domestic and international politics for next year as it is just guesswork to decide who comes to power in countries one is not familiar with.
I don't think it's anything to do with the site admins.
(*) Latest Chrome on Win7.
Can anyone enlighten me whatever happened to that?
I've got a nice skewed arb going with it and Betfair ^^
Edit; Skybet's price has gone.
He is available at 10-1 on Stan James though, layable at 6.4 with Betfair.
from a couple of threads ago
You said that the uk would be insane to start a sovereign wealth fund until debt to GDP is at a reasonable level.
One of the reasons that Norway's works so well is that a proportion of oil revenues flow directly into the fund and the politicians can only spend the 3.5% presumed surplus each year.
If there was a way to set the fund up, protect it from greedy politicians and build the political consensus to leave it there to fructate that would be great. Essentially a way to get revenues out of politicians hands. You can then use it to invest in infrastructure and/or venture projects (like Investinor) or support local businesses like FSI.
Edit: appreciate v difficult in parliamentary system w/o written constitution
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25612369
In other news, bears do defecate in the woods.
Pretty happy to be in the top 20. Not sure where I got last time, but I think it was about the same.
Mr. Jessop, well, quite.
I've done a quick calculation using Ashcroft's poll. If the Tories election performance replicated this poll (63% of 2010 Tories plus 6.1% of all voters switching), the total of remaining 2010 Tory voters (6.75m) plus switchers (1.8m) would give a total of 8.55 million on the same turnout as 2010.
Needless to say that would be the second lowest Tory figure at an election since the introduction of universal suffrage. Reduce the turnout to 2001 levels and the Tories would be back within 40,000 votes of their 2001 performance.
The other thing of trivia interest is that it suggests at this point that Cameron has lost 4 million of his 2010 voters. What is it with Tory Prime Ministers and losing 4 million votes these days?
"@LordAshcroft POLL
VOTER INCOME OVER 41K
#LABOUR 40.48%
#CONSERVATIVES 39.65%
#UKIP 11.79%
#LIBDEMS 8.08%"
twitter.com/UKELECTIONS2015/statuses/419798984111050752
From Wiki: Where did his nephew go wrong... ;-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Elton
Anyone know if Allardyce is going to get the sack, or has got the sack?
It's all very well owning the aircraft, but where do you think they're currently serviced, and by whom? Will Scotland build the necessary maintenance infrastructure from scratch, up north? Renegotiating any existing agreements with third party, private contractors will be interesting too. And then there's pilot retention and training. Plus ground staff. How many of those already based in Scotland are local, or would choose to stay in a depleted air force? Factor in the economy of scale for spares and everything else and those planes will become unaffordable.
I'd suggest that this is a good starting point with regard to Scottish armed forces, post (hypothetical) independence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_Forces_(Ireland)
Populations and GDP are similar.
You didn't win the "posh fop" word count tho......do you think that might be related?
"LORD ASHCROFT POLL
WORKING VOTER
LAB 46%
CON 31%
UKIP 14%
LD 9%
NON WORKING VOTER (INC RETIRED)
LAB 38%
CON 32%
UKIP 21%
LD 9%"
twitter.com/UKELECTIONS2015/status/419819129747427330
Get this into your little heads. Gove is a vote loser Hunt is a vote winner and you know it.
John Nettles might be most famous for Bergerac but that doesn't make him an expert on Jersey law enforcement.
If a policing scandal erupted in the Channel Islands today, do you think the first thought of the editor of the Jersey Evening Post would be to 'phone up Nettles and ask for his comment? Do you think Nettles would be picking up the 'phone to the Guardian to offer it unsolicited?
Of course not. Robinson was a two-bit actor in a defunct series who had a running gag of being stupid and smelly. On that basis Worzel Gummidge has a valid view on the CAP.
Arf.
@TFS Gove was criticising the *use* made of the programme, not Blackadder itself
Speaking of historians, I think there's an Egyptian series starting at 9pm on Thursday (BBC4). I'm sure I've seen the chap doing it before. Probably did the Roman art double-parter.
I still don't think you can criticise Robinson too much. He's a "Labour Grandee", and Baldrick is the only thing he's gonna get remembered for, so he's bound to try and stick the boot into a Tory minister.
It showed an ignorance both of the Great War and of the historians who have written about the event over the last 70 years.
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Blueprint-4-Full-tables.pdf
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25614562
The only reason the pensioners are getting guaranteed 2.5%increase in pensions is because they vote.And people say there is no use in casting a vote.
For the record, having met Robinson on a couple of occasions and worked on a couple of Time Team digs I can safely say I can't stand the guy personally or politically. But the one thing he and the team did do was to transform archaeology in Britain over the last couple of decades in a hugely positive way. After Mrs Thatcher he is probably the most important non-archaeologist to have changed the subject in the post war period.
Time Team's magic was in the ensemble cast of archaeologists, especially Phil Harding and Mick Aston, along with Ainsworth and Gater. People (excluding Aston for the obvious, sad reason) who I'd happily go down to the pub for a pint with.
The series went downhill slightly when they tampered with that cast.
Oh, and Francis Pryor has a good blog if you're a Fenlander, a pleasant mix of archaeology and gardening. I got one of his books for Christmas, but it's still on my to-read pile.
http://pryorfrancis.wordpress.com/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10552055/Nigel-Farage-the-basic-principle-of-Enoch-Powells-River-of-Blood-speech-is-right.html
Socrates. Missed you terribly old chap.
:-)
That said, I may stay away during the week to maintain my newfound productivity!
Anyone wishing to understand the motivation behind that speech should watch his hour long interview/argument with David Frost. Its on youtube and is a must see for anyone interested in politics, especially the subject of immigration
It also makes it easy for the Tories to get on his back about racism and painting UKIP as BNP-lite. Farage might think that is an advantage as it feeds into his "LibLabCon are all crap" world-view, but it will turn a lot of UKIP-leaning Tories off. Depends on how hard the Tories go on this, if Crosby gets involved Farage may have to make a u-turn on it or backtrack/clarify.
Unfortunate though it is, we should be making no promises whatsoever on pensions. The unfunded liabilities are very much a danger. Such unfunded promises really can't be allowed to drag down the financial position of the currently productive members of society. The risks of all this are small (I hope), but surely in an age of the OBR we should expect some self-imposed responsibility in terms of political promises of the financial kind.
One can only hope that the motivation behind this promise is simply electioneering of the simple-minded kind, rather than and attempt to lure Labour into something that will make their usual financial disaster all the more so if they are elected.
Tory though I am (and I generally like Cameron) this seems really quite stupid.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=R1_YEYOWYk8
Perfectly reasonable IMO.
He was asked / tricked into agreeing with a statement that he was obviously going to agree with, then horror of horrors, it turned out to be from...
...the cleverest politician of the last 50 years!
Most people who might / do vote UKIP would agree with it as well I would think
What it should do is show how far away from the NF Enoch Powell was. The NF base their opposition to immigration on the belief that non whites are inferior to whites. Enoch Powell never said anything of the sort, and almost certainly never believed it.
So sad that his name is bandied around with the likes of Nick Griffin and the National Front.
Farage has long been an Enoch fan, he wrote about him quite a lot in his book "Flying Free".
Until recently I hadn't appreciated how unfairly Powell has been treated by posterity. His famous speech has almost become a by-word for racism. I've always known that this was overblown, and that he was trying to express a difficult idea and didn't manage to negotiate the minefield. What I hadn't appreciated was what a remarkably clever and generally wise man he was.
I think we've just written the Labour manifesto.
makes you wonder
* some agency staff are paid less than employees, some more, depending on the industry
* in any case you can't pay less than the minimum wage
* if you are recruiting only from Romania, say, that is prima facie indirect racial discrimination and the Government should not be "working with businesses" it should be reporting them to the appropriate prosecuting authority.
So it seems like a load of hot air from ed Milli.
the 3 month rule for Roms and Bulgs was worse than not having any rules at all.
It was clearly a sop by someone who wanted there to be no rules at all, but was backed into a corner.
It would have been a Labour nomination to the relevant committee as you well know.
You just need to find the right spark to set off the inferno - job for a fireman ;-)
But I don't believe he was motivated by racism. He made a judgement on human nature, namely that injecting legislation into an atmosphere already filled with anxiety over immigration would cause an explosion of feelings, and the best way to avoid that was to limit the number of immigrants.
He used examples of racial tension at the time to illustrate how bad it already was in places like Wolverhampton, illustrations that needed to be drawn to luvvies who thought mass immigration was a great idea as it didn't affect them.
Have you seen the Frost interview? Its fantastic viewing
37/35/12/9
http://www.populus.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Online-VI-23-12-2013-3.pdf
In my heart of hearts I only really thought "II" was funny