Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Independence Referendum turnout betting
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Independence Referendum turnout betting
That said, given the epochal nature of the upcoming referendum, I can see the arguments for turnout being higher than the 2010 General election turnout.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
surbiton said:
» show previous quotes
Neil said:
surbiton said:
When a party is doing well in the polls, detractors usually point out that a poll is not real votes. When a party does well in real elections, detractors say............[ type in whatever you fancy ]
Labour's not doing that well in real elections. 29% projected national vote share in May wasnt fantastic.
Can you please tell us how the 100% were made up then ?
Tories c. 25%
UKIP c. 22%
Lib Dems c. 14%
---------
So, you forgot to say, a 6% swing to Labour from 2010 enough for an absolute majority.
Betting PostBacked Hamilton for the win at 3.9, hedged at 1.5: http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/belgium-pre-race.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-13305522
Breaking news
Medecins Sans Frontieres says it treated about 3,600 patients with 'neurotoxic symptoms' in Syria, of whom 355 died
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23827950
When he volunteered as judge at a charity dog show he probably didn't count on the contestants taking his comments personally.
But animal loving former MP Lembit Opik found himself needing medical attention after an irate sausage dog launched itself at him and bit his privates.
Good humoured Mr Opik, who was once engaged to Cheeky Girl Gabriella Irimia laughed off the encounter but friends claim it left him in pain and struggling to walk.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2401356/Ex-MP-Lembit-Opik-bitten-GROIN-sausage-dog.html#ixzz2ctyJcwht
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
She was married to Hugh Fraser (a Lovat Fraser).
But I'm evolved enough to believe that women can have political views that diverge from those of their husbands
I'm not sure there are any Scottish nationalists around to troll right now. You might be better off trying later.
Unfortunately they severely limit my stakes these days, since my 2011 Holyrood wins.
Release the SNP ONE!
A black operation is always possible but there are several things that would go against that hypothesis in this case:
1. If it was an attempt to pull the US in then the US has, so far, been complicit in supporting the claim of a mass chemical attack and quick out of the blocks in doing so in unattributed vriefings.
2. The president doesn't want to do a thing beyond a surreal tap-on, tap-off support for insurgents, something that is in tap-on mode at the moment. The chemical attack scenario is not good for the administration that doesn't want, understandably on some grounds, to take any direct action because its a credibility issue, in Syria, regionally and globally. Its one that they've ignored before but the scale looks too big to ignore without consequences.
3. On Wednesday I think I proposed that the US and certainly the Israelis had possibly a good idea what had happened without anyone ever having to go look and indeed had an idea before any attack occurred. The Syrian special weapons machine is organised and also subject to considerable monitoring. Given reports leaking from US officials to the US media, this as it turns out, seems to have been the case, they have gne bck, looked at the intercepts and reckoned it was coming.
4. Its doubtful, though possible US action will be deliberately designed to change the overall military balance. There are options on the US books to bomb Assads regime back to the stone ae then declining from there. What appears to be suggested now is something of a direct assault specfically around the chemical weapons anbd/or on regiome targets designed to hurt but not cripple Assads war effort.
5. Assad isn't winning. The mainstream media is about 1-2 months behind events in terms of assessment. He had a number of strategic successes in the centre of the country in the late spring/early summer period but he doesn't have the ability to fight to a finish on so many fronts. In Damascus the mainstream media have missed a fairly considerable insurgent offensive in the east of the city, the same area where the alleged chemical attacks occurred. Aleppo hangs in the balance, Idlib province is not looking clever and Daraa and the Golan area are also subject to insurgent offensives. Over half the country geographically is outside Assad's control.
That the Iranians are again putting fighting men into Syria is a sign that it isn't all dandy. All to play for yes but decisively winning, no.
Have you read this:
http://labourmajority.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Majority-Rules1.pdf
Interestingly claims that Labour will need a 7% lead to win a majority.
I've been a bit busy, and only just found out that Elmore Leonard has died. His writing got me into reading adult, grown up books, when I was barely in my teens and opened up the literary world for me.
Thanks, Dutch.
I cant see them making a defector leader so I've been ruling out Foster (even though she is one of the more impressive ministers they have). What do you make of the speculation over Robinson? I'm surprised at the unrest.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dERmb2NsbmpUNmlyOHplOTNOTE9iZVE#gid=0
They would elect a defector ok, its more whether electing someone outside of their traditional cockpit areas is viable.
A bit of googling and I've realised that tipping Dodds at slightly better than evens may be about the worst bit of tipping I've ever done on pbc as it's not clear he'll be back in (or could get back to) Stormont when a vacancy arises (though he may not have a seat in Westminster after 2015 either). On that basis Foster (9/2!) is probably the value. Basically I dont fancy Sammy Wilson!
At that time the base electorates used for the boundaries were 14 years old.
At the next election they'll be 15 years old.
Tokyo Story is apparently one of the best films of all time but isn't available on there.
In short they are doing nearly as much as they reasonably can short of landing fighting men down there. I think thats extremely doubtful. Certainly they have set up shop in Beirut since abandoning active facilities in Syria. My understanding is that the Beirut base represents a forward planning location in case they have to get Assad and other key figures, as well as their own people out.
Officially the Russian line is that they don't back Assad himself, just that 3rd parties intervening & overthrowing him is not all fair and the insurgents have a seam that they don't like. When you look at their shows of force in the Med, the Americans have 4 times the amount of clout sailing about in the region all day every day without breaking sweat. It nearly killed the Russians to muster that kind of flotilla.
They will oppose any US action but will probably have to live the kind of things the President in reportedly looking at. Retaliation is already in place via the AA & anti ship missiles. All they will likely do is much of the same.
The independence referendums in Quebec have produced very high turnouts, particularly the one in 1995, where the result was on a knife-edge so not only was the impact of the vote highly significant but also every vote counted too.
Within the UK, the 1998 referendum on the Good Friday agreement had a turnout of 81.1%, which is probably the closest parallel
I think the 'More than 64%' is money for old rope, though I'm instinctively averse to betting odds-on (particularly with PP's shrivelled staking limits).
Writer and journalist says he was stopped and questioned when out with his 11-year-old after a security guard called the police":
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/aug/18/will-self-reported-suspected-paedophile
Labour lead stuck at 7% in Opinium/Observer poll. L 36 n/c. Tories 29 n/c. Ukip 18 +1, Lib Dem 8 -1. Mili personal rating down again to -31.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10263580/I-used-to-beat-up-lads-like-the-PM-says-Bongo-Bongo-Bloom.html
I think Labour's likely to be the largest party and form the Government. At this stage I wouldn't bet on the scale, though if I had to guess I'd say "with a small overall majority".
Oh, that's right, they're crap whenever the turnout is between 0-100%.
'he may be right but I'm not as sure as him - he believes the Green council is very popular, which may not be a current view'
If you want to see someone spitting fire in Brighton, start a conversation about the council.
Chris Christie (R) 43% (44%)
Hillary Clinton (D) 42% (41%)
Hillary Clinton (D) 45%
Ted Cruz (R) 42%
Chris Christie (R) 50% (48%)
Joe Biden (D) 33% (32%)
Ted Cruz (R) 45%
Joe Biden (D) 39%
Chris Christie 17%
Rand Paul 17%
Jeb Bush 10%
Marco Rubio 9%
Paul Ryan 8%
John Kasich 8%
Ted Cruz 6%
Bobby Jindal 4%
Rick Santorum 4%
Someone else/Not sure 17%
@MSmithsonPB
UKIP still running strong in the latest fortnightly Opinium online poll for Observer
CON 29% nc
LAB 36% nc
LD 8%-1
UKIP 18% +1
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/356295/run-joe-run-jonah-goldberg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2005
I think Kellner's analysis makes slightly too much of incumbency for Tory MPs elected in 2010.
Hillary Clinton (D) 45%
Chris Christie (R) 36%
Hillary Clinton (D) 50%
Jeb Bush (R) 36%
Hillary Clinton (D) 51%
Rand Paul (R) 36%
Hillary Clinton (D) 52%
Paul Ryan (R) 36%
Hillary Clinton (D) 53%
John Kasich (R) 35%
In any other year after 2 terms in the White House the VP would be odds-on favourite for his party's nomination, but not against a former first lady, senator and secretary of state who is probably their party's only chance of keeping power. Biden will almost certainly not run if Hillary does, indeed some of his 2008 staff are already working for her
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/aug/24/ed-miliband-labour-opinium-poll-ratings
a) we know the full situation on the ground (in a previous post Y0kel seemed to imply we were out-of-date)
b) that people react logically, especially when under pressure.
c) that any attack was ordered by him, not in spite of him.
ISTR that both the Warsaw Pact and NATO had rules where, in a full-blown war, commanders on the ground had the right to use small tactical nukes as and when they saw fit, without going up the chain of command. The thinking was that by the time it had been okay'ed by the chain of command, the time to use them would have been past.
Could be wrong in that, though ...
On another note, can you please point me towards your May 2013 spreadsheets?
Charles/Richard Dodd - He comes across as basically a spitting image stereotype of a UKIPer, un PC, hard drinking, with opinions straight from the saloon bar, although to be fair and as he points out he has had a more impressive non-politics CV than Cameron
What, specifically, do you think is wrong in Kellner's article?
A lot of people on here keep quoting the 2005 result to suggest that what Kellner is saying must be wrong. But the point is that Kellner's article actually illustrates just how much the landscape has changed.
Even if Con MPs get NO incumbency bonus at all, Lab needs a lead of 3% to get a majority of 1 (per Kellner). That compares to a lead of 3% giving a majority of 66 in 2005.
It is an absolutely massive change and because it's so massive lots of people seem to think the numbers must somehow be wrong. They aren't.
Compare this to 2015: they boundaries used then will be 15 years old (based on 2000 electorates) except in Scotland where they will be 14 years old.
My answer to that is please go and read the 2006 Boundary Commission report. You will find that:
1) The 2006 review (based on 2000 data) did a far better job in making constituencies more equal than any previous review.
2) The 2006 report also shows that the rate of obsolescence (ie from 2000 to 2006) was far slower than after previous reviews - presumably due to less new home building and more inner city regeneration.
The rate of new home building has continued to be very low since then due to the financial crisis - which means the rate of obsolescence has continued to be low. Plus there is quite a bit more inner city regeneration than pre 2000, plus children of immigrants reaching 18 are concentrated in inner city areas etc.
http://vote-2012.proboards.com/post/82801/thread
But I don't think Scotland makes a significant difference to the overall picture.
If the proposed boundary changes had gone through for 2015, Scotland would have lost 7 out of 59 seats (ie 12%) vs 50 out of 650 (ie 8%) for the UK as a whole.
So, proportionately, Scotland would only have lost 2 extra seats. And any further reallocation between parties in the remaining seats would not have been that significant. So overall any specific Scotand effect can only be marginal.
I am not saying it is not possible.
Very odd !
Regarding the main poll. Ed is Crap and Labour to form the next government. Same old story !
I think the most up-to-date boundaries in recent times for most of the UK in Westminster elections were those first used in May 1997 which were "only" 6 years old, based on electorates from February 1991.
The new boundaries for 2010 were already more than 10 years old when they came into effect: election in May 2010 and electorates from February 2000 (except Scotland).
There's no doubt that having 50% disapproval isn't great for a leader, but striking that this is the case for all three leaders, except that it's 60% for Clegg. The difference is that Cameron still has a fan club of 32% who like him. As the Tory rating in this poll is 29, I assume this is basically his remaining voters being content. While nice to have, it doesn't produce more votes.
The first game last Saturday only got 1.4m viewers. The US is approx. 5 times the size of the UK so that's equivalent to something on one of our main 5 terrestrial channels getting 300,000 which would be derisory.
OK, the US TV market is far, far, far more competitive but it's still a very small audience.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/politics/9000931/how-australian-labor-lost-it/