politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Looks like Mike Smithson was right about his theory about the

TheScreamingEagles said:

Corker of a match in Madrid.

Vidal's just been sent off for winning the ball! Shocking decision

Beverley_C said:

kle4 said:

Beverley_C said:

SeanT said:

Agreed. He was trapped by his - and his party's - inflamed rhetoric. "The Tories eat babies! - but we want the baby eating to continue while we are having an internal debate about reselections"

Not very sellable. Labour have no choice but to agree to an election.

What? Since when did being consistent become an attribute of Corbynism? Surely the whole cult depends on not questioning anything the glorious leader says no matter how barking it is? History exists only for rewriting!!!

Its meant to be an attribute of Corbyn, who's appeal boils down to being 'different' from other politicians, and utterly consistent in his principles.

Well then, he would have been better keeping the govt on a small majority where he might stand a chance of defeating them as opposed to trying to defeat them on 50 or 60+ majorities were they can simply pass any policy they like whilst Labour stand by watching helplessly.

The man's a fool.

Sure... he'd prefer for there NOT to be an election. That's totally different from voting against there being one when the motion is pit before Parliament.

Again, you just can't say the Government is killing the poor and sick, then say they ought to do it for three more years. It's an offer you can't refuse, however much you'd love to.

Entering controversial areas.

But considering this is a betting site.

We could do with the return of someone with a good prediction record.

No, not StuartTruth.

I mean RodCrosby.

https://twitter.com/iankatz1000/status/854423442334130176

Big_G_NorthWales said:

calum said:

ThomasNashe said:

murali_s said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

I see sky is also pushing this voter fatigue meme...Despite their own polling saying no.

It's like the bbc and sky London liberal elite are out of touch with the public...

Is there any civilised life outside the M25?

Edinburgh?

Only in Morningside !

I stayed in Morningside in the early sixties

I stayed there in early 80s - I used to see the Proclaimers in Morrisons (Safeways back then) - not sure if this enhances or diminishes the areas civilised credentials !!

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Beverley_C said:

kle4 said:

Beverley_C said:

SeanT said:

Agreed. He was trapped by his - and his party's - inflamed rhetoric. "The Tories eat babies! - but we want the baby eating to continue while we are having an internal debate about reselections"

Not very sellable. Labour have no choice but to agree to an election.

What? Since when did being consistent become an attribute of Corbynism? Surely the whole cult depends on not questioning anything the glorious leader says no matter how barking it is? History exists only for rewriting!!!

Its meant to be an attribute of Corbyn, who's appeal boils down to being 'different' from other politicians, and utterly consistent in his principles.

Well then, he would have been better keeping the govt on a small majority where he might stand a chance of defeating them as opposed to trying to defeat them on 50 or 60+ majorities were they can simply pass any policy they like whilst Labour stand by watching helplessly.

The man's a fool.

Sure... he'd prefer for there NOT to be an election. That's totally different from voting against there being one when the motion is pit before Parliament.

Again, you just can't say the Government is killing the poor and sick, then say they ought to do it for three more years. It's an offer you can't refuse, however much you'd love to.

As some of us pointed out when, thread after thread, we were told the FTPA made an early election impossible.....

If Labour abstained, TMay would have to have a vote of no confidence in her own Government.

He (well, a competent leader) could sell that as the Government agreeing with him that they eat babies, and they would vote to stop themselves

TheScreamingEagles said:

SandyRentool said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pong said:

Is Clegg sticking around then?

If so, I'm guessing he'll win Sheffield Hallam at a canter.

Yup and yup.

I might even vote for him this time.

And get yourself expelled from the Conservatives?

Tactical vote to stop a Corbyn government.

I will need JohnO's permission before I do.

Hmmmm. Much pondering/

On June 8th I realise I have booked to go and see Rosencrantz and Gildenstern are dead. A meditation on mortality so perhaps appropriate after all, that said.

The luvvies, however, might be in shock by the curtain call.

JohnO said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

SandyRentool said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pong said:

Is Clegg sticking around then?

If so, I'm guessing he'll win Sheffield Hallam at a canter.

Yup and yup.

I might even vote for him this time.

And get yourself expelled from the Conservatives?

Tactical vote to stop a Corbyn government.

I will need JohnO's permission before I do.

Hmmmm. Much pondering/

How about I move to Broxtowe and voted for Anna Soubry, would that be more acceptable?

I'm also registered to vote in Manchester Central, I could vote Tory there..

TOPPING said:

On June 8th I realise I have booked to go and see Rosencrantz and Gildenstern are dead. A meditation on mortality so perhaps appropriate after all, that said.

The luvvies, however, might be in shock by the curtain call.

It's being screened at your local cinema on Thursday.....

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnO said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

SandyRentool said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pong said:

Is Clegg sticking around then?

If so, I'm guessing he'll win Sheffield Hallam at a canter.

Yup and yup.

I might even vote for him this time.

And get yourself expelled from the Conservatives?

Tactical vote to stop a Corbyn government.

I will need JohnO's permission before I do.

Hmmmm. Much pondering/

How about I move to Broxtowe and voted for Anna Soubry, would that be more acceptable?

I'm also registered to vote in Manchester Central, I could vote Tory there..

That would be ideal. You have plenary authority.

Beverley_C said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Beverley_C said:

kle4 said:

Beverley_C said:

SeanT said:

Agreed. He was trapped by his - and his party's - inflamed rhetoric. "The Tories eat babies! - but we want the baby eating to continue while we are having an internal debate about reselections"

Not very sellable. Labour have no choice but to agree to an election.

What? Since when did being consistent become an attribute of Corbynism? Surely the whole cult depends on not questioning anything the glorious leader says no matter how barking it is? History exists only for rewriting!!!

Its meant to be an attribute of Corbyn, who's appeal boils down to being 'different' from other politicians, and utterly consistent in his principles.

Well then, he would have been better keeping the govt on a small majority where he might stand a chance of defeating them as opposed to trying to defeat them on 50 or 60+ majorities were they can simply pass any policy they like whilst Labour stand by watching helplessly.

The man's a fool.

Sure... he'd prefer for there NOT to be an election. That's totally different from voting against there being one when the motion is pit before Parliament.

Again, you just can't say the Government is killing the poor and sick, then say they ought to do it for three more years. It's an offer you can't refuse, however much you'd love to.

He could also say "If the Tories WANT an election, it is my job to oppose that and say NO"

As has been rehearsed on here many times, it is impossible for an opposition to refuse the opportunity for a GE. There is simply no credible line to take against it.

another_richard said:

BTW does anyone know if there are foreign equivalents of PB ?

Do punters in Poland discuss UK constituency bets ?

Or anoraks in Austria obsess about May and Corbyn's poll ratings ?

Or are we unique ?

Unique, I chatted to one journalist from America, and we're one of the few countries that has such open, liberal, and legel betting markets.

We get a lot of traffic from America when we do a thread on Trump getting impeached.

JohnO said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnO said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

SandyRentool said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pong said:

Is Clegg sticking around then?

If so, I'm guessing he'll win Sheffield Hallam at a canter.

Yup and yup.

I might even vote for him this time.

And get yourself expelled from the Conservatives?

Tactical vote to stop a Corbyn government.

I will need JohnO's permission before I do.

Hmmmm. Much pondering/

How about I move to Broxtowe and voted for Anna Soubry, would that be more acceptable?

I'm also registered to vote in Manchester Central, I could vote Tory there..

That would be ideal. You have plenary authority.

Superb.

TOPPING said:

There is simply no credible line to take against it.

Was it a credible line when Tezza said "No GE before Brexit"?

If she could say it last week, Jezza could say it this week.

Is someone trying to get Ken Livingstone back on the site?

Just checking out the markets on Ladbrokes and perusing my 2015 GE bets.

The odds I got on Scottish constituencies in Jan 2015 were just nuts

Gordon 1/7
Coatbridge 3/1
Dundee West 2/5 !!!
Kilmarnock Evens

Even the bets I put on in March were still and nuts odds (SNP -Ayrshire Central - Evens). Don't think we will see those kind of odds this time round

Scott_P said:

TOPPING said:

There is simply no credible line to take against it.

Was it a credible line when Tezza said "No GE before Brexit"?

If she could say it last week, Jezza could say it this week.

It's the official opposition whose sole purpose is to dethrone the government.

Now of course it's Jezza we're talking about but even still.

SeanT said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/iankatz1000/status/854423442334130176

Exactly. This election surely means a Soft-ISH Brexit. I don't understand why Remainers are so gloomy (apart from those who are adamant eu-Federalists, or those who seriously thought the vote could be reversed)

I deployed precisely that argument to an irascible remainer this afternoon (who will likely vote for us - I mean me - in the May 4th locals but unlikely to do the same in June): she was far from convinced.

DecrepitJohnL said:

TOPPING said:

Beverley_C said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Beverley_C said:

kle4 said:

Beverley_C said:

SeanT said:

Agreed. He was trapped by his - and his party's - inflamed rhetoric. "The Tories eat babies! - but we want the baby eating to continue while we are having an internal debate about reselections"

Not very sellable. Labour have no choice but to agree to an election.

What? Since when did being consistent become an attribute of Corbynism? Surely the whole cult depends on not questioning anything the glorious leader says no matter how barking it is? History exists only for rewriting!!!

Its meant to be an attribute of Corbyn, who's appeal boils down to being 'different' from other politicians, and utterly consistent in his principles.

Well then, he would have been better keeping the govt on a small majority where he might stand a chance of defeating them as opposed to trying to defeat them on 50 or 60+ majorities were they can simply pass any policy they like whilst Labour stand by watching helplessly.

The man's a fool.

Sure... he'd prefer for there NOT to be an election. That's totally different from voting against there being one when the motion is pit before Parliament.

Again, you just can't say the Government is killing the poor and sick, then say they ought to do it for three more years. It's an offer you can't refuse, however much you'd love to.

He could also say "If the Tories WANT an election, it is my job to oppose that and say NO"

As has been rehearsed on here many times, it is impossible for an opposition to refuse the opportunity for a GE. There is simply no credible line to take against it.

You are right but how was the FTPA ever supposed to work?

The FPTA was a brilliant idea, except it had one eensy teensy weensy flaw, it never prepared for the possibility of a majority government between 2010 and 2020.

Sigh

TOPPING said:

MarqueeMark said:

TOPPING said:

On June 8th I realise I have booked to go and see Rosencrantz and Gildenstern are dead. A meditation on mortality so perhaps appropriate after all, that said.

The luvvies, however, might be in shock by the curtain call.

It's being screened at your local cinema on Thursday.....

Yes I saw that it's being shown. All booked though and it's a night up West.

Fair enough - I'll let you know what I thought.....

I'm disappointed - I was hoping the twitter reaction to John Woodcock saying he was standing again but could not countenance JC being PM would be filled with nothing but outraged bile, but there's a fair amount of praise and respect in there too.

calum said:

AnneJGP said:

calum said:

On a lighter note I've been reading up on witch trials in central Scotland - which it turns out was the witch hunting capital of Europe - you were 4 times more likely to be accused of being a witch in this area than the European average:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch_trials_in_early_modern_Scotland

"Reading up on" sounds so much more .... um .... active than "reading about" - what are you planning to do with your research, if I might ask?

There's a few local alleged witch trial sites - so I thought I'd take a look into the background !!

That's a relief - it sounded a bit as though witch trials were about to become the Next Big Thing again.

Has Shadsy borrowed the PB server?

https://twitter.com/ladpolitics/status/854435241402011649

Is The Labour party meeting still going on, and are they still shouting at each other?

Beverley_C said:

TOPPING said:

On June 8th I realise I have booked to go and see Rosencrantz and Gildenstern are dead. A meditation on mortality so perhaps appropriate after all, that said.

The luvvies, however, might be in shock by the curtain call.

Please note that there is a variation to the original programme. Due to the election, the play will now be replaced with "Corbyn and Labour are dead"

"The Sun rises in the East"?

Scott_P said:

Has Shadsy borrowed the PB server?

https://twitter.com/ladpolitics/status/854435241402011649

Nah, Mike and Robert have spent literally thousands of pounds on the PB server, that's why it didn't crash on GE 2015 night, or EUREf night, or when Trump won.

I'm a remainer but I'm not gloomy because of the effect of the election on Brexit. That seems like a red herring to me - I don't believe that the election will have much of an impact on Brexit at all. (It is a convenient excuse for May to call the election though.) I'm gloomy for the old-fashioned reason that I don't want a Tory govt with a large majority and a free hand to push through its policies. I sincerely hope that the opposition parties won't get distracted by Brexit too much during the campaign, since (apart of course from about 5% of the electorate who will vote LibDem because of it) Brexit won't move many votes, and other things are much more important than the Brexit smokescreen.

SeanT said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/iankatz1000/status/854423442334130176

Exactly. This election surely means a Soft-ISH Brexit. I don't understand why Remainers are so gloomy (apart from those who are adamant eu-Federalists, or those who seriously thought the vote could be reversed)

The manifesto will be fascinating. We'll find out where the balance of power lies in government. I expect the brexit stuff will still be fluffy and vague, but on domestic policy there could be some real meat.

TM will finally have an ideology.

£350m/NHS (probably on fudged figures)?

I'll go;

1/2 Yes
2/1 No

peter_from_putney said:

nielh said:

Any markets on the total number of seats for the lib dems?

Betfair Sportsbook ar offering 5/6 either side of 25.5 seats

I saw on twitter talk of 9/4 over 20%.. doesn't seem right compared to that line

EDIT 2/1 Betfred

TOPPING said:

It's why Sturgeon is also mistaken and impotently frothing.

The govt and in particular TMay has been accused of lacking a mandate, they are giving the country the opportunity to given them one. Or to give it to someone else.

It is rarely a wrong move and never an egregious one, to give the people the vote.

Except when the dumb fucks use it to leave the EU?

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Beverley_C said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Beverley_C said:

kle4 said:

Beverley_C said:

SeanT said:

Agreed. He was trapped by his - and his party's - inflamed rhetoric. "The Tories eat babies! - but we want the baby eating to continue while we are having an internal debate about reselections"

Not very sellable. Labour have no choice but to agree to an election.

What? Since when did being consistent become an attribute of Corbynism? Surely the whole cult depends on not questioning anything the glorious leader says no matter how barking it is? History exists only for rewriting!!!

Its meant to be an attribute of Corbyn, who's appeal boils down to being 'different' from other politicians, and utterly consistent in his principles.

Well then, he would have been better keeping the govt on a small majority where he might stand a chance of defeating them as opposed to trying to defeat them on 50 or 60+ majorities were they can simply pass any policy they like whilst Labour stand by watching helplessly.

The man's a fool.

Sure... he'd prefer for there NOT to be an election. That's totally different from voting against there being one when the motion is pit before Parliament.

Again, you just can't say the Government is killing the poor and sick, then say they ought to do it for three more years. It's an offer you can't refuse, however much you'd love to.

He could also say "If the Tories WANT an election, it is my job to oppose that and say NO"

It's the Opposition's job to REPLACE the Government, not to oppose the only possible event that can allow them to replace the Government!

I know Corbyn is a ludicrous chap in so many ways, but even he couldn't pull that line off.

Indeed. It would make the remaining three years of this parliament (even more of) an impossibility for him. Thrown back in his face over and over.

TOPPING said:

Beverley_C said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Beverley_C said:

kle4 said:

Beverley_C said:

SeanT said:

Agreed. He was trapped by his - and his party's - inflamed rhetoric. "The Tories eat babies! - but we want the baby eating to continue while we are having an internal debate about reselections"

Not very sellable. Labour have no choice but to agree to an election.

What? Since when did being consistent become an attribute of Corbynism? Surely the whole cult depends on not questioning anything the glorious leader says no matter how barking it is? History exists only for rewriting!!!

Its meant to be an attribute of Corbyn, who's appeal boils down to being 'different' from other politicians, and utterly consistent in his principles.

Well then, he would have been better keeping the govt on a small majority where he might stand a chance of defeating them as opposed to trying to defeat them on 50 or 60+ majorities were they can simply pass any policy they like whilst Labour stand by watching helplessly.

The man's a fool.

Sure... he'd prefer for there NOT to be an election. That's totally different from voting against there being one when the motion is pit before Parliament.

Again, you just can't say the Government is killing the poor and sick, then say they ought to do it for three more years. It's an offer you can't refuse, however much you'd love to.

He could also say "If the Tories WANT an election, it is my job to oppose that and say NO"

As has been rehearsed on here many times, it is impossible for an opposition to refuse the opportunity for a GE. There is simply no credible line to take against it.

He does have the expenses scandal - he could say that he wants to wait till the cases are brought, so that they aren't swept under the carpet.

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Scott_P said:

Has Shadsy borrowed the PB server?

https://twitter.com/ladpolitics/status/854435241402011649

Nah, Mike and Robert have spent literally thousands of pounds on the PB server, that's why it didn't crash on GE 2015 night, or EUREf night, or when Trump won.

What would it take to crash it? Corbyn winning the election? Though I suppose the national grid my struggle with that one.

A lot of traffic, I think if we can cope with GE2015, we can cope with anything,

I think we got 1,200 comments in the hour after the exit poll came out.

AnneJGP said:

calum said:

AnneJGP said:

calum said:

On a lighter note I've been reading up on witch trials in central Scotland - which it turns out was the witch hunting capital of Europe - you were 4 times more likely to be accused of being a witch in this area than the European average:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch_trials_in_early_modern_Scotland

"Reading up on" sounds so much more .... um .... active than "reading about" - what are you planning to do with your research, if I might ask?

There's a few local alleged witch trial sites - so I thought I'd take a look into the background !!

That's a relief - it sounded a bit as though witch trials were about to become the Next Big Thing again.

It might not be in the Manifesto, but....

Are we getting something from You Gov tonight?

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Scott_P said:

Has Shadsy borrowed the PB server?

https://twitter.com/ladpolitics/status/854435241402011649

Nah, Mike and Robert have spent literally thousands of pounds on the PB server, that's why it didn't crash on GE 2015 night, or EUREf night, or when Trump won.

What would it take to crash it? Corbyn winning the election? Though I suppose the national grid my struggle with that one.

BA online ticketing machine?

Pong said:

SeanT said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/iankatz1000/status/854423442334130176

Exactly. This election surely means a Soft-ISH Brexit. I don't understand why Remainers are so gloomy (apart from those who are adamant eu-Federalists, or those who seriously thought the vote could be reversed)

The manifesto will be fascinating. We'll find out where the balance of power lies in government. I expect the brexit stuff will still be fluffy and vague, but on domestic policy i'm expecting real meat.

TM will finally have an ideology.

£350m/NHS (probably on fudged figures)?

I'll go;

1/2 Yes
2/1 No

I think May will take the opportunity to scale back promises on spending like the NHS ring fence. Look at what Hammond said about having limited room to manoeuvre at Budget time.

MarqueeMark said:

TOPPING said:

It's why Sturgeon is also mistaken and impotently frothing.

The govt and in particular TMay has been accused of lacking a mandate, they are giving the country the opportunity to given them one. Or to give it to someone else.

It is rarely a wrong move and never an egregious one, to give the people the vote.

Except when the dumb fucks use it to leave the EU?

The EU Ref was not a mistake, as was evidenced by the result.

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/854437634088763392

A clever Labour leader would do what at this point?

If this were Australia in 1983, Labour MPs would replace Corbyn with another leader in the next few days, with May unable to cancel the election.

TOPPING said:

On June 8th I realise I have booked to go and see Rosencrantz and Gildenstern are dead. A meditation on mortality so perhaps appropriate after all, that said.

The luvvies, however, might be in shock by the curtain call.

I saw that over Easter: one of my all time favorite plays.

"We're actors. We're the opposite of people."

another_richard said:

peter_from_putney said:

Hills have a market on the size of the Tory Majority:

>100 seats ....... 2.10

<100 seats (or no maj) ..... 1.67

They limited me to £15</p>

Which way did you bet if I may ask ?

On the basis of Betfair Sportsbook pitching the Tories to win 345.5 seats, I went for a < 100 seat Tory Majority which equates to them winning < 375 seats, i.e up to 30 more than the Betfair fulcrum point.

We've talked a lot about potential LD gains from Con, but what about from Labour? From memory they lost approx 20 seats to Labour in 2015. Can some of these be won back?

HaroldO said:

My facebook feed is already full of Tory hating posts, which it was at the last two general elections as well. Learn, you thick twats!

Nice one @HaroldO, you moan about insults by insulting people!

DecrepitJohnL said:

TOPPING said:

Beverley_C said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Beverley_C said:

kle4 said:

Beverley_C said:

SeanT said:

Agreed. He was trapped by his - and his party's - inflamed rhetoric. "The Tories eat babies! - but we want the baby eating to continue while we are having an internal debate about reselections"

Not very sellable. Labour have no choice but to agree to an election.

What? Since when did being consistent become an attribute of Corbynism? Surely the whole cult depends on not questioning anything the glorious leader says no matter how barking it is? History exists only for rewriting!!!

Its meant to be an attribute of Corbyn, who's appeal boils down to being 'different' from other politicians, and utterly consistent in his principles.

Well then, he would have been better keeping the govt on a small majority where he might stand a chance of defeating them as opposed to trying to defeat them on 50 or 60+ majorities were they can simply pass any policy they like whilst Labour stand by watching helplessly.

The man's a fool.

Sure... he'd prefer for there NOT to be an election. That's totally different from voting against there being one when the motion is pit before Parliament.

Again, you just can't say the Government is killing the poor and sick, then say they ought to do it for three more years. It's an offer you can't refuse, however much you'd love to.

He could also say "If the Tories WANT an election, it is my job to oppose that and say NO"

As has been rehearsed on here many times, it is impossible for an opposition to refuse the opportunity for a GE. There is simply no credible line to take against it.

You are right but how was the FTPA ever supposed to work?

It gave Cameron an additional lever to use when his backbenchers came arguing for an early election. That Cameron was blufffing (as Tory and Labour votes would easily make 2/3rds) didn't matter too much, so long as it suited Cameron to stay in coalition. And of course back then the Tories weren't confident about winning outright from their position in government.

DecrepitJohnL said:

AndyJS said:

Sky News poll finds 68% support early election. Not sure which company.

Should that give us pause? Surely a lot of that 68 per cent are people whose main reason for wanting an early election is to vote against the government. Otherwise, why bother?

As one of the 68% who would have voted Tory/Brexit in 2015/16 and will vote LD (probably) there's got to be a few of us.