Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The election that looked boring and a certainty now becomes ha

1234568»

Comments

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,107
    Charles said:

    I didn't have the chance to watch C4 but it sounds like a classic "gotcha" question.

    How does laughing at a politician for being a politician progress matters?
    It was the fact that he was a fool, trying to diss Corbyn for something the buffoon Johnson had said. Some politician.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Won't the landlords just put the rent up?

    Here's the dilemma you have to solve: my wife and I rent a house and have never been in rent arrears. We can afford the amount we're spending on it. The mortgage on it, were we to buy it, would be less than we are paying in rent. But no bank will give us a mortgage to buy it.
    Poorly designed regulation. Government can fix it
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    Will Jennings:

    Something bothering me about data-driven punditry this election is a seeming lack of transparency over data and specific methods...If you present a 'forecast', you need to publish a comprehensive explanation of what assumptions and data it is based on. This isn't always possible in national media outlets, but is easily done on a publicly available website. If we believe that what we do is scientific, then there can be no room for debate about replication and transparency. Two election 'forecasts' I know of published in national newspapers have ignored requests to explain their method. This is the Nate Silver problem: someone who made their reputation based on (rightly) critiquing punditry, but then falling into it...Notably, authors of one of the definitive academic studies on Brexit declined to release their data. This is hugely problematic.

    Any ideas who he's criticising for lack of transparency?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 65,573
    edited May 2017

    Lol Abbott has said Corbyn met IRA members in their capacity as Sinn Fein activists.
    D'oh. That's like saying he had lunch with Harold Shipman in his capacity as a former GP.

    Priceless.

    Did she say how many he met? Was it 30 or 300,000?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,107
    MaxPB said:

    Yes, the private landlords need to get hammered again and again until they give up.
    Yes then the government can put them all up in hotels, what a great policy.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 10,022

    Exactly this. Not to mention the large number of middle class couples that looked at interest rates and annuities over the past decade (not to mention continued smash and grabs from chancellors on pension funds), and considered that having a BTL or two was the only safe way to provide for their old age. Any Chancellor meddling with that is either brave, or considering a new career.
    If people wish to borrow money to purchase assets why should they be entitled to an easy return in such difficult economic times? One reason I'm so hard on the coalition is that 2008 should have provided the opportunity to think again and do things differently. Housing correction, less financial engineering and credit. We even had a hung parliament.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    Amusing to see those who were outraged at Remainers trying to block the noble, sovereign will of the voters are now furious at the idiotic, entitled simpletons who are supporting Corbyn.

    So, just to clarify your point: you think you are not bright enough to challenge an actual poster in response to an actual post, so your best course of action is a passive-aggressive whine against an unspecified and not-actually-existent group doing nothing that anyone has ever actually done?

    Feel free to quote an actual post, by an actual poster, to prove me wrong.
  • TMA1TMA1 Posts: 225

    I think BTL was a long-term unintended consequnce of the modern (since the 80's) obsession with low inflation. This drove down the yield on bonds and then stocks so investors looked elsewhere for higher yielding investments - residential property. and they were happy to invest in this at higher and higher prices until the yields became closer to the that of bonds/stocks etc.

    unwinding this in a hurry would be very painful but could be done over a generation maybe.
    BTL was a consequence of Brown destroying the pensions industry. People went into property as a way to fund their pension.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1266662/The-man-stole-old-age-How-Gordon-Brown-secretly-imposed-ruinous-tax-wrecked-retirements-millions.html

    http://citywire.co.uk/money/pension-managers-let-us-down-after-gordon-browns-pension-raid/a395858
    ''In 1997, then chancellor Gordon Brown scrapped the tax relief on dividends paid into pension funds.
    Calculations since then suggest the decision cost Britain's pension savers at least £100 billion and many say the move killed off defined benefit pensions.
    Documents released under Freedom Of Information Act in 2007 show opposition to the plans was widespread and some critics said at the time 'employers would have to contribute about an extra £10 billion a year for the next 10 to 15 years to get pension scheme funding back on track'.''
  • MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792

    Not just a whiff but a malodorous stench of desperation.

    I read somehwere that the Cons (unlike other parties) hadn't put out a single tweet to encourage greater voter turnout. Who's sorry now?
    That's the ticket.
    Let Corbyn damn himself with his own words and evasions.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,107

    £ 6K a year as opposed to the £ 0.00 exiting your seldom seen wallet.
    Cuckoo as ever, how much do you donate to the fascists then Monica
  • isamisam Posts: 41,349


    ***** Betting Post *****

    An inevitable consequence of the narrowing Conservative lead over Labour must surely be an increase in turnout as the Great British Public wake up to the fact that their vote could really make a difference .... as if!
    There's stand-out value in the this market where those nice folk at BetwaySports are offering odds of 6/5 (or 2.2 decimal) that turnout exceeds 63%. This compares with Paddy Power's odds of 4/7 (or 1.5714 and Hills' 8/13 (or 1.6154) for the same bet.
    Put another way the profit opportunity available from Betway is 110% and 95% better than is being offered respectively by these other leading bookies. I can't imagine these odds will last once a few PBers get to grips with this tempter!
    As ever, DYOR!

    My research indicates you've got the paddy power and Hills odds for under and over 63 mixed up
  • Thorpe_BayThorpe_Bay Posts: 47
    Im voting for theresa may because -

    1) i don't want jermey corbyn to be an mp.
    2) she failed to control immigration both of eu and non-eu residents.
    3) dementia tax is fair and right
    4) she plans to raise taxes or national insurance.
    5) she refuses to scrap business rates for small businesses.
    6) she has no idea who lives in this country and where they've gone and who they met.
    7) she has been on the wrong side of every public policy issue
    8) i need a reason to vote for her..help!
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786

    Priceless.

    Did she say how many he met? Was it 30 or 300,000?
    I think it was both, at the same time. Probably. Although he didn't. But he did. But it was for peace. And anyway we brought it on ourselves
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,107

    Won't the landlords just put the rent up?

    Here's the dilemma you have to solve: my wife and I rent a house and have never been in rent arrears. We can afford the amount we're spending on it. The mortgage on it, were we to buy it, would be less than we are paying in rent. But no bank will give us a mortgage to buy it.
    Max will be happy you are out on the street , he lives outside the UK so does not impact him.
  • NormNorm Posts: 1,251
    Barnesian said:

    Just spent the morning bundling the latest leaflets with a group of LibDems. All of them had watched the Andrew Neil interview. None of them like Corbyn but all of them felt that Andrew Neil really helped Corbyn yesterday with his bullying manner and Corbyn's calmness under fire. My wife, who hates Corbyn with a passion for some reason, reacted in the same way as she watched the interview last evening.

    The rose-tinted reports you refer to may be from those that thought he came across really quite badly. Just saying.
    I'm not sure a bunch of Lib Dem activists who let's be frank if push came to shove would support Corbyn over the Tory alternative and whose ages you don't specify exactly invalidate my main point. As for Neil he no more "bullied" Corbyn than any number of people I've seen him interview over very many years.
  • MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792
    malcolmg said:

    Cuckoo as ever, how much do you donate to the fascists then Monica
    Hit a nerve, old tightwad ?
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    Charles said:

    Poorly designed regulation. Government can fix it
    But how?
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,255

    I should be getting the embargoed copy about two hours in advance.

    That'll give me some time to come up with a decent headline.
    Just call it May-Day. Whatever the result that could be read as being apt depending on emphasis.
  • AlsoIndigoAlsoIndigo Posts: 1,852
    edited May 2017

    If people wish to borrow money to purchase assets why should they be entitled to an easy return in such difficult economic times? One reason I'm so hard on the coalition is that 2008 should have provided the opportunity to think again and do things differently. Housing correction, less financial engineering and credit. We even had a hung parliament.
    I am not saying they are, I am saying there are a lot of them, and they like to vote regularly. Also if you remove that way of getting a return, you will just pick up extra costs on the benefits bill as people that thought they had provided for their old age, suddenly have no provision.
  • Thorpe_BayThorpe_Bay Posts: 47
    Danny565 said:

    I'm mentally preparing myself for double-digit Tory leads tonight.
    Strong & Stable....strong & stable...

  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    Norm said:

    I'm not sure a bunch of Lib Dem activists who let's be frank if push came to shove would support Corbyn over the Tory alternative and whose ages you don't specify exactly invalidate my main point. As for Neil he no more "bullied" Corbyn than any number of people I've seen him interview over very many years.
    Besides, people see what they want to see. I've got Facebook posts on my feed talking about what a triumphant performance it was from the 'peaceful, beautiful man'
  • PaulMPaulM Posts: 613

    I should be getting the embargoed copy about two hours in advance.

    That'll give me some time to come up with a decent headline.
    Are you allowed to bet// change spread positions during the embargo period ?


  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 10,022

    I'm an atheist too and think all religion is quite strange and sometimes harmful, but I think we need to make a distinction between things we think are a bit odd/distateful/outdated and actually going out and murdering people. The generalised anti-Muslim agenda promoted by UKIP et al is at best a distraction and at worse promotes the "us and them" mentality that ISIS really wants.

    People willing to consider murder are a tiny minority even among the most devoted religious groups. ISIS is dangeous because, like the Nazis, it gives an official structure to encourage murderers, not because they're very Muslim. If a group formally organised fanatical Christians to blow up abortion clinics, that would not be a good reason to crack down on Christianity.
    Not crack down on Christianity as such but it might be a good idea to make clear to people that self-righteousness is dangerous and they should respect others' opinions in a democratic political framework. If it was clear that such ideas had some traction within Christian groups I would regard it as a priority.
  • peter_from_putneypeter_from_putney Posts: 6,956
    edited May 2017
    There seems to be a consensus amongst PBers that this evening's might prove a defining point in the GE campaign.
    Attempting to come up with my own interpretation of what these might tell us, I concluded that a Tory lead of:

    < 3% means a hung Parliament resulting in the probability of Corbyn becoming PM with SNP and LibDem support. May quits.

    4% - 5% means a tiny Tory majority, unlikely to survive a full 5 year term. May clings on as PM. Labour certain to win next time, with or without Corbyn who looks certain to continue as their Leader.

    6% - 7% means an adequate working majority of 40 - 60 seats but May considerably weakened as PM and possibly replaced within 2 - 3 years.

    8% -9% means a 60 - 80 majority but still a disappointing result for the Tories who had hoped for at least a 120 seat majority. Nevertheless calling of GE by May was arguably justified.

    >10% means why all the fuss as regards the polls? And it's Goodnight Vienna as regards Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott, etc.
  • JasonJason Posts: 1,614
    No ramping from any of the pollsters yet? Could that be a good sign for the Tories? The biggest movements have been heavily trailed, so maybe things have calmed down a bit (I know, unlike me).

    By the way, where is Sean T? Is he wisely waiting until the next batch of polls has been released? Is he on a flight to Bangkok to make the lives of dozens of prostitutes worth living? Is he demonstrating the finer points of the Kama Sutra with his 'missus', Star Terforten?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,107

    Hit a nerve, old tightwad ?
    Not the full tattie,
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679
    nunu said:

    You've probably already thought of this but don't you have any connections?
    Don't have any connections? Are we back to the Victorian Era already? I suppose his daughters' marriage prospects will depend on what he can lay down by way of a settlement.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 9,938

    There seems to be a consensus amongst PBers that this evening's might prove a defining point in the GE campaign.
    Attempting to come up with my own interpretation of what these might tell us, I concluded that a Tory lead of:

    < 3% means a hung Parliament resulting in the probability of Corbyn becoming PM with SNP and LibDem support. May quits.

    4% - 5% means a tiny Tory majority, unlikely to survive a full 5 year term. May clings on as PM. Labour certain to win next time, with or without Corbyn who looks certain to continue as their Leader.

    6% - 7% means an adequate working majority of 40 - 60 seats but May considerably weakened as PM and possibly replaced within 2 - 3 years.

    8% -9% means a 60 - 80 majority but still a disappointing result for the Tories who had hoped for at least a 120 seat majority. Nevertheless calling of GE by May was arguably justified.

    >10% means why all the fuss as regards the polls? And it's Goodnight Vienna as regards Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott, etc.

    Yes, and of these, if it's not between 4 - 8 % , I'll be very surprised.
  • MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792
    malcolmg said:

    Not the full tattie,
    You promised us that you'd emigrate to Southern Bavaria in the event of the Scottish people rejecting your anti-British fantasies. Unfortunately, you're a liar.
  • hoveitehoveite Posts: 43
    MaxPB said:



    A massive tax on second property ownership is what is needed to get owner occupied rates up. I mean massive, 10% of the value or something along those lines.

    Or we could get rid of green belts and make planning permission much easier to get.

    If more homes were built prices would go down and people could enjoy living in larger more modern homes.
  • JasonJason Posts: 1,614

    There seems to be a consensus amongst PBers that this evening's might prove a defining point in the GE campaign.
    Attempting to come up with my own interpretation of what these might tell us, I concluded that a Tory lead of:

    < 3% means a hung Parliament resulting in the probability of Corbyn becoming PM with SNP and LibDem support. May quits.

    4% - 5% means a tiny Tory majority, unlikely to survive a full 5 year term. May clings on as PM. Labour certain to win next time, with or without Corbyn who looks certain to continue as their Leader.

    6% - 7% means an adequate working majority of 40 - 60 seats but May considerably weakened as PM and possibly replaced within 2 - 3 years.

    8% -9% means a 60 - 80 majority but still a disappointing result for the Tories who had hoped for at least a 120 seat majority. Nevertheless calling of GE by May was arguably justified.

    >10% means why all the fuss as regards the polls? And it's Goodnight Vienna as regards Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott, etc.

    I would be interested to know how many Tories here would support a Conservative party who had a leader with Corbyn's credentials.

    I'll start by saying - not I. I would rather be drawn and quartered.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,107

    You promised us that you'd emigrate to Southern Bavaria in the event of the Scottish people rejecting your anti-British fantasies. Unfortunately, you're a liar.
    I would not promise you a lick of my "you know what". A more nasty pernicious twerp than you could not be found on here and that is saying something. Go stalk someone else you moronic halfwit.
  • Jason - "I would be interested to know how many Tories here would support a Conservative party who had a leader with Corbyn's credentials."

    Not sure of the point you're attempting to make.
  • AlsoIndigoAlsoIndigo Posts: 1,852

    Yes, and of these, if it's not between 4 - 8 % , I'll be very surprised.
    I think the size of the majority, assuming she keeps one, is going to be relevant only to the extent it helps or impedes her passing a BrExit settlement. If the Tories get a majority of 40, and having now got the right manifesto get all the legislation through parliament and the lords without too much of a problem, and assuming the end result is more or less acceptable to the party and the bulk of the country, May will be sitting pretty.

    Conversely if she gets a massive majority, completely screws the pooch on BrExit, and we get an end result which infuriates the party and the country, she is still toast. If she has 400 MPs in parliament, it still only takes 60MPs furious with her and her settlement to start the process of replacing her.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 121,691

    NEW THREAD

  • MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792
    malcolmg said:

    I would not promise you a lick of my "you know what". A more nasty pernicious twerp than you could not be found on here and that is saying something. Go stalk someone else you moronic halfwit.
    If you're looking for the nastiest most pernicious twerp on PB, review your own revolting posting history.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 54,577
    PaulM said:

    Are you allowed to bet// change spread positions during the embargo period ?


    What if he is? Given the huge amount of effort TSE puts in - unpaid - to help keep this site running, would you begrudge him the odd bit of advantage?
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 24,321
    edited May 2017

    House prices are high because more people want houses, than there are houses available (within a given locale).

    Nearly. Consider the following:

    * If you keep the number of people stable but increase the amount of money available, then house prices will rise: see England between 1970 and 1990(approx)

    * If you keep the number of people stable but decrease the amount of money available, then house prices will fall: see England between 1990(approx) and 1995(approx)

    * If you increase the number of people but keep the amount of money stable, then house prices will rise: see England between 1997 and 2001

    * If you increase the number of people and increase the amount of money available, then house prices will rise a lot: see England between 2001 and 2007

    * If you increase the number of people and decrease the amount of money available a lot, then house prices will fall a lot: see England between 2007 and 2009

    * If you increase the number of people and keep the amount of money stable, then house prices will rise gently: see England between 2009 and 2012(approx)

    * If you increase the number of people and increase the amount of money available, then house prices will rise a lot: see England between 2012 and 2015(approx)

    Those dates reflect the following

    * entry into the 1990(approx)
    * Clarke's chancellorship and Brown's first chancellorship (1993-2001approx), inward migration started to increase about here
    * Brown's second chancellorship and the adoption of CDO's by Northern Rock and Halifax? (2002 approx), inward migration started to balloon
    * Financial crash in 2007/8, mortgages withdrawn
    * Introduction of no-eviction guidelines by Straw in 2009
    * Introduction of help-to-buy by Osborne (spit), (2012approx)

    All dates +/- 2 years: I'm doing this from memory.




  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Im voting for theresa may because -

    1) i don't want jermey corbyn to be an mp.
    2) she failed to control immigration both of eu and non-eu residents.
    3) dementia tax is fair and right
    4) she plans to raise taxes or national insurance.
    5) she refuses to scrap business rates for small businesses.
    6) she has no idea who lives in this country and where they've gone and who they met.
    7) she has been on the wrong side of every public policy issue
    8) i need a reason to vote for her..help!

    I'm voting for her because of 1 (assuming you mean pm not mp), 3, and 4 on your list
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    But how?
    Burning the FCA to the ground would be a good start
  • rural_voterrural_voter Posts: 2,038
    viewcode said:

    Nearly. Consider the following:

    * If you keep the number of people stable but increase the amount of money available, then house prices will rise: see England between 1970 and 1990(approx)

    * If you keep the number of people stable but decrease the amount of money available, then house prices will fall: see England between 1990(approx) and 1995(approx)

    * If you increase the number of people but keep the amount of money stable, then house prices will rise: see England between 1997 and 2001

    * If you increase the number of people and increase the amount of money available, then house prices will rise a lot: see England between 2001 and 2007

    * If you increase the number of people and decrease the amount of money available a lot, then house prices will fall a lot: see England between 2007 and 2009

    * If you increase the number of people and keep the amount of money stable, then house prices will rise gently: see England between 2009 and 2012(approx)

    * If you increase the number of people and increase the amount of money available, then house prices will rise a lot: see England between 2012 and 2015(approx)

    Those dates reflect the following

    * entry into the 1990(approx)
    * Clarke's chancellorship and Brown's first chancellorship (1993-2001approx), inward migration started to increase about here
    * Brown's second chancellorship and the adoption of CDO's by Northern Rock and Halifax? (2002 approx), inward migration started to balloon
    * Financial crash in 2007/8, mortgages withdrawn
    * Introduction of no-eviction guidelines by Straw in 2009
    * Introduction of help-to-buy by Osborne (spit), (2012approx)

    All dates +/- 2 years: I'm doing this from memory.

    Germany's experience suggests that if bank mortgages are limited to ~60% LTV speculators are deterred somewhat.

    It's inevitable - if you can do what amounts to spread betting on the housing market, a lot of small-time speculators will be dragged in. They're rational to prefer betting on housing to other types of betting:

    There's no capital gains tax (just pretend to live in it)
    The gearing is 20x (with a 5% deposit).

    You can't do that with shares.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    There seems to be a consensus amongst PBers that this evening's might prove a defining point in the GE campaign.
    Attempting to come up with my own interpretation of what these might tell us, I concluded that a Tory lead of:

    < 3% means a hung Parliament resulting in the probability of Corbyn becoming PM with SNP and LibDem support. May quits.

    4% - 5% means a tiny Tory majority, unlikely to survive a full 5 year term. May clings on as PM. Labour certain to win next time, with or without Corbyn who looks certain to continue as their Leader.

    6% - 7% means an adequate working majority of 40 - 60 seats but May considerably weakened as PM and possibly replaced within 2 - 3 years.

    8% -9% means a 60 - 80 majority but still a disappointing result for the Tories who had hoped for at least a 120 seat majority. Nevertheless calling of GE by May was arguably justified.

    >10% means why all the fuss as regards the polls? And it's Goodnight Vienna as regards Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott, etc.

    There could be an argument for May going after Brexit anyway. New PM for a Brighter Britain or something
  • PaulMPaulM Posts: 613

    What if he is? Given the huge amount of effort TSE puts in - unpaid - to help keep this site running, would you begrudge him the odd bit of advantage?
    Not in the slightest. Was just curious what if any strings are attached to the pollsters providing the information, and whether there is anything in the small print of the index firms that precludes (given their financial markets roots).

  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    Jason said:

    Wouldn't it be possible for Sturgeon to become deputy PM?

    By the way, stating 'look at the share, not the lead' four times also implies a whiff of panic.
    There will not be a Labour /SNP coalition - Corbyn has already ruled it out.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 27,534

    Will be a decently big win for Flint ,
    Considering your humiliatingly inaccurate predictions for the local elections and the 2015 and 2010 general elections you'll forgive me if I don't put any store in your opinion.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,475

    Will be a decently big win for Flint ,
    Hi Mark. What do you think of John Leech's chances in Withington?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 51,137
    New thread. Way back.
This discussion has been closed.