politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » In the absence of divine intervention defeated Alabama Republi

FrancisUrquhart said:

Telegraph...

The Conservatives were denied an outright majority at the last general election because of a voting system which is slanted in favour of the Labour party, new analysis has shown.

The new figures reveal that the Tories would have been left with a clear majority of 14 if the boundary reforms - which have been frustrated by Labour and the Liberal Democrats - had been in place.

The voting system is not favourable to Lab anymore is it?

Dear All, especially anyone with industry experience:

A family member of mine has been inspired/corrupted by my betting and wishes to open their own accounts. Being youngish I lived with them a couple of years ago, though have since moved on, so their account address would be the same as mine were once.

There is genuinely no intent to use their accounts as proxies for me, but is there a risk I get gubbed anyway if (as is likely) they often bet following my tips so we have similar patterns? Is this risk noticeably changed if I use referral links to open the accounts?

FrancisUrquhart said:

Telegraph...

The Conservatives were denied an outright majority at the last general election because of a voting system which is slanted in favour of the Labour party, new analysis has shown.

The new figures reveal that the Tories would have been left with a clear majority of 14 if the boundary reforms - which have been frustrated by Labour and the Liberal Democrats - had been in place.

Reforms that would have robbed the DUP of their chance for a billion quid of pork.

A good reason they will fail this time too.

viewcode said:

Barnesian said:

viewcode said:

another_richard said:

viewcode said:

another_richard said:

MikeSmithson said:

Alabama was the biggest betting event since GE2017 - nice to see the winnings being paid out

Great, that's paid for my shopping trip today.

Excellent! How much, or is it rude to ask?

Over £50 but under £100.

Cool!

Mine was over £100 but under £200.

EDIT: My betting is an interesting hobby rather than a source of income.

My total winnings this year, just transferred from various accounts is a four figure sum. It would really need to be a five figure sum to count as an income but I'd have to hide it from my wife.

Mine this year is three figures. I need to examine how to do it more professionally (so to speak)

Down about £500 this year, but, amazingly, and largely because of tremendous value tips mentioned here, despite losing a packet on constituency bets in the GE, would have been up had Richmond Park voted for Olney and the young Tory chap beaten Nuttall in Stoke.

Each was 10s of votes, IIRC.


Edit to add: (But still up overall, and 4 figures up on a three year rolling account)

bigjohnowls said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Telegraph...

The Conservatives were denied an outright majority at the last general election because of a voting system which is slanted in favour of the Labour party, new analysis has shown.

The new figures reveal that the Tories would have been left with a clear majority of 14 if the boundary reforms - which have been frustrated by Labour and the Liberal Democrats - had been in place.

The voting system is not favourable to Lab anymore is it?

That's not what the study quoted said

HYUFD said:

Quincel said:

HYUFD said:

viewcode said:

another_richard said:

viewcode said:

another_richard said:

viewcode said:

another_richard said:

MikeSmithson said:

Alabama was the biggest betting event since GE2017 - nice to see the winnings being paid out

Great, that's paid for my shopping trip today.

Excellent! How much, or is it rude to ask?

Over £50 but under £100.

Cool!

Its a nice, if not enormous, amount.

There will be PBers who will have made many multiples of that in this election.

PB is good for little tips like that which should bring in a few hundred pounds each year even without the big elections.

Laying the draw in the cricket is something I learnt to do on PB as an example.

I think other similar rules of thumb are "lay the favourite for Conservative leader" and "lay the favorite in a Republican primary"

Certainly not the Republican primary, Reagan, Bush Snr, Dole, W Bush and Romney were all favourite and all ended up nominee. Trump also led polls from summer 2015 even if Rubio was favourite.

Even the last Tory leadership race saw the favourite, May, ultimately win.

The Tory leadership race holds up if you lay the favourite repeatedly until the race actually starts though. So you lay Moggmentum, lay Davis when he becomes favourite etc. Boris was favourite last year right up until he pulled out.

However I think one of Boris, Mogg or Davis will ultimately get it next time, as Mogg is currently favourite that makes Boris or Davis good bets, especially as they likely have more MP backing

I think Boris would win it easily if he had the guts to openly grab it. I should add that I've never bet on a Tory leadership election at all if memory serves, certainly very little if ever.

But honestly Boris - it can't be 'Your turn' forever. Eventually his moment will pass if he doesn't take it.

Mortimer said:

viewcode said:

Barnesian said:

viewcode said:

another_richard said:

viewcode said:

another_richard said:

MikeSmithson said:

Alabama was the biggest betting event since GE2017 - nice to see the winnings being paid out

Great, that's paid for my shopping trip today.

Excellent! How much, or is it rude to ask?

Over £50 but under £100.

Cool!

Mine was over £100 but under £200.

EDIT: My betting is an interesting hobby rather than a source of income.

My total winnings this year, just transferred from various accounts is a four figure sum. It would really need to be a five figure sum to count as an income but I'd have to hide it from my wife.

Mine this year is three figures. I need to examine how to do it more professionally (so to speak)

Down about £500 this year, but, amazingly, and largely because of tremendous value tips mentioned here, despite losing a packet on constituency bets in the GE, would have been up had Richmond Park voted for Olney and the young Tory chap beaten Nuttall in Stoke.

Each was 10s of votes, IIRC.


Edit to add: (But still up overall, and 4 figures up on a three year rolling account)

What constituencies were you betting on ? The Conservatives in London ?

Quincel said:

bigjohnowls said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Telegraph...

The Conservatives were denied an outright majority at the last general election because of a voting system which is slanted in favour of the Labour party, new analysis has shown.

The new figures reveal that the Tories would have been left with a clear majority of 14 if the boundary reforms - which have been frustrated by Labour and the Liberal Democrats - had been in place.

The voting system is not favourable to Lab anymore is it?

No. The Tories would have won a majority at the last election with boundary reform, but only because it would make the system now favour them. The system did used to favour Labour reasonably considerably, but various factors mean the Tories overperformed votes -> seats in 2017 not Labour.

They got over 50% of the seats in 2015 on under 40% of the vote. In 2017 they got close to 50% of the seats on around 42% of the vote. It’s a struggle to see how this could be said to be anything other than hugely favourable to the Tories.

Quincel said:

SouthamObserver said:

Quincel said:

bigjohnowls said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Telegraph...

The Conservatives were denied an outright majority at the last general election because of a voting system which is slanted in favour of the Labour party, new analysis has shown.

The new figures reveal that the Tories would have been left with a clear majority of 14 if the boundary reforms - which have been frustrated by Labour and the Liberal Democrats - had been in place.

The voting system is not favourable to Lab anymore is it?

No. The Tories would have won a majority at the last election with boundary reform, but only because it would make the system now favour them. The system did used to favour Labour reasonably considerably, but various factors mean the Tories overperformed votes -> seats in 2017 not Labour.

They got over 50% of the seats in 2015 on under 40% of the vote. In 2027 they got close to 50% of the seats on around 42% of the vote. It’s a struggle to see how this could be said to be anything other than hugely favourable to the Tories.

Yes, I should have said 'only because it would make the current system favour them more'. It already does by a good margin, though may not permanently. Imho no change needed to boundaries.

Boundary reform is overdue. No one is opposing the principle. They are opposing the particular series of over-prescriptive rule changes designed to favour the largest Party.
Thus making Parliament less proportional than before.

SouthamObserver said:

Quincel said:

bigjohnowls said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Telegraph...

The Conservatives were denied an outright majority at the last general election because of a voting system which is slanted in favour of the Labour party, new analysis has shown.

The new figures reveal that the Tories would have been left with a clear majority of 14 if the boundary reforms - which have been frustrated by Labour and the Liberal Democrats - had been in place.

The voting system is not favourable to Lab anymore is it?

No. The Tories would have won a majority at the last election with boundary reform, but only because it would make the system now favour them. The system did used to favour Labour reasonably considerably, but various factors mean the Tories overperformed votes -> seats in 2017 not Labour.

They got over 50% of the seats in 2015 on under 40% of the vote. In 2017 they got close to 50% of the seats on around 42% of the vote. It’s a struggle to see how this could be said to be anything other than hugely favourable to the Tories.

That doesn't seem very convincing. That's how our system works for both sides, you can get majorities on less than a majority of the vote, its not indicative of advantage to a particular party. The test would surely be whether it is easier for one side to get a majority on the same or less of the vote, and if the reason for that is unfair to the other or down to some other factor, eg their vote happens to be more efficiently distributed?

If there is a discernible advantage to one side, a correction to that would advantage the other, but only (in an ideal situation) to redress an existing imbalance. I confess as much as I actually enjoy boundary matters, its been ongoing so long and there's so much noise that I'm far from confident how much if any imbalance exists and how well the proposals redress it. On the face of it the principles seem reasonable, and reform is long overdue, but its all wasted effort anyway, nothing will happen now.

OK. Boundaries from first principles.
Imagine direct democracy, where each of the 46m+ voters was an MP. Perfect proportionality.
At the other extreme 1 MP by FPTP. That MP would be Mrs. May. 100 % Conservative in 2017. (Of course that could change).
Between those points there will be a curve.
But, broadly, the fewer MP's the greater the advantage for the largest Party.

Would be more sympathetic to the case for fewer MP's had there been a similar reduction of 1/13 th of Cabinet Ministers, Junior Ministers, PPS and assorted bag carriers. No such reduction was proposed.
Thus, it also increases the Power of the payroll over backbenchers. (As they constitute a larger %age).

We are leaving the EU. Therefore, it could be argued we need more, not fewer MP's. (I do not agree, but one can see the logic).

If the problem is the cost of politics/politicians, then surely one should begin with the bigger, less busy Chamber, the House of Lords for a serious culling.

But that Chamber seems to grow.

dixiedean said:

OK. Boundaries from first principles.
Imagine direct democracy, where each of the 46m+ voters was an MP. Perfect proportionality.
At the other extreme 1 MP by FPTP. That MP would be Mrs. May. 100 % Conservative in 2017. (Of course that could change).
Between those points there will be a curve.
But, broadly, the fewer MP's the greater the advantage for the largest Party.

Would be more sympathetic to the case for fewer MP's had there been a similar reduction of 1/13 th of Cabinet Ministers, Junior Ministers, PPS and assorted bag carriers. No such reduction was proposed.
Thus, it also increases the Power of the payroll over backbenchers.

We are leaving the EU. Therefore, it could be argued we need more, not fewer MP's (I do not agree, but one can see the logic).

If the problem is the cost of politics/politicians, then surely one should begin with the bigger, less busy Chamber, the Hof Lords for a serious culling.

Isn't the house of lords as busy, as all legislation has to go through committee/report/readings up there, too? Having a wide pool of expertise to draw on should be a good thing for the Lords to have, not something that should be restricted.

RobD said:

dixiedean said:

OK. Boundaries from first principles.
Imagine direct democracy, where each of the 46m+ voters was an MP. Perfect proportionality.
At the other extreme 1 MP by FPTP. That MP would be Mrs. May. 100 % Conservative in 2017. (Of course that could change).
Between those points there will be a curve.
But, broadly, the fewer MP's the greater the advantage for the largest Party.

Would be more sympathetic to the case for fewer MP's had there been a similar reduction of 1/13 th of Cabinet Ministers, Junior Ministers, PPS and assorted bag carriers. No such reduction was proposed.
Thus, it also increases the Power of the payroll over backbenchers.

We are leaving the EU. Therefore, it could be argued we need more, not fewer MP's (I do not agree, but one can see the logic).

If the problem is the cost of politics/politicians, then surely one should begin with the bigger, less busy Chamber, the Hof Lords for a serious culling.

Isn't the house of lords as busy, as all legislation has to go through committee/report/readings up there, too?

Hundreds are members but do not regularly show up. A very easy reform step would be to retire all those Lords who have not participated in a certain level of business in the past few years unless signed off long term sick or something. Since they are not accountable to any electorate like MPs, and have no terms to serve, it is surely acceptable to impose a minimum work requirement. If someone wishes to serve in the House, they need to actually serve, not barely show up.

kle4 said:

RobD said:

dixiedean said:

OK. Boundaries from first principles.
Imagine direct democracy, where each of the 46m+ voters was an MP. Perfect proportionality.
At the other extreme 1 MP by FPTP. That MP would be Mrs. May. 100 % Conservative in 2017. (Of course that could change).
Between those points there will be a curve.
But, broadly, the fewer MP's the greater the advantage for the largest Party.

Would be more sympathetic to the case for fewer MP's had there been a similar reduction of 1/13 th of Cabinet Ministers, Junior Ministers, PPS and assorted bag carriers. No such reduction was proposed.
Thus, it also increases the Power of the payroll over backbenchers.

We are leaving the EU. Therefore, it could be argued we need more, not fewer MP's (I do not agree, but one can see the logic).

If the problem is the cost of politics/politicians, then surely one should begin with the bigger, less busy Chamber, the Hof Lords for a serious culling.

Isn't the house of lords as busy, as all legislation has to go through committee/report/readings up there, too?

Hundreds are members but do not regularly show up. A very easy reform step would be to retire all those Lords who have not participated in a certain level of business in the past few years unless signed off long term sick or something. Since they are not accountable to any electorate like MPs, and have no terms to serve, it is surely acceptable to impose a minimum work requirement. If someone wishes to serve in the House, they need to actually serve, not barely show up.

I think that's fair enough. No reason not to fill it with experts from various fields though.

RobD said:

kle4 said:

RobD said:

dixiedean said:

OK. Boundaries from first principles.
Imagine direct democracy, where each of the 46m+ voters was an MP. Perfect proportionality.
At the other extreme 1 MP by FPTP. That MP would be Mrs. May. 100 % Conservative in 2017. (Of course that could change).
Between those points there will be a curve.
But, broadly, the fewer MP's the greater the advantage for the largest Party.

Would be more sympathetic to the case for fewer MP's had there been a similar reduction of 1/13 th of Cabinet Ministers, Junior Ministers, PPS and assorted bag carriers. No such reduction was proposed.
Thus, it also increases the Power of the payroll over backbenchers.

We are leaving the EU. Therefore, it could be argued we need more, not fewer MP's (I do not agree, but one can see the logic).

If the problem is the cost of politics/politicians, then surely one should begin with the bigger, less busy Chamber, the Hof Lords for a serious culling.

Isn't the house of lords as busy, as all legislation has to go through committee/report/readings up there, too?

Hundreds are members but do not regularly show up. A very easy reform step would be to retire all those Lords who have not participated in a certain level of business in the past few years unless signed off long term sick or something. Since they are not accountable to any electorate like MPs, and have no terms to serve, it is surely acceptable to impose a minimum work requirement. If someone wishes to serve in the House, they need to actually serve, not barely show up.

I think that's fair enough. No reason not to fill it with experts from various fields though.

I'm in favour of a HoL generally in part for that reason - I think it can be very useful to appoint notables from the sciences, charity, industry, military, etc, who would not normally, for various reasons, find themselves drawn into political service. However, while we want their expertise to aid in matters relating to their fields, they do, in my view, need to justify their presence by treating it with the seriousness that it deserves and so also contribute more generally to the scrutiny of legislation.

What would be a reasonable minimum commitment is, of course, a more difficult question.

kle4 said:

RobD said:

kle4 said:

RobD said:

dixiedean said:

OK. Boundaries from first principles.
Imagine direct democracy, where each of the 46m+ voters was an MP. Perfect proportionality.
At the other extreme 1 MP by FPTP. That MP would be Mrs. May. 100 % Conservative in 2017. (Of course that could change).
Between those points there will be a curve.
But, broadly, the fewer MP's the greater the advantage for the largest Party.

Would be more sympathetic to the case for fewer MP's had there been a similar reduction of 1/13 th of Cabinet Ministers, Junior Ministers, PPS and assorted bag carriers. No such reduction was proposed.
Thus, it also increases the Power of the payroll over backbenchers.

We are leaving the EU. Therefore, it could be argued we need more, not fewer MP's (I do not agree, but one can see the logic).

If the problem is the cost of politics/politicians, then surely one should begin with the bigger, less busy Chamber, the Hof Lords for a serious culling.

Isn't the house of lords as busy, as all legislation has to go through committee/report/readings up there, too?

Hundreds are members but do not regularly show up. A very easy reform step would be to retire all those Lords who have not participated in a certain level of business in the past few years unless signed off long term sick or something. Since they are not accountable to any electorate like MPs, and have no terms to serve, it is surely acceptable to impose a minimum work requirement. If someone wishes to serve in the House, they need to actually serve, not barely show up.

I think that's fair enough. No reason not to fill it with experts from various fields though.

I'm in favour of a HoL generally in part for that reason - I think it can be very useful to appoint notables from the sciences, charity, industry, military, etc, who would not normally, for various reasons, find themselves drawn into political service. However, while we want their expertise to aid in matters relating to their fields, they do, in my view, need to justify their presence by treating it with the seriousness that it deserves and so also contribute more generally to the scrutiny of legislation.

What would be a reasonable minimum commitment is, of course, a more difficult question.

However, certain members treat it as an honour, or a nice little earner. Such as this guy.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/andrew-lloyd-webber-conservative-peer-says-he-is-fed-up-he-keeps-being-asked-to-vote-in-house-of-a7404401.html

dixiedean said:

kle4 said:

RobD said:

kle4 said:

RobD said:

dixiedean said:

OK. Boundaries from first principles.
Imagine direct democracy, where each of the 46m+ voters was an MP. Perfect proportionality.
At the other extreme 1 MP by FPTP. That MP would be Mrs. May. 100 % Conservative in 2017. (Of course that could change).
Between those points there will be a curve.
But, broadly, the fewer MP's the greater the advantage for the largest Party.

Would be mo

If the problem is the cost of politics/politicians, then surely one should begin with the bigger, less busy Chamber, the Hof Lords for a serious culling.

Isn't the house of lords as busy, as all legislation has to go through committee/report/readings up there, too?

Hundreds aw up.

I think that's fair enough. No reason not to fill it with experts from various fields though.

I'm in favour of a HoL generally in part for that reason - I think it can be very useful
What would be a reasonable minimum commitment is, of course, a more difficult question.

However, certain members treat it as an honour, or a nice little earner. Such as this guy.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/andrew-lloyd-webber-conservative-peer-says-he-is-fed-up-he-keeps-being-asked-to-vote-in-house-of-a7404401.html

Indeed, and he is one I had in mind - it should not be treated as a nice little earner, nor should it merely be seen as some ceremonial honour. That's what gongs are for; if you are a peer, you have a level of legislative authority over the entire country, however small, and even if you choose not to exercise it. If you don't exercise it, there are plenty of worthy people who would. Now there is a mechanism for lords to retire from the House but keep the title (like Lord Ashcroft has done) its a small step to removing those who do not contribute.

It would save the cost of when they do infrequently show, it would cull a bloated house at a stroke, and encourage those who do not wish to treat it seriously to either start doing so, or make way, hopefully sparking improved scrutiny of legislation generally.

Frankly, I don't know what the downsides would be, other than quibbling over how little work is too little, and when you'd start judging people's attendance by, and how often it would be reviewed (when a new GE is scheduled, I would suggest - you've got 5 years to assess people on) - things that are not beyond the wit of man, even with the black pit of reform ideas that is the HoL reform.

kle4 said:

Surely there's no way the EU will actually seriously censure them, or them pushing it that far, even with all the tough talk so far?

They can be censured and Poland almost certainly will be for blatant interference in the judiciary, but actual meaningful sanctions can be vetoed by one other member, and Hungary will protect Poland and vice versa. That said, if Poland or Hungary have any pet projects they'd like the EU to fund, they might find it heavy going.

Depressing if true:

"Britain is 'becoming hooked on anti-depressant medicines dubbed “Happy Pills”' as patients seek quick fix"
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/britain-becoming-hooked-anti-depressant-11765180

HYUFD said:

viewcode said:

I think other similar rules of thumb are "lay the favourite for Conservative leader" and "lay the favorite in a Republican primary"

Certainly not the Republican primary, Reagan, Bush Snr, Dole, W Bush and Romney were all favourite and all ended up nominee. Trump also led polls from summer 2015 even if Rubio was favourite..

It should have been better phrased as "lay the early favorite in a Republican primary". But your sentence raises a very interesting question: where did you get the odds for Reagan, Bush Snr, Dole from?. I've tracked odds over time for 2010*, 2012*, 2015, 2016 and 2017 and getting that data is like pulling teeth. Where do you get those numbers from?

(serious question, btw: I'm not jerking your chain, I genuinely want to know)

* sparse data, possibly single date only

dixiedean said:

OK. Boundaries from first principles.
Imagine direct democracy, where each of the 46m+ voters was an MP. Perfect proportionality.
At the other extreme 1 MP by FPTP. That MP would be Mrs. May. 100 % Conservative in 2017. (Of course that could change).
Between those points there will be a curve.
But, broadly, the fewer MP's the greater the advantage for the largest Party.

Would be more sympathetic to the case for fewer MP's had there been a similar reduction of 1/13 th of Cabinet Ministers, Junior Ministers, PPS and assorted bag carriers. No such reduction was proposed.
Thus, it also increases the Power of the payroll over backbenchers. (As they constitute a larger %age).

We are leaving the EU. Therefore, it could be argued we need more, not fewer MP's. (I do not agree, but one can see the logic).

If the problem is the cost of politics/politicians, then surely one should begin with the bigger, less busy Chamber, the House of Lords for a serious culling.

But that Chamber seems to grow.

I think 650 MPs with boundaries of a certain size +/- 7.5% would be perfect. I think the reduction to 600 MPs is a mistake, as it benefits the big two at the expense of everyone else.

https://twitter.com/piris_jc/status/946562730726526976