Isn't a small West Ham win more likely than a hammering by City? Man City have no need to exert themselves and West Ham will be playing for pride.
Possibly, taken a slice of the 13/2 on West Ham, but Man City just look irresistible going forward, whereas you get the feeling even my Mum could score against West Ham.
I've worked out the odds of West Ham qualifying - It is at the very least 12,000-1 !
Out of curiosity, roughly how did you get that figure? I find it hard to tell the difference between a 1000/1 longshot and a 10000/1 longshot.
If anything it probably overestimates the chances of West Ham, although Man City are away and could be playing a weakened team.
I think the odds are certainly longer than 1000-1 though.
Tied test matches at 1.01 are always a buy too because the 10th wicket needs to fall on the last ball of the test, and scores level. Which is ~ 1000-1+
I can barely believe I have just seen that, staggering
Don't think they'd be willing to accept laying bets at 1/100? Probably not, sadly.
I think that is the biggest liberty I have ever seen by a bookie
Not really -the percentage chance of an 80/1 as opposed to a million to one is not huge in difference and bookies generally don't want to have a potential liability (however remote) of millions of pounds run up for little stake money
Ladbrokes are 500/1, Betfair is 920/1.
Lazy odds compiling, literally taking the p*ss out of their punters
Not lazy- just not worth the effort - no money is going to get placed on this bets. Why bother for the odd £2 Hammer fan bet ?
Would the loss of every LD MEP at these May elections be the scale of dramatic crisis that could force Clegg out? Is the bar lower such as being reduced to 1 MEP or is 0 LD MEPs not enough to force Clegg out?
So long as they avoid 0 I reckon it's all priced in. Literally 0 may have the shock factor necessary. Generally speaking though Nick Clegg has remarkable support, I still reckon the party has essentially decided to suspend leadership mutterings until 2015, they know unity is valuable and have just decided to choose Clegg and keep Clegg come what may.
I think 0 is impossible. From memory when we looked at the European Constituencies there was one that ended up 2 Labour, 1 UKIP, 1 Tory, 1 Lib Dem due to the method of allocation used.
You are evidently a format god. I, alas, am not and hence can't do the he-said-she-said thing you did.
So I'll keep it short.
Clegg was head of the NOTA party. The LDs advocated all kinds of bonkers policies, hypothecating taxes as I remember, plus other loony left fantasy couldn't-make-it-up wishlists which, because they were safely unelectable, didn't matter too much.
This just doesn't stack up tbh. If they were the NOTA party that why have far more of 2010LD voters that left the party gone to Labour rather than one of the small parties or Not voting? Surely if they were protest voters they wouldn't go to a regular party of government.
It's just a large exaggeration usually resorted to out of laziness or desire to delegitimise votes cast for parties other than Labour or Conservative.
They were the left-leaning muesli-knitting NOTA party. Plenty of Lab voters couldn't bring themselves to vote Lab in 2010 (and who could blame them) so switched to the LDs believing them to be on the "right" side of the political spectrum. It is no surprise, when a common misperception is that the LDs are now supine to and support the Tories, that these voters have returned to Lab.
In fact it is exactly these voters (Lab=>LD=>Lab=>?) that will determine the outcome of GE2015.
Clegg was head of the NOTA party. The LDs advocated all kinds of bonkers policies, hypothecating taxes as I remember, plus other loony left fantasy couldn't-make-it-up wishlists which, because they were safely unelectable, didn't matter too much.
It may come as a shock to you but the lib dems didn't think they were bonkers any more than the tory MPs who keep humiliating Cameron in the commons and pressuring him think they are bonkers. Nor is it of any consequence since it's the voter who matters and despite getting less seats than Kennedy Clegg still scraped enough from the voters with those 'bonkers' policies to be in a position to keep the tories in power when Cammie failed to win a majority.
The electorate of their base, councillors and membership of course lapped it up and, by means of often toxic and vicious local campaigning, they secured some council seats.
And Clegg didn't?
LOL
I could have sworn I seen him grinning in front of a tuition fees pledge which the public didn't seem to react very well to the breaking of.
And pretty quickly they had to re-assess. Clegg got this instantly. He knew he was caught between a rock and a hard place but as much his worst fears as his greatest hope.
And so it has turned out. Shortsighted LibDems are castigating him for his u-turns and lack of achievement but, and I'm amazed I find myself spelling this out every few days, he is the junior member of a coalition government. It wasn't a triumph of the left in 2010 (despite the Lab=>LD switchers' fervent hopes), it was a just not big enough victory for the right. And Clegg has had to cut the LD's cloth as a result.
And he has been blamed for it ever since.
No, the public blamed and castigated him for it. Clegg did not understand that the time for differentiating isn't in the run up to the election in 2015 (as you soon shall see) but from the start. Clegg also made the incredible mistake of somehow thinking that under a FPTP system the lib dems were somehow obliged to parcel out their policies and postings in some ridiculous 'fair' percentage manner. Where, just because they had the least MPs meant they had to always be seen as the junior cheerleader doing nothing much of consequence. The only thing that maters in the negotiation of a coalition is do you have the power to bring it down? A power Clegg did have and indeed still does. But a power he has singularly failed to capitalise on. If you can't play hardball then don't blame anyone but yourself when the public views you as a mere appendage of the tories. Clegg never truly understood what a coalition with the tories would mean for his party and he has acted like a rabbit in the headlights ever since. Clegg was also leader during the 2010 campaign so any mistake in positioning was entirely his.
anyway enough about bookies odds and cricket ties , I logged in today just to say that Will Self was terrible on Radio 4 this morning. I think the interview (on whether young people should be more engaged in politics) went something along the lines of 'why do you think people should not engage in the political process Will? ' because all the parties are neo -liberal where the rich get more ways of getting richer '
(Ok fair enough, I thought, so what is the big idea Will?) Interviewer has same thought 'so what would you propose to change it Will?' to which the answer seemed to mumble into a highly articulate (he can do this well) 'don't know'.
Russell Brand could also not present an alternative when pressed on the same issue a few weeks back by Paxman. Why do we indulge whingers who like to whinge and be cynical in a cool way but have no ideas to contribute?
Would the loss of every LD MEP at these May elections be the scale of dramatic crisis that could force Clegg out? Is the bar lower such as being reduced to 1 MEP or is 0 LD MEPs not enough to force Clegg out?
So long as they avoid 0 I reckon it's all priced in. Literally 0 may have the shock factor necessary. Generally speaking though Nick Clegg has remarkable support, I still reckon the party has essentially decided to suspend leadership mutterings until 2015, they know unity is valuable and have just decided to choose Clegg and keep Clegg come what may.
I think 0 is impossible. From memory when we looked at the European Constituencies there was one that ended it doesn't end up 2 Labour, 1 UKIP, 1 Tory, 1 Lib Dem due to the method of allocation used.
The LibDems getting wiped out would be a catastrophe for the country. It would ensure that we get PM Redward and 5 years of Hollandaise shite squitted over the country and its recovering economy.
LOL , you obviously think more of the lib dems than I do
I doubt it! But there are few in this country who have a lower opinion of Labour or more fear for what Miliblob will do to us than yours truly.
Dave n the gang ain't popular oop north. So the productive part of the economy is going to get gang raped sideways with giant pineapples by the unthinking cheerleaders of the Party of the state by the state for the state.
"The smaller their majority, the more Eurosceptic a Conservative MP is likely to be.
Contrary to media myth, those demanding the Prime Minister take a tough line on Europe are not backwoods men from “safe seats”. They are disproportionately those MPs from the marginals."
Would the loss of every LD MEP at these May elections be the scale of dramatic crisis that could force Clegg out? Is the bar lower such as being reduced to 1 MEP or is 0 LD MEPs not enough to force Clegg out?
So long as they avoid 0 I reckon it's all priced in. Literally 0 may have the shock factor necessary. Generally speaking though Nick Clegg has remarkable support, I still reckon the party has essentially decided to suspend leadership mutterings until 2015, they know unity is valuable and have just decided to choose Clegg and keep Clegg come what may.
I think 0 is impossible. From memory when we looked at the North East seats there was no way it doesn't end up 3 Labour, 1 Tory, 1 Lib Dem due to the method of allocation used.
The North East only has three MEPs and for the Lib Dems to win one, they'll need to beat one of the other main four parties, and receive more than half the vote of the first-placed (Labour).
They just achieved that in 2009, edging out UKIP by 2.2% of the vote. They just did it in 2004, scoring 17.8% to Labour's 34.1%. They failed in 1999 despite there being four seats on offer that year (and would have failed to win the fifth seat too, had there been one).
In any case, as Rod has said and I agree with him, the South East with its stronger Lib Dem support and large number of seats should be the Yellows' last redoubt.
I think 0 is impossible. From memory when we looked at the European Constituencies there was one that ended up 2 Labour, 1 UKIP, 1 Tory, 1 Lib Dem due to the method of allocation used.
0 is not impossible. If they get few enough votes in every region they will get 0. There is no such thing as a guaranteed seat.
so what, you would condemn the LDs to perpetual opposition?
What were Clegg's options? Yes I'll fight for what I can get as a minority coalition member or No screw you you are Tories I will bring down the coalition (which hadn't been enacted by then)?
But, that is nonsensical. He still does have the power to bring it down which is sort of tautological because he _is_ the coalition so he doesn't need any power.
He could have said no in 2010 and either gone with Lab (contrary to his stated intention of allying with the largest party) or said no I'm having nothing to do with any coalition and allowed the Cons to govern under confidence and supply but by so doing, forsaking power which is presumably why every political party is constituted.
I don't get the vituperation. Or am I missing your point?
@corporeal – your thoughtful and informative reply is much appreciated – cheers.
It's something of a point of pride among Lib Dems, and tends to confuse journos not used to Lib Dem conference. They're used to set-piece style events at Labour and Conservative ones where they get a list of such and such an MP will be speaking on this subject followed by Lord X and so on. Then they get to Lib Dem conference and are told that everyone has to put a card in to the chair and see if they're called.
And if one MP turns up to a debate and puts a card they're fairly guaranteed to be called to speak, but if several of them turn up then the chair will make sure that ordinary members will get called and some MPs will miss out. And if Nick Clegg goes over the standard speaker time his microphone gets cut off.
There's also a bit of pantomime around the whole thing, but the principle of a party run as much by the membership as the leadership is pretty strongly built into the Lib Dem ethos (the leadership probably quietly rue this fact at times, and Clegg iirc has pushed through a few changes to the party's internal structure to streamline things and gather a bit more power to the leadership, but it's not something they're going to challenge head on).
"The smaller their majority, the more Eurosceptic a Conservative MP is likely to be.
Contrary to media myth, those demanding the Prime Minister take a tough line on Europe are not backwoods men from “safe seats”. They are disproportionately those MPs from the marginals."
@corporeal – your thoughtful and informative reply is much appreciated – cheers.
It's something of a point of pride among Lib Dems, and tends to confuse journos not used to Lib Dem conference. They're used to set-piece style events at Labour and Conservative ones where they get a list of such and such an MP will be speaking on this subject followed by Lord X and so on. Then they get to Lib Dem conference and are told that everyone has to put a card in to the chair and see if they're called.
And if one MP turns up to a debate and puts a card they're fairly guaranteed to be called to speak, but if several of them turn up then the chair will make sure that ordinary members will get called and some MPs will miss out. And if Nick Clegg goes over the standard speaker time his microphone gets cut off.
There's also a bit of pantomime around the whole thing, but the principle of a party run as much by the membership as the leadership is pretty strongly built into the Lib Dem ethos (the leadership probably quietly rue this fact at times, and Clegg iirc has pushed through a few changes to the party's internal structure to streamline things and gather a bit more power to the leadership, but it's not something they're going to challenge head on).
Indeed - it is why the Lib Dems had to have a special conference to vote through the Coalition Agreement - whereas the Tories were just told by Dave that was what was happening. As OGH frequently mentions - that reason also keeps the Libs united under Clegg (about Coalition) - there is no 'but we didn't ever want this' type whineing.
Did you catch Paddy Ashdown on the Daily Politics today? I have my doubts that his contribution on the programme today was particularly calming or helpful to Clegg or the other warring factions in this mess.
so what, you would condemn the LDs to perpetual opposition?
Not at all. Unlike most of the posters here I've seen them in coalition long before the Cameron love in when they were in coalition in scotland long ago. They may have been pretty unimpressive they did not undergo a complete annihilation like in 2011 with their base still getting hammered almost everywhere else as well.
What were Clegg's options? Yes I'll fight for what I can get as a minority coalition member or No screw you you are Tories I will bring down the coalition (which hadn't been enacted by then)?
But, that is nonsensical. He still does have the power to bring it down which is sort of tautological because he _is_ the coalition so he doesn't need any power.
Clegg didn't even attempt to make it arms length and the romance in the rose garden with Cammie was a signal that the voter understood very well. Of course it would never be easy but he knew all this before the election when the polls were pointing to a hung parliament for months. Plenty of time to at least try to ensure that there was a strategy to prevent the obvious which was that the lib dems would be subsumed and thought of as mere 'helpers' to the tory party which would always alienate so many of their previous voters.
The power to bring down the coalition is a recognition of the fact that in the end both sides are equal since they both can do it. From there you then argue your case and don't immediately presume that the only way forward is to then act like the election was fought under PR and any deal must reflect that kind of thinking.
He could have said no in 2010 and either gone with Lab (contrary to his stated intention of allying with the largest party) or said no I'm having nothing to do with any coalition and allowed the Cons to govern under confidence and supply but by so doing, forsaking power which is presumably why every political party is constituted.
He could have done any number different things but he made his choice because that's what it was. A choice. A choice between thousands of different policies, many different ways to make up the coalition (or opt for something else) and how responsibility was then parcelled out. What he wasn't was powerless. He set the tone and the policy direction and all else that has followed has followed because of those decisions. The reason he is in such trouble is because of those choices and because it's far too late now to suddenly pretend he didn't make them.
We can never be certain of what might have been if he had made other choices but we do know they were his to make and that he as leader was responsible for those he has made.
Did you catch Paddy Ashdown on the Daily Politics today? I have my doubts that his contribution on the programme today was particularly calming or helpful to Clegg or the other warring factions in this mess.
Mr. L, astroturf(ers) refers to fakes or propagandists. There was a very serious issue at Falkirk, and if it never got anywhere that was more due to the failure of the media to be competent than anything else. Intimidating people at their homes and almost causing significant economic damage to the whole country over a union's idiocy is no small matter.
It amuses me that somehow Falkirk was astroturfing, yet Labour's smear of Osborne over the first-class ticket - as thoroughly debunked on several levels - was serious. Add in any other number of similar incidents, the most serious of which were McAlpine and Mitchell.
As I've said passim, Labour is the real nasty party.
It's not quite that simple. Labour has the nasty activists (and not just in Falkirk), but the Tories pass the nasty legislation, e.g. the bedroom tax without looking to see if the smaller flats were there for people to move into.
And when Labour did it for private tenants, that was not 'nasty'?
All governments produce legislation that disadvantages one section of society to the advantage of another: sometimes those disadvantages are slight; in others they are major. That can only be stopped if you believe in the magic money tree.
I mean, are you really saying Labour is faultless on this? For instance, who signed the lamentable ATOS?
And as for personal nastiness, you can't beat the 'Ginger Rodent' comment. A nasty comment that was actually scripted, and was not even off-the-cuff. What happened to the person who uttered it?
If you go about calling other people 'nasty', you really have to ensure that you are not nasty.
Our civil engineer is quite right about Falkirk (and bedroom tax and media ).
I shouldn't write Falkirk off yet - it may be a long way away for some on PB, but many in Scotland were badly frightened by the affair which could have closed the petrochem works and put the oil refinery at greater long term risk, all purely collateral to internal Labour politics locally and UK-wide. Some folk, above all the union members, were left permanently disadvantaged.
Moreover, the impact on jobs (as would that of a wider closure) came within the eastern part of the remaining Labour fastness of the West Central Belt. Plus Messrs Salmond and Swinney were seen as active in trying to avert closure when Ms Lamont, nominal head of Labour in Scotland, was conspicuously absent (for reasons I still don't understand).
The point is that Labour have votes to lose here in a way they don't in places like Banff and Buchan or the Borders. For instance the 2010 UKGE for Falkirk was about 45% Labour, 30% SNP, not a small margin but we have yet to add in the Joyce factor.
Comments
In fact it is exactly these voters (Lab=>LD=>Lab=>?) that will determine the outcome of GE2015.
And Clegg didn't?
LOL
I could have sworn I seen him grinning in front of a tuition fees pledge which the public didn't seem to react very well to the breaking of. No, the public blamed and castigated him for it. Clegg did not understand that the time for differentiating isn't in the run up to the election in 2015 (as you soon shall see) but from the start. Clegg also made the incredible mistake of somehow thinking that under a FPTP system the lib dems were somehow obliged to parcel out their policies and postings in some ridiculous 'fair' percentage manner. Where, just because they had the least MPs meant they had to always be seen as the junior cheerleader doing nothing much of consequence. The only thing that maters in the negotiation of a coalition is do you have the power to bring it down? A power Clegg did have and indeed still does. But a power he has singularly failed to capitalise on. If you can't play hardball then don't blame anyone but yourself when the public views you as a mere appendage of the tories. Clegg never truly understood what a coalition with the tories would mean for his party and he has acted like a rabbit in the headlights ever since. Clegg was also leader during the 2010 campaign so any mistake in positioning was entirely his.
' because all the parties are neo -liberal where the rich get more ways of getting richer '
(Ok fair enough, I thought, so what is the big idea Will?) Interviewer has same thought 'so what would you propose to change it Will?' to which the answer seemed to mumble into a highly articulate (he can do this well) 'don't know'.
Russell Brand could also not present an alternative when pressed on the same issue a few weeks back by Paxman. Why do we indulge whingers who like to whinge and be cynical in a cool way but have no ideas to contribute?
Dave n the gang ain't popular oop north. So the productive part of the economy is going to get gang raped sideways with giant pineapples by the unthinking cheerleaders of the Party of the state by the state for the state.
Contrary to media myth, those demanding the Prime Minister take a tough line on Europe are not backwoods men from “safe seats”. They are disproportionately those MPs from the marginals."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/douglascarswellmp/100254708/eurosceptic-mps-tend-to-be-from-the-marginals-why/
They just achieved that in 2009, edging out UKIP by 2.2% of the vote. They just did it in 2004, scoring 17.8% to Labour's 34.1%. They failed in 1999 despite there being four seats on offer that year (and would have failed to win the fifth seat too, had there been one).
In any case, as Rod has said and I agree with him, the South East with its stronger Lib Dem support and large number of seats should be the Yellows' last redoubt.
so what, you would condemn the LDs to perpetual opposition?
What were Clegg's options? Yes I'll fight for what I can get as a minority coalition member or No screw you you are Tories I will bring down the coalition (which hadn't been enacted by then)?
But, that is nonsensical. He still does have the power to bring it down which is sort of tautological because he _is_ the coalition so he doesn't need any power.
He could have said no in 2010 and either gone with Lab (contrary to his stated intention of allying with the largest party) or said no I'm having nothing to do with any coalition and allowed the Cons to govern under confidence and supply but by so doing, forsaking power which is presumably why every political party is constituted.
I don't get the vituperation. Or am I missing your point?
And if one MP turns up to a debate and puts a card they're fairly guaranteed to be called to speak, but if several of them turn up then the chair will make sure that ordinary members will get called and some MPs will miss out. And if Nick Clegg goes over the standard speaker time his microphone gets cut off.
There's also a bit of pantomime around the whole thing, but the principle of a party run as much by the membership as the leadership is pretty strongly built into the Lib Dem ethos (the leadership probably quietly rue this fact at times, and Clegg iirc has pushed through a few changes to the party's internal structure to streamline things and gather a bit more power to the leadership, but it's not something they're going to challenge head on).
Cheers !
The power to bring down the coalition is a recognition of the fact that in the end both sides are equal since they both can do it. From there you then argue your case and don't immediately presume that the only way forward is to then act like the election was fought under PR and any deal must reflect that kind of thinking.
He could have done any number different things but he made his choice because that's what it was. A choice. A choice between thousands of different policies, many different ways to make up the coalition (or opt for something else) and how responsibility was then parcelled out. What he wasn't was powerless. He set the tone and the policy direction and all else that has followed has followed because of those decisions. The reason he is in such trouble is because of those choices and because it's far too late now to suddenly pretend he didn't make them.
We can never be certain of what might have been if he had made other choices but we do know they were his to make and that he as leader was responsible for those he has made.
UKIP Shipping Forecast
http://usvsth3m.com/post/73952594819/if-the-ukip-shipping-forecast-doesnt-make-you-smile-at
100 yards out
Blue Wave destroying them advised at 5-2, second 5-2 winner of the day.
I shouldn't write Falkirk off yet - it may be a long way away for some on PB, but many in Scotland were badly frightened by the affair which could have closed the petrochem works and put the oil refinery at greater long term risk, all purely collateral to internal Labour politics locally and UK-wide. Some folk, above all the union members, were left permanently disadvantaged.
Moreover, the impact on jobs (as would that of a wider closure) came within the eastern part of the remaining Labour fastness of the West Central Belt. Plus Messrs Salmond and Swinney were seen as active in trying to avert closure when Ms Lamont, nominal head of Labour in Scotland, was conspicuously absent (for reasons I still don't understand).
The point is that Labour have votes to lose here in a way they don't in places like Banff and Buchan or the Borders. For instance the 2010 UKGE for Falkirk was about 45% Labour, 30% SNP, not a small margin but we have yet to add in the Joyce factor.