Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Where did it go wrong for the Lib Dems?

123457»

Comments

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 73,353
    Sandpit said:

    Tax credits are the single worst government policy of this century.
    Technically weren’t they the last century?
  • DeClareDeClare Posts: 483
    edited November 2019
    Cookie said:

    Ha ha - yes, that appears to be the Labour line: vite for us because don't worry, we won't actually win. Not saying it's not effective but I'd say those following it are playing with fire somewhat.
    There might be a small 50/1 chance that Labour could win most seats, there's no chance of them winning an overall majority, but whoever went into coalition with them would no doubt want their own person to be chancellor in exchange for making Corbyn PM.
    Anyway - New Thread.
  • CorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorseBattery Posts: 21,436
    edited November 2019
    So I am on:
    Labour Majority [I know this won't happen - but am waiting for odds to hopefully drop so I can cash out]
    Labour Largest Party [as above]
    No Overall Majority
    Laid Con Majority
    I was successful in predicting December GE, albeit I also predicted November but put more on December so came out in profit.
    Also got Johnson at 2/1 to be next Tory leader - I was astonished those odds were available for so long!
  • https://twitter.com/bricksilk/status/1200747579795034117

    So they already fixed the loophole, this guy was just too early
  • timmotimmo Posts: 1,469

    So I am on:
    Labour Majority [I know this won't happen - but am waiting for odds to hopefully drop so I can cash out]
    Labour Largest Party [as above]
    No Overall Majority
    Laid Con Majority
    I was successful in predicting December GE, albeit I also predicted November but put more on December so came out in profit.
    Also got Johnson at 2/1 to be next Tory leader - I was astonished those odds were available for so long!

    The 5/6 con seats under 346.5 looks a steal at mom on skybet
  • timmo said:

    The 5/6 con seats under 346.5 looks a steal at mom on skybet
    Might have a look at that - although I might be stake limited at Sky Bet
  • camelcamel Posts: 815
    DeClare said:

    There might be a small 50/1 chance that Labour could win most seats, there's no chance of them winning an overall majority, but whoever went into coalition with them would no doubt want their own person to be chancellor in exchange for making Corbyn PM.
    Labour/SNP C&S most likely. SNP won't need minsterial limos - they have only two objectives. And the they only have the first one because it's a prerequisite for he second.
    Labour 275 seats and JCIPM.
  • nunu2nunu2 Posts: 1,453
    Andrew said:
    Isnt he basically stating the facts.
  • camel said:

    Labour/SNP C&S most likely. SNP won't need minsterial limos - they have only two objectives. And the they only have the first one because it's a prerequisite for he second.
    Labour 275 seats and JCIPM.
    Feasibly if the Tories don't have an overall majority, if Labour is 255+ Labour can feasibly form a minority Government. Corbyn may well have to resign though
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,022
    ydoethur said:

    Technically weren’t they the last century?
    2003 I think. Remember Brown’s friend Prudence who was in charge of the money until the 2001 election? Then she got fired and the spending taps turned on.
  • nunu2 said:

    Isnt he basically stating the facts.
    I think he's essentially implying what we should look at is the trend as opposed to the gap.

    What was consistent in 2017 was the trend. If that's repeated, I think a HP becomes more and more likely.
  • nunu2nunu2 Posts: 1,453
    Brom said:

    Con majority now drifting back in. Very volatile market

    What does this mean? That punters think Con majority getting more likely?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,336
    nunu2 said:

    What does this mean? That punters think Con majority getting more likely?
    That's how I understand it. in = more likely, out = less likely.
  • camelcamel Posts: 815
    RobD said:

    That's how I understand it. in = more likely, out = less likely.
    I associate the word 'drift' with out not in.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,336
    camel said:

    I associate the word 'drift' with out not in.
    But "drifting back in" implies it is going in, no? :p
  • I’m struck by how little all the journalists and pollsters seem to shift these markets when they see the numbers. If I was sat on, say, a 7% Yougov lead (illustrative example only, I know nothing for the avoidance of doubt) I’d never be able to resist playing the market.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 9,058
    RobD said:

    That's how I understand it. in = more likely, out = less likely.
    Except Con majority has drifted OUT from 1.41 to 1.46 today i.e. less likely
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,336
    Barnesian said:

    Except Con majority has drifted OUT from 1.41 to 1.46 today i.e. less likely
    I think people are referring to different timescales.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 51,080
    camel said:

    I associate the word 'drift' with out not in.
    It depends on whether the tide is coming in or going out
  • timmotimmo Posts: 1,469

    Might have a look at that - although I might be stake limited at Sky Bet
    I got 200 on
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,336
    New thread
  • BluerBlueBluerBlue Posts: 521
    edited November 2019
    del
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,423

    Problem is they have left it far too late. The media will now be dominated by this terrorist attack, then back to Prince Andrew.

    It is like 2017 all over again. They let Labour set the agenda, didn't really contest their manifesto pledges and only went hard with 3 days to go.
    Same mistakes, they just attended a debate and said Boris is a good campaigner.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 44,026

    So Marr won and Andrew Neil is unlikely to see Boris
    BBC pressured with threats no doubt
  • eggegg Posts: 1,749

    I think he's essentially implying what we should look at is the trend as opposed to the gap.

    What was consistent in 2017 was the trend. If that's repeated, I think a HP becomes more and more likely.
    What isn’t likely that whatever tv Lab get from Lib gets cancelled by con tv from BREX. In that regard labour don’t need to close the gap. If you were labour member or supporter say in Cheltenham or Wells and honest to polling “how will you vote” you won’t be saying labour. Labour will PV above their polling
  • eggegg Posts: 1,749
    malcolmg said:

    BBC pressured with threats no doubt
    A couple of tv stations being shut on Dec 13th 😁
  • Sandpit said:

    It always raises a smile to hear of activists spending their time and effort inadvetently targeting members of other parties with leaflets and door knocking. You know their canvassing records are poor when they're trying to win over local councillors!
    I agree with you that Guildford is the closest seat to winnable for the LDs in a sea of safe blue seats, they should have everyone in the area helping in that seat. In spending their efforts trying to unseat John Redwood or Michael Gove, they could lose the best opportunity they have for a win.
    I once spent an enjoyable 30 minutes tying up a couple of canvassers from a rival party with pretty nonsensical questions about their candidates views. At the time I was a regional organiser for a rival party. Got me out of painting my front door as well.

This discussion has been closed.