politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Time to make a call. The value bet in Newark is 3-1 that it

-- @state_go_away Vanilla inbox --

Pulpstar said:

state_go_away said:

anotherDave said:

Pulpstar said:

Anyone have experience of https://www.fundingcircle.com ?

Never used them, but Ian Cowie did give an overview of peer-to-peer lenders.

"While Funding Circle advertises mouth-watering returns to investors or 9.1pc gross and Zopa offers a more realistic 5.4pc “after charges and annualized average defaults” peer-to-peer lending is not protected by the statutory safety net that safeguards depositors with conventional banks and building societies."

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ianmcowie/100021861/bank-chief-claims-peer-to-peer-lenders-could-replace-banks/

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ianmcowie/100024350/how-5pc-returns-for-savers-just-became-slightly-less-risky/

I lend money to Zopa which incorporates (now) bad debt insurance within its rates. I looked at funding circle and although the rates look good you are basically lending to start ups or early life companies a lot of the time.
I was put off personally when I saw the accounts of a firm that took out funding circle loans and they were not that impressive to say the least . Its only my little anecdote but it put me off

What sort of cash do you need to do it - the bad debt insurance sounds good. Would a grand be ok or so to earn 50 quid in a year ?

Yes obviously the bad debt insurance lowers the effective rate but ,last year. I got 4% ish. A grand or two is ideal as it does not take too long to get matched and big enough so the returns are worthwhile the time spent registering and entering on tax returns etc (interest paid gross so needs to be declared)

ToryJim said:

Just re the latest UKIP posters. In a bit of spat with someone over whether they are a blatant dog-whistle to racism. I seem to remember previous use by the BNP or NF in the 90s in a directly racist manner. Just need to see if my memory is faulty.

They used the 'white cliffs of Dover' song. Could it be that you were thinking of?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/4687730/Dame-Vera-Lynn-takes-on-BNP-over-White-Cliffs-of-Dover.html

SimonStClare said:

In what way, he pleaded guilty.

I was being ironic...

JosiasJessop said:

anotherDave said:

"UKIP today reveals it's new billboard design depicting an escalator running up the White Cliffs of Dover showing how we have lost control of our borders."

http://www.ukip.org/ukip_reveals_new_billboard_design

That offends my engineering and health and safety sensibilities.

Firstly, it is not protected from the tide. Wait for the first high tide and the mechanism would be ruined. Then there's the safety aspect of a lack of crowd control or fencing at the top. Disabled access is also not catered for.

Finally there's a practical one: the cliffs must be at least a couple of hundred feet high given the scale of the house at the top, and I count only 25-30 steps. This means each step would be a minimum of six to seven feet high, and therefore utterly useless.

So it's not fit for purpose, dangerous, caters for an uncertain demand, and will last precisely six hours.

Needless to say, ;-)

And a Stannah stairlift would be much more UKIP-friendly.

SimonStClare said:

Life_ina_market_town said:

It's ironic, (albeit fully justified) that Briscoe has received a prison term twice as long as Huhne and Pryce. Huhne has been vindicated again.

Max Clifford all behind bars.

Sentencing at 2pm.....

antifrank said:

"If you are an EU national living in another EU country, you have the right to vote and stand as a candidate in European Parliament elections in that country."

IIRC someone (wasn't it Clegg?) stood in Holland to get around the fact that Euro-elections were then FPTP in Britain. I think he won, too?

Personally I think anyone should be able to stand anywhere if they put down the necessary deposit - let the voters choose who they want, taking their nationality into account. Perhaps UKIP would put Putin up.

Pulpstar said:

-- @state_go_away Vanilla inbox --

Zopa does have the nice touch where when you lend people your £10 (it splits your money up into £10 lending units to spread risk) it gives them an opportunity to say how grateful they are and what they are using the money for. If you are into feeling like a God (I am) then it is a good feature to warm the heart!

NickPalmer said:

antifrank said:

"If you are an EU national living in another EU country, you have the right to vote and stand as a candidate in European Parliament elections in that country."

IIRC someone (wasn't it Clegg?) stood in Holland to get around the fact that Euro-elections were then FPTP in Britain. I think he won, too?

Personally I think anyone should be able to stand anywhere if they put down the necessary deposit - let the voters choose who they want, taking their nationality into account. Perhaps UKIP would put Putin up.

OUCH!! lol

NickPalmer said:

antifrank said:

"If you are an EU national living in another EU country, you have the right to vote and stand as a candidate in European Parliament elections in that country."

IIRC someone (wasn't it Clegg?) stood in Holland to get around the fact that Euro-elections were then FPTP in Britain. I think he won, too?

Personally I think anyone should be able to stand anywhere if they put down the necessary deposit - let the voters choose who they want, taking their nationality into account. Perhaps UKIP would put Putin up.

I seem to remember David Steel standing as/being an italian MEP.

dyedwoolie said:

Further meaningless info
Got my first Euro literature today. From Dave. Probably remembers I was a party member in 2005 and voted for him.
I used to like toffs.

I got a leaflet from the 'Communities United' Party yesterday. No, I had never heard of them before either, and having read the leaflet I am no better informed about what they stand for other than running political surgeries in Ealing and Romford. Anyone care to spread some light?

Richard_Nabavi said:

@NickPalmer - The lead candidate in the South East region for 'An independence from Europe' is the photogenic Laurence Stassen, who is Dutch. She's currently an MEP for the Netherlands, originally elected for Geert Wilders' party, but she has split off from them:

http://www.laurencestassen.eu/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurence_Stassen

If you think about a Dutch person representing 'An independence from Europe' party too much then the logic circles will explode your brain imo

TGOHF said:

anotherDave said:

"UKIP today reveals it's new billboard design depicting an escalator running up the White Cliffs of Dover showing how we have lost control of our borders."

http://www.ukip.org/ukip_reveals_new_billboard_design

Bring back powdered eggs and camp coffee - the good old days.

Don't know about powdered eggs but you can still buy Camp Coffee, Tescos sell it so presumably there must still be people who buy it; possibly as a flavouring for cakes rather than as a beverage.

Interesting Vox-Pub on what may lie behind UKIP support:

'Member of the Westminster bubble talks to voters shock'

Prof Tomkins latest thoughts on the case for the Union:

http://notesfromnorthbritain.wordpress.com/2014/05/02/two-positive-cases/

TGOHF said:

anotherDave said:

"UKIP today reveals it's new billboard design depicting an escalator running up the White Cliffs of Dover showing how we have lost control of our borders."

http://www.ukip.org/ukip_reveals_new_billboard_design

Bring back powdered eggs and camp coffee - the good old days. That nice Len Goodman - perfect gentleman he is.

UKIP = "Mrs Brady, Old Lady" from Viz.

In which case, the Lib Dems are the 'Modern Parents'

http://www.ybig.ie/forum/viz-modern-parents_topic10899.html

I'm not sure that the Conservatives or Labour would be ... Labour (Biffa Bacon?); Conservatives (Mr Logic)?

JosiasJessop said:

TGOHF said:

anotherDave said:

"UKIP today reveals it's new billboard design depicting an escalator running up the White Cliffs of Dover showing how we have lost control of our borders."

http://www.ukip.org/ukip_reveals_new_billboard_design

Bring back powdered eggs and camp coffee - the good old days. That nice Len Goodman - perfect gentleman he is.

UKIP = "Mrs Brady, Old Lady" from Viz.

In which case, the Lib Dems are the 'Modern Parents'

http://www.ybig.ie/forum/viz-modern-parents_topic10899.html

I'm not sure that the Conservatives or Labour would be ... Labour (Biffa Bacon?); Conservatives (Mr Logic)?

The Greens are 'Student Grant'

''What is to stop PM Cameron passing a law that allows free movement of people from the EU to the UK and keeping our borders just as open as they were before?''

I'd have thought Ed Miliband is far more likely to do that when people like you voting UKIP catapult him into power.

Ed may well commit the UK to further and possibly irreversible integration with Europe which will make your aims much more difficult to achieve than they are now.

The consolation is that you will be able to seethe properly when that happens.

Socrates said:

ToryJim said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

anotherDave said:

"UKIP today reveals it's new billboard design depicting an escalator running up the White Cliffs of Dover showing how we have lost control of our borders."

http://www.ukip.org/ukip_reveals_new_billboard_design

What a strange poster. It doesn't really work IMO, and not only because 'the white cliffs of Dover' means nothing to anyone under 60.

It's a dog whistle to racists

What tripe. Even national origin isn't mentioned, let alone race. It is a billboard entirely about immigration. Unless you think opposing open border immigration is racist, which would be ridiculous, you don't have an argument here.

When the Conservatives criticise mass immigration, it's legitimate. When UKIP do so, it's racism, apparently.

tpfkar said:

Labour looks a speculative punt in Newark to me; do they have any organisation across the rural parts of the constituency? Is Ed's promise to cap rents going to sweep him to victory here? I'd look for value on low turnout instead; 2 weeks after Euros and dubious reason for by-elex.

Coalition squabble on knives caught my eye. Looks like one where it's in both parties interests to disagree publically, but adds to perception that Grayling is struggling. His savings don't seem as well thought out as some colleagues (just expect same outputs for less money, or the outcry over parcel restrictions) and he seems particularly weak at working in the constraints of coalition - there must be plenty he can offer e.g. on drugs policy reviews to get things like this through. Might Grayling be looking over his shoulder come the reshuffle?

Grayling's so-called savings on Legal Aid resulted yesterday in a fraud trial (following a lengthy investigation by the FCA) being stopped. Another major insider dealing trial faces the same problem. Based on yesterday's judgment there must be a high risk that an investigation which, to my knowledge, has taken at least 5 years will be stopped because the defendants cannot find anyone to defend them at the rates the government is paying. The judge effectively said yesterday that the government's failure to fund the justice system meant that defendants could not receive a fair trial.

What kind of a country are we that we have reached such a pass? What sort of financial centre can we be if the City regulator cannot bring fraud cases because defendants are unable to have a fair trial?

All of this has arisen because of Grayling's inept and ineffective reforms. He should be kicked out of government.

Whatever one's views on the role of the state it is indisputably the case that a proper system of justice is one of its main, basic functions. And on this the government is failing in a way which brings our standing, not least in one of our major industries, into disrepute.

isam said:

What is to stop PM Cameron passing a law that allows free movement of people from the EU to the UK and keeping our borders just as open as they were before?

Well, it wouldn't be 'PM Cameron passing a law', but you have put your finger on a key point, which I was discussing with Socrates a few days ago. If we leave the EU, everyone agrees that we'd negotiate a trade deal with the EU - indeed that's a key UKIP point, and a very valid one, when people like Clegg imply there would be a big loss of trade and therefore job losses.

So you have to ask yourself what would be in that trade deal, and my contention is that, like the deal Switzerland has, it would include the free movement of workers, to a greater or lesser extent - probably, in the end, not very different from what we currently have.

So, yes, you are right, but it's got nothing to do with Cameron particularly, it would be equally an issue if PM Farage were doing the negotiating.

There are no free lunches or easy options which give you everything you want and nothing you don't want.

BobaFett said:

@Isam

Personally I doubt there would be a referendum anyway if the Tories won a majority. Cameron would surely find a way out of it (assuming he thought there was a genuine risk of losing it).

Absolutely mad.

My offer of up to £1000 (or possibly more) at Even remains open to anyone credit-worthy but foolish enough to believe such nonsense.

BobaFett said:

JosiasJessop said:

anotherDave said:

"UKIP today reveals it's new billboard design depicting an escalator running up the White Cliffs of Dover showing how we have lost control of our borders."

http://www.ukip.org/ukip_reveals_new_billboard_design

That offends my engineering and health and safety sensibilities.

Firstly, it is not protected from the tide. Wait for the first high tide and the mechanism would be ruined. Then there's the safety aspect of a lack of crowd control or fencing at the top. Disabled access is also not catered for.

Finally there's a practical one: the cliffs must be at least a couple of hundred feet high given the scale of the house at the top, and I count only 25-30 steps. This means each step would be a minimum of six to seven feet high, and therefore utterly useless.

So it's not fit for purpose, dangerous, caters for an uncertain demand, and will last precisely six hours.

Needless to say, ;-)

Ha ha, excellent. Also, there is the minor flaw of how you descend? Although I guess in Ukip terms 'they' never leave....

The question is, how would they be greeted at the top?

Labour set up a massively expensive welcome gate and only count one in every ten.
Conservatives cough politely and look at their shoes.
Lib Dems hold a jamboree.
UKIP give them a bus ticket to Dover.
BNP push them off.

:-)

Richard_Nabavi said:

BobaFett said:

@Isam

Personally I doubt there would be a referendum anyway if the Tories won a majority. Cameron would surely find a way out of it (assuming he thought there was a genuine risk of losing it).

Absolutely mad.

My offer of up to £1000 (or possibly more) at Even remains open to anyone credit-worthy but foolish enough to believe such nonsense.

I'll also offer £1000 for the same bet. Will no one think of the cocktails?

Even Sean Fear, disillusioned and disgusted as he is with Cameron and all his works, knows that an in-out referendum will take place if his ex party wins a majority next year.

taffys said:

These guys are out and out vitriolic racists

true, but do you think they said stuff that isn;t said amongst 'friends' in pubs up and down the land on a daily basis?

I run a pub and yes, it is.

Richard_Nabavi said:

JohnO said:

I'll also offer £1000 for the same bet. Will no one think of the cocktails?

Could be quite a party!

The problem is finding a mug to take the bet. There are lots of people who are adamant that Cameron would renege on the committment, we just need to find one who is credit-worthy and not all mouth and no trousers.

Edit: Just had an idea - does anyone have John Rentoul's email address?

IoS could just be that man

taffys said:

What kind of a country are we that we have reached such a pass?

And yet 20 million pounds was spent on legal aid for Iraqis who have even never been to Britain to bring a case against the British army.

A case which the court decided was wholly without foundation.

Surely its a question of priorities in defining what legal aid should or shouldn;t cover.

A case, moreover, in which an employee or employee of one of the law firms who represented these bogus claimants appears to have shredded key documents, which would have resulted in the case being thrown out years ago, had they been disclosed.

On the other hand in terms of pub patriots, I was putting up St George bunting on April 23 and one of my regulars, a lad in his 20s, a builder by trade, said 'the World Cup isn't for 2 months'
I pointed out it was for St George's Day
'Whats that? Never heard of him'

BobaFett said:

isam said:

CarlottaVance said:

Interesting Vox-Pub on what may lie behind UKIP support:

http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2014/05/ukip-thrives-because-the-man-in-the-pub-feels-it-will-not-be-cowed-into-silence.html

CarlottaVance said:

Interesting Vox-Pub on what may lie behind UKIP support:

http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2014/05/ukip-thrives-because-the-man-in-the-pub-feels-it-will-not-be-cowed-into-silence.html

I was born 100 yards from that pub...

Make of that what you will!

Does anyone doubt my "anecdotes" from my mates who are "sparks" now?

These guys are out and out vitriolic racists, I don't remember your mates being so...

The King Harold is a rough boozer in a crap area. The language is harsher but I wouldn't say the sentiment was a million miles away

@HurstLlama:

This is the issue:

Official figures show that £600m of legal aid went on lawyers for around 128,000 defendants in the Crown Court in 2012-13

Just 20 VHCCs ["Very High Cost Cases"] soaked up a tenth of all that spending.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27247592

As always when these things are discussed, the focus is on the wrong aspect. It shouldn't be on who is paying, it should be on why the cases are so mind-blowingly expensive in the first place.

Socrates said:

CarlottaVance said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

isam said:

What is to stop PM Cameron passing a law that allows free movement of people from the EU to the UK and keeping our borders just as open as they were before?

There are no free lunches or easy options which give you everything you want and nothing you don't want.

Unless you are UKIP or the SNP, where your much bigger counter-party will accede to every request......

Or, you know, David Cameron in his renegotiation attempts...

He too has an uphill task, tho cannily has not offered hostages to fortune unlike the SNP or UKIP, to the incandescent fury of his critics.....

I've just had a leaflet through the post from No2EU. It reads like a leftist UKIP: No to the EU, protect workers' rights and yes to international solidarity, but also no TTIP with the US.

http://www.no2eu.com/

So far, we've had one election-specific leaflet from each of UKIP and No2EU, and a non-specific one from the Conservatives. Nothing from Labour or the Lib Dems.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Our estimate for Labour this month is 35.3%, down 0.9% on last month, and continuing the past year’s pattern of slow but steady decline. Labour have now hit their lowest point in the polls since Ed Miliband was elected leader of the party in the autumn of 2010.

However, the Conservatives have not been able to capitalise on Labour’s continued decline as their support has fallen even more sharply this month, down 1.4 points at 31.6%. The Liberal Democrats have also seen no electoral benefit from their leader’s high profile combat with Nigel Farage over the EU – we have them down 0.2% this month at 7.4%.

http://sotonpolitics.org/2014/05/02/polling-observatory-36-farages-spring-uprising/

I think it's fair to say that whereas the initial UKIP surge was predominantly from the Tories, they are now picking up a bit from all parties. It's probably a mistake, though, to suppose that if this fades it will nearly all go Tory.

Richard_Nabavi said:

@HurstLlama:

This is the issue:

Official figures show that £600m of legal aid went on lawyers for around 128,000 defendants in the Crown Court in 2012-13

Just 20 VHCCs ["Very High Cost Cases"] soaked up a tenth of all that spending.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27247592

As always when these things are discussed, the focus is on the wrong aspect. It shouldn't be on who is paying, it should be on why the cases are so mind-blowingly expensive in the first place.

Years ago I used occasionally to take a drink with a City of London copper. The City of London then being the foremost force in investigating fraud and like crime. After losing several long and complex cases because, it was thought, the juries couldn't understand the offence let alone the evidence, the plod decided to change tack. At the heart of most complex fraud cases their is usually a simple case of theft or deception so do enough work to get the evidence for that and take that to court. No need then for 5 year long investigations, massively complex and lengthy trials, cheaper and fairer all round and the punishments on conviction need not be dissimilar. Instead HMG set up the Serious Fraud Office whose success rate has been, shall we say, patchy and who now, it would seem, can't even get a case to trial.

Perhaps my old chum had a point.

There are loads of junior barristers earning very little (I have a good friend who earned just under £12k last year which barely covered her work expenses), particularly in crime. The issue here was that you can't just get anyone to defend you on legal aid, it needs to be a barrister with a legal aid contract. Now plenty of those are around, but for VHCC cases they need to have a VHCC contract. Last year all the barristers on VHCC contracts had the contracts cancelled and were offered new ones with a 30% fee cut - not a single one has yet signed. There are a set of public defenders, but none could be found with suitable experience for this case. Thus the judge ruled that the defendants didn't have access to a credible legal defence, and thus couldn't have a fair trial.

Richard_Nabavi said:

@HurstLlama:

This is the issue:

Official figures show that £600m of legal aid went on lawyers for around 128,000 defendants in the Crown Court in 2012-13

Just 20 VHCCs ["Very High Cost Cases"] soaked up a tenth of all that spending.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27247592

As always when these things are discussed, the focus is on the wrong aspect. It shouldn't be on who is paying, it should be on why the cases are so mind-blowingly expensive in the first place.

Amen to that.

isam said:

BobaFett said:

@Taffys

Not in the pubs I frequent.

Cue endless posts about 'rich' leftie Londoners...

I don't want to get into the boring debate about what makes a Londoner etc.. I don't even know if I am one.. probably not...

But my original point was, and you kind of back it up when you post, is that people born in a place have stronger, and usually more negative, views about the pace of change in an area... lets not try and define whether this makes them "real" whatever they came from or not.

The bloke in the pub, that was born in Custom House and moved to Dagenham.. look what he thinks of Custom House now.. what do you think people like him that haven't left yet think of it? Compare their opinions with people who "decided" to live in Custom House or Canning Town or wherever in London you choose

That's all I ever said, but the debate was dominated by the offence that people took by my calling them "not real" Londoners!

Probably the difference is that people born there feel they have the right to criticize the change/immigration, whereas people that move there as adults would be seen as being rude if they criticized, and hypocrites as they are immigrants themselves

HurstLlama said:

At the heart of most complex fraud cases their is usually a simple case of theft or deception so do enough work to get the evidence for that and take that to court.

Yes, I think that is exactly the point. They get distracted with massive amounts of extraneous stuff, and that in turn is because the entire legal establishment, from top to bottom, including the judges, really have no incentive to keep costs down - in fact, in many cases the reverse. Of course they pay lip-service to cutting costs, but it's ineffectual.

Of course it's not just fraud cases, the same point applies to all aspects of justice.

I've had close experience of this in relation to a civil case a few years ago, where my wife was an expert witness. It was a professional negligence case, and essentially came down to two points: were the defendants liable, and, if so, for how much?

A massive amount of work was done on the second point (which was quite complex), at a cost of many, many hundreds of thousands of pounds.

All a complete waste of time and money, because the case never got that far; it was thrown out a few days' into the trial on the first point.

Surely it should not be beyond the wit of man, even of lawyers, to derive a system where you first decide on liability, and only if liability is proven, go on to do extremely detailed and expensive work on quantifying it?