politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » As most of the results are now in, the papers begin to give
Comments
-
@Pulpstar
Missed it, I'm afraid. I spend most of my time betting the horses these days. The margins are much tighter but there is action and decent liquidity most days.
Congrats to you and Neil though. Always pleased to learn of a decent gambler collecting.0 -
If you gave me the Westminster results of two regions of England I could probably take a fair shot at what the voting results in a 3rd region were.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Comparing this year's seats with last year's seats is akin to comparing Welsh Assembly with Scottish Parliament results. A completely different demographic.corporeal said:
Yes?Sunil_Prasannan said:
But you just said:corporeal said:
Because you can't directly compare them to last year's, because they're in different areas and the last time these seats were contested was in 2010 and if possible we'd like a more recent comparison.Sunil_Prasannan said:Why don't they use the absolute % of votes cast rather than come up with "projections"?
UKIP up on 2010 is obvious, where they are in relation to 2013 is more interesting.
"because they're in different areas and the last time these seats were contested was in 2010"
We want recency and comparability. Last year's seats aren't comparable, and 2010's aren't recent.
So to fix that they try to project the annual results to a national figure to give use figures that are recent and comparable.
It's certainly not perfect, but not voodoo either.0 -
Some lefty smartarse on here a few weeks back claimed there is no such thing as WWC, hopefully he has learnt different now.BobaFett said:
Not is it the disaster claimed by many before the results came in.Peter_the_Punter said:
In pre-vote unspun discussions it was generally reckoned that if Labour gained less than 150, Milliband was toast. He would survive, but be damaged, at around 250. The actual 300 or so is ok....sort of, but hardly a ringing endorsement.Dixie said:Still not understanding the Media's view that Labour didn't do well. They've picked up more seats, more Councils and they are dominant in London.
My view of these locals is that it's a bit "meh" for the two big parties, but no worse than that. All to play for at the GE and it changes little. The Tories have a London problem, Labour have a WWC problem. Even Steven.0 -
Joe Dromey is tweeting from the count. So they are counting right now. Lab just gained Downham from LD and and remaining Tory seat in Grove ParAndyJS said:
Previous information was that Lewisham was doing its council seat count tomorrow, with the mayoral count today. But I don't know if they've changed that.
0 -
There's no misunderstanding.Richard_Nabavi said:Amusing to see this thread so full of an unholy alliance of Labour and UKIP supporters laying into lefty* academics on the basis a complete lack of understanding of notional national vote shares.
* I don't know for a fact they are all lefties, but I do know for a fact that some of them are, and strongly so. For the others we have to estimate, but they are academics, so we can model their political positioning fairly easily!
Either their previous projected value of 23% was too high because it didn't take into account the London effect or the current 17% value is too low because it doesn't take into account the London effect.
It could quite easily be the former (and given how badly the pollsters predicted the London results i think it probably is).
That isn't Ukip declining. That's just a model that didn't take into account a major difference in voting pattern.
0 -
Rotherham looks like a special circumstances case rather than a general indicator. Elsewhere in Labour strongholds it seems to be that UKIP is hoovering up anti-Labour votes that were previously split among other parties, while nibbling at the Labour vote itself rather than taking great chunks out of it.maaarsh said:
Fair enough - in like for like areas I can't see any signs of a retreat - they've won more seats than last year, often in much more interesting areas. Winning the popular vote in Rotherham is a real wow result.Richard_Nabavi said:
UKIP did a very poor job of expectations management, so if people are seeing this as a poor result it's partly the party's own fault. In terms of the locals, they don't seem to have advanced compared with last year, and may have gone backwards slightly.maaarsh said:As for Thrasher, I did enjoy him following up his much less favourable comment by saying that attempts to downplay UKIP's results were 'mean' - who knows if this is a sly dig at OGH, or Fisher et al.
Don't get me wrong, though - I still think they will clean up big-time in the Euros.
0 -
More like 1974, or 1992 with two unappealing party leaders short of support and ideas, and unstable small majorities. Leading to either a thatcher or Blair hegemony.
I see Ed Miliband as Wilson, but without the canny common touch.Speedy said:
2015GE might be a completely new type of election, I think the closest analogy is the 1922 or 1918 GE.SouthamObserver1 said:This new four party system will take a while to be properly understood by all of us. The past is no real help. But Labour getting 31% in a GE and basically being a majority government should, hopefully, give a few folk pause for thought.
UKIP was always going to have a great set of results this time. The key thing is how the other parties react. And the direction UKIP takes when it comes to write its 2015 manifesto.0 -
Oops, Ed's favourite economist 'got his sums wrong', according to the FT:
twitter.com/suttonnick/status/469930822930534400/photo/1
0 -
Basildon council, popular votes:
UKIP 15,163 (39.00%)
Con 13,605 (34.99%)
Lab 8,092 (20.81%)
LD 1,846 (4.75%)
Changes since 2010 locals:
UKIP +35.12%
Con -14.62%
Lab -0.59%
LD -13.53%
BNP -6.83% (not standing this time)0 -
Well that wasn't me, and he is wrong.nigel4england said:
Some lefty smartarse on here a few weeks back claimed there is no such thing as WWC, hopefully he has learnt different now.BobaFett said:
Not is it the disaster claimed by many before the results came in.Peter_the_Punter said:
In pre-vote unspun discussions it was generally reckoned that if Labour gained less than 150, Milliband was toast. He would survive, but be damaged, at around 250. The actual 300 or so is ok....sort of, but hardly a ringing endorsement.Dixie said:Still not understanding the Media's view that Labour didn't do well. They've picked up more seats, more Councils and they are dominant in London.
My view of these locals is that it's a bit "meh" for the two big parties, but no worse than that. All to play for at the GE and it changes little. The Tories have a London problem, Labour have a WWC problem. Even Steven.0 -
I've gone Kingston Hill E/W @ 16s for the Derby, reckon thats any good ?Peter_the_Punter said:@Pulpstar
Missed it, I'm afraid. I spend most of my time betting the horses these days. The margins are much tighter but there is action and decent liquidity most days.
Congrats to you and Neil though. Always pleased to learn of a decent gambler collecting.
I can't be backing Australia at 5-6 !0 -
It really gets interesting when these seats come up again, if UKIP can maintain reasonable momentum, at least for local and euro elections. Very different ball game when you start the campaign with a credible vote share to build on.SouthamObserver1 said:
Rotherham looks like a special circumstances case rather than a general indicator. Elsewhere in Labour strongholds it seems to be that UKIP is hoovering up anti-Labour votes that were previously split among other parties, while nibbling at the Labour vote itself rather than taking great chunks out of it.maaarsh said:
Fair enough - in like for like areas I can't see any signs of a retreat - they've won more seats than last year, often in much more interesting areas. Winning the popular vote in Rotherham is a real wow result.Richard_Nabavi said:
UKIP did a very poor job of expectations management, so if people are seeing this as a poor result it's partly the party's own fault. In terms of the locals, they don't seem to have advanced compared with last year, and may have gone backwards slightly.maaarsh said:As for Thrasher, I did enjoy him following up his much less favourable comment by saying that attempts to downplay UKIP's results were 'mean' - who knows if this is a sly dig at OGH, or Fisher et al.
Don't get me wrong, though - I still think they will clean up big-time in the Euros.0 -
The BBC and Channel 4 keep saying the drop in *projected* share shows Ukip declining despite evidence to the contrary staring them in the face. It's a joke.SouthamObserver1 said:Is anyone actually suggesting UKIP did badly? I haven't heard that and certainly not from the academics doing the projections. As I understood it they said that the UKIP vote falling back a bit is neither here nor there when over a four year period it has grown so much.
0 -
OGH is clutching at straws, his hatred of UKIP is clouding his judgement.maaarsh said:
OGH seems to think it's very relevant that these meta-numbers suggest UKIP's vote has fallen over 25% in a year. Some people think those numbers are obviously barmy, and others thing questioning those numbers is the preserve of fruitcakes and loons.SouthamObserver1 said:Is anyone actually suggesting UKIP did badly? I haven't heard that and certainly not from the academics doing the projections. As I understood it they said that the UKIP vote falling back a bit is neither here nor there when over a four year period it has grown so much.
A piss poor trait when it comes to betting.0 -
Wonder what UKIP's first overall control council will be ?maaarsh said:
It really gets interesting when these seats come up again, if UKIP can maintain reasonable momentum, at least for local and euro elections. Very different ball game when you start the campaign with a credible vote share to build on.SouthamObserver1 said:
Rotherham looks like a special circumstances case rather than a general indicator. Elsewhere in Labour strongholds it seems to be that UKIP is hoovering up anti-Labour votes that were previously split among other parties, while nibbling at the Labour vote itself rather than taking great chunks out of it.maaarsh said:
Fair enough - in like for like areas I can't see any signs of a retreat - they've won more seats than last year, often in much more interesting areas. Winning the popular vote in Rotherham is a real wow result.Richard_Nabavi said:
UKIP did a very poor job of expectations management, so if people are seeing this as a poor result it's partly the party's own fault. In terms of the locals, they don't seem to have advanced compared with last year, and may have gone backwards slightly.maaarsh said:As for Thrasher, I did enjoy him following up his much less favourable comment by saying that attempts to downplay UKIP's results were 'mean' - who knows if this is a sly dig at OGH, or Fisher et al.
Don't get me wrong, though - I still think they will clean up big-time in the Euros.
Basildon perhaps ?
0 -
Just Can't Get EnoughAndyJS said:Basildon council, popular votes:
UKIP 15,163 (39.00%)
Con 13,605 (34.99%)
Lab 8,092 (20.81%)
LD 1,846 (4.75%)
Changes since 2010 locals:
UKIP +35.12%
Con -14.62%
Lab -0.59%
LD -13.53%
BNP -6.83% (not standing this time)
0 -
I know that wasn't you but I cannot remember who it was.BobaFett said:
Well that wasn't me, and he is wrong.nigel4england said:
Some lefty smartarse on here a few weeks back claimed there is no such thing as WWC, hopefully he has learnt different now.BobaFett said:
Not is it the disaster claimed by many before the results came in.Peter_the_Punter said:
In pre-vote unspun discussions it was generally reckoned that if Labour gained less than 150, Milliband was toast. He would survive, but be damaged, at around 250. The actual 300 or so is ok....sort of, but hardly a ringing endorsement.Dixie said:Still not understanding the Media's view that Labour didn't do well. They've picked up more seats, more Councils and they are dominant in London.
My view of these locals is that it's a bit "meh" for the two big parties, but no worse than that. All to play for at the GE and it changes little. The Tories have a London problem, Labour have a WWC problem. Even Steven.0 -
Slight caveat to my earlier post.
Betfair has UKIP at
1.29-1.3 most votes
and
1.35-1.46 most seats.
So the betting does not indicate they are "certain" to get most votes. Just very, very likely. Both sets of prices indicate that a UKIP 25-35% vote is very likely indeed.
0 -
Forgive me, Comrade Chancellor, but who is "College". As you know I have been overseas for a number of weeks and don't recall said epithet being mentioned before I left.AveryLP said:FPT
College looks as though he is sitting on a sharpened apostrophe.dr_spyn said:twitter.com/SkyNews/status/469941318224195586/photo/1
For some reason Farage looks like a Shar Pei fighting dog.0 -
0
-
And now 48 hours of waiting; well perhaps 42 for the Euro results.0
-
I've got an Australia ticket at 5/2 but I also like Orchestra at a decent price, however if the predicted rain comes the ground could be crucial come race time.Pulpstar said:
I've gone Kingston Hill E/W @ 16s for the Derby, reckon thats any good ?Peter_the_Punter said:@Pulpstar
Missed it, I'm afraid. I spend most of my time betting the horses these days. The margins are much tighter but there is action and decent liquidity most days.
Congrats to you and Neil though. Always pleased to learn of a decent gambler collecting.
I can't be backing Australia at 5-6 !0 -
@Pulpstar
"I can't be backing Australia at 5-6 !"
Well, for The Ashes maybe.
Yes, hard not to like Kingston Hill, but I'll not be having a bet.0 -
You don't think pb should pay attention to the BBC's national projections?nigel4england said:
OGH is clutching at straws, his hatred of UKIP is clouding his judgement.maaarsh said:
OGH seems to think it's very relevant that these meta-numbers suggest UKIP's vote has fallen over 25% in a year. Some people think those numbers are obviously barmy, and others thing questioning those numbers is the preserve of fruitcakes and loons.SouthamObserver1 said:Is anyone actually suggesting UKIP did badly? I haven't heard that and certainly not from the academics doing the projections. As I understood it they said that the UKIP vote falling back a bit is neither here nor there when over a four year period it has grown so much.
A piss poor trait when it comes to betting.0 -
So if I gave you London and, say, the NE Region, you could tell me the results in the SW? Really?corporeal said:
If you gave me the Westminster results of two regions of England I could probably take a fair shot at what the voting results in a 3rd region were.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Comparing this year's seats with last year's seats is akin to comparing Welsh Assembly with Scottish Parliament results. A completely different demographic.corporeal said:
Yes?Sunil_Prasannan said:
But you just said:corporeal said:
Because you can't directly compare them to last year's, because they're in different areas and the last time these seats were contested was in 2010 and if possible we'd like a more recent comparison.Sunil_Prasannan said:Why don't they use the absolute % of votes cast rather than come up with "projections"?
UKIP up on 2010 is obvious, where they are in relation to 2013 is more interesting.
"because they're in different areas and the last time these seats were contested was in 2010"
We want recency and comparability. Last year's seats aren't comparable, and 2010's aren't recent.
So to fix that they try to project the annual results to a national figure to give use figures that are recent and comparable.
It's certainly not perfect, but not voodoo either.0 -
Of course there is a white working class. The mistake is to see it as some homogenous grouping. There has always been a substantial non-Labour WWC vote. It's now migrating to UKIP. But in most Labour areas there has been no significant Labour to UKIP move. Rotherham is clearly an exception and there are specific reasons for it. NE Lincs may be another one. But elsewhere? I don't see much evidence. What Labour hasn't done is attracted new voters in its heartlands. That should worry them, but it's a different issue.BobaFett said:
Well that wasn't me, and he is wrong.nigel4england said:
Some lefty smartarse on here a few weeks back claimed there is no such thing as WWC, hopefully he has learnt different now.BobaFett said:
Not is it the disaster claimed by many before the results came in.Peter_the_Punter said:
In pre-vote unspun discussions it was generally reckoned that if Labour gained less than 150, Milliband was toast. He would survive, but be damaged, at around 250. The actual 300 or so is ok....sort of, but hardly a ringing endorsement.Dixie said:Still not understanding the Media's view that Labour didn't do well. They've picked up more seats, more Councils and they are dominant in London.
My view of these locals is that it's a bit "meh" for the two big parties, but no worse than that. All to play for at the GE and it changes little. The Tories have a London problem, Labour have a WWC problem. Even Steven.
0 -
The results would look very good for Labour if it was just London. They likely finished up 10% ahead of the Conservatives, and likely control 20 out of 32 boroughs.
The problem is that outside London, their performance was poor, overall.0 -
No!!!!!!!!corporeal said:
You don't think pb should pay attention to the BBC's national projections?nigel4england said:
OGH is clutching at straws, his hatred of UKIP is clouding his judgement.maaarsh said:
OGH seems to think it's very relevant that these meta-numbers suggest UKIP's vote has fallen over 25% in a year. Some people think those numbers are obviously barmy, and others thing questioning those numbers is the preserve of fruitcakes and loons.SouthamObserver1 said:Is anyone actually suggesting UKIP did badly? I haven't heard that and certainly not from the academics doing the projections. As I understood it they said that the UKIP vote falling back a bit is neither here nor there when over a four year period it has grown so much.
A piss poor trait when it comes to betting.
0 -
Do you think they should?corporeal said:
You don't think pb should pay attention to the BBC's national projections?nigel4england said:
OGH is clutching at straws, his hatred of UKIP is clouding his judgement.maaarsh said:
OGH seems to think it's very relevant that these meta-numbers suggest UKIP's vote has fallen over 25% in a year. Some people think those numbers are obviously barmy, and others thing questioning those numbers is the preserve of fruitcakes and loons.SouthamObserver1 said:Is anyone actually suggesting UKIP did badly? I haven't heard that and certainly not from the academics doing the projections. As I understood it they said that the UKIP vote falling back a bit is neither here nor there when over a four year period it has grown so much.
A piss poor trait when it comes to betting.0 -
I was refering to the mess of at least 4 parties getting large number of votes and seats.foxinsoxuk said:More like 1974, or 1992 with two unappealing party leaders short of support and ideas, and unstable small majorities. Leading to either a thatcher or Blair hegemony.
I see Ed Miliband as Wilson, but without the canny common touch.Speedy said:
2015GE might be a completely new type of election, I think the closest analogy is the 1922 or 1918 GE.SouthamObserver1 said:This new four party system will take a while to be properly understood by all of us. The past is no real help. But Labour getting 31% in a GE and basically being a majority government should, hopefully, give a few folk pause for thought.
UKIP was always going to have a great set of results this time. The key thing is how the other parties react. And the direction UKIP takes when it comes to write its 2015 manifesto.0 -
The people whose model it is should be asked how come there's a big drop in Ukip's *projected* share when there's an obvious increase in their actual share on the ground outside London but not inside London.corporeal said:
You don't think pb should pay attention to the BBC's national projections?nigel4england said:
OGH is clutching at straws, his hatred of UKIP is clouding his judgement.maaarsh said:
OGH seems to think it's very relevant that these meta-numbers suggest UKIP's vote has fallen over 25% in a year. Some people think those numbers are obviously barmy, and others thing questioning those numbers is the preserve of fruitcakes and loons.SouthamObserver1 said:Is anyone actually suggesting UKIP did badly? I haven't heard that and certainly not from the academics doing the projections. As I understood it they said that the UKIP vote falling back a bit is neither here nor there when over a four year period it has grown so much.
A piss poor trait when it comes to betting.
The only explanation is *either* their previous projection was too high or the current projection is too low.
0 -
Hi PtP.
If you are still there. Off topic.
I see Hillary is now strong favourite for the next POTUS election. Do your "connections"" indicate she is very likely to run?0 -
My Holloway ward had two LD councillors till this week, but the Greens were seen as coming on strong after doing well in the Mayoral and Assembly races. As it turned out, they and the LibDems split the non-Labour vote between them (the Tories didn't bother to stand), giving a huge Labour margin on about 55%. Possibly a straw in the wind that the Greens aren't doing that wonderfully. I know the figure that they got 10% where they stood - but there's a reason why they stood there...that they were the sort of wards they could expect to get 10%.0
-
Absolutely amazing scenes outside the count in Tower Hamlets! Approx 1500 supporters of Mayor Lutfur Rahman have gathered. Hoping he can win!0
-
That the Tories didn't even stand says something.NickPalmer said:My Holloway ward had two LD councillors till this week, but the Greens were seen as coming on strong after doing well in the Mayoral and Assembly races. As it turned out, they and the LibDems split the non-Labour vote between them (the Tories didn't bother to stand), giving a huge Labour margin on about 55%. Possibly a straw in the wind that the Greens aren't doing that wonderfully. I know the figure that they got 10% where they stood - but there's a reason why they stood there...that they were the sort of wards they could expect to get 10%.
What's your view on why Labour is so strong here compared to elsewhere?
0 -
0
-
0
-
At the 2010 electionSunil_Prasannan said:
So if I gave you London and, say, the NE Region, you could tell me the results in the SW? Really?corporeal said:
If you gave me the Westminster results of two regions of England I could probably take a fair shot at what the voting results in a 3rd region were.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Comparing this year's seats with last year's seats is akin to comparing Welsh Assembly with Scottish Parliament results. A completely different demographic.corporeal said:
Yes?Sunil_Prasannan said:
But you just said:corporeal said:
Because you can't directly compare them to last year's, because they're in different areas and the last time these seats were contested was in 2010 and if possible we'd like a more recent comparison.Sunil_Prasannan said:Why don't they use the absolute % of votes cast rather than come up with "projections"?
UKIP up on 2010 is obvious, where they are in relation to 2013 is more interesting.
"because they're in different areas and the last time these seats were contested was in 2010"
We want recency and comparability. Last year's seats aren't comparable, and 2010's aren't recent.
So to fix that they try to project the annual results to a national figure to give use figures that are recent and comparable.
It's certainly not perfect, but not voodoo either.
London (rounding off)
Labour, -2
Con +3
LD 0
UKIP 0
Cornwall
Labour -7
LD -3
Con +9
UKIP 0
(Wiki happened to have breakdowns for those two).
So taking London and part of the south west and no adjustments whatsoever you can see a vague relationship.
You don't think clever people with more data and better adjustments than that could find an even better set of relationships? Swings across the country tend not to be totally independent of each other..0 -
Andy - do you take total votes or just the highest candidate per party in a multi member ward?0
-
stjohn said:
Hi PtP.
If you are still there. Off topic.
I see Hillary is now strong favourite for the next POTUS election. Do your "connections"" indicate she is very likely to run?
Hi StJohn. Nice to hear from you again.
Things have been a bit quiet over there for a while. I have a lot of money invested on her running and am watching developments keenly. As far as I am concerned the position remains as it has been for many months - if she's fit, she runs, and if she runs, she wins (the nomination certainly, the Presidency probably.) All my sources, when last consulted, indicated she is fit and will run. I'll post if I detect any change in the wind, but there has been none for ages.
My understanding is that she won't formally declare her hand until about January 2015, but of course there are always those - like Rove - that will try one way or another to pressure her into an early announcement. Maybe that pressure will make her break cover sooner but you can see why she would want to hold back if she can.
Hope that helps.
0 -
It seems they are going to keep counting and counting until they get the right result.Pulpstar said:0 -
This is another example of how pathetic the British media commentariat are. Don't engage with the substance of the argument, just pick at technicalities to try to destroy the person's "credibility". An approach they adopt towards British politics, and one of the reason politics is in such a mess and have opened the door for UKIP (because they stand for ideas and rock-solid principles, like or loathe them, rather than being forced into dry "competence" by the media).Richard_Nabavi said:Oops, Ed's favourite economist 'got his sums wrong', according to the FT:
twitter.com/suttonnick/status/469930822930534400/photo/1
You're correct that it's too simplistic to say all the white working-class are one homogenous group who are all CORE, lifelong Labour voters. But that doesn't mean Labour should write them off. A large part of the working class/lower-middle class has since the 1970s, been part of the crucial swing vote, especially in places like Essex, the Midlands and parts of Yorkshire where people don't really have tribal affinities with one of the main parties or the other. Labour SHOULD be winning them over, and even if many of them voted Tory in 2010 (quelle surprise, a year where the Tories won the overall election, they won most of the swing voters too), I'm fairly sure many current UKIP voters will have voted Labour between 1997 and 2005, and many will have even been in the Labour column earlier in this parliament, especially 2012. Looking at where they came from in 2010 is far too simplistic.SouthamObserver1 said:
Of course there is a white working class. The mistake is to see it as some homogenous grouping. There has always been a substantial non-Labour WWC vote. It's now migrating to UKIP. But in most Labour areas there has been no significant Labour to UKIP move. Rotherham is clearly an exception and there are specific reasons for it. NE Lincs may be another one. But elsewhere? I don't see much evidence. What Labour hasn't done is attracted new voters in its heartlands. That should worry them, but it's a different issue.0 -
That would explain the lack of surprises in London.corporeal said:
At the 2010 electionSunil_Prasannan said:
So if I gave you London and, say, the NE Region, you could tell me the results in the SW? Really?corporeal said:
If you gave me the Westminster results of two regions of England I could probably take a fair shot at what the voting results in a 3rd region were.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Comparing this year's seats with last year's seats is akin to comparing Welsh Assembly with Scottish Parliament results. A completely different demographic.corporeal said:
Yes?Sunil_Prasannan said:
But you just said:corporeal said:
Because you can't directly compare them to last year's, because they're in different areas and the last time these seats were contested was in 2010 and if possible we'd like a more recent comparison.Sunil_Prasannan said:Why don't they use the absolute % of votes cast rather than come up with "projections"?
UKIP up on 2010 is obvious, where they are in relation to 2013 is more interesting.
"because they're in different areas and the last time these seats were contested was in 2010"
We want recency and comparability. Last year's seats aren't comparable, and 2010's aren't recent.
So to fix that they try to project the annual results to a national figure to give use figures that are recent and comparable.
It's certainly not perfect, but not voodoo either.
London (rounding off)
Labour, -2
Con +3
LD 0
UKIP 0
Cornwall
Labour -7
LD -3
Con +9
UKIP 0
(Wiki happened to have breakdowns for those two).
So taking London and part of the south west and no adjustments whatsoever you can see a vague relationship.
You don't think clever people with more data and better adjustments than that could find an even better set of relationships? Swings across the country tend not to be totally independent of each other..
0 -
Comrade SunilskySunil_Prasannan said:
Forgive me, Comrade Chancellor, but who is "College". As you know I have been overseas for a number of weeks and don't recall said epithet being mentioned before I left.AveryLP said:FPT
College looks as though he is sitting on a sharpened apostrophe.dr_spyn said:twitter.com/SkyNews/status/469941318224195586/photo/1
For some reason Farage looks like a Shar Pei fighting dog.
This is College: http://bit.ly/1icw5uY
You will note that he is wearing an Old Harrovian tie, whereas in his 21st Century reincarnation the tie changed to an Old Etonian version (worn by Farage in his TV debate with Clegg).
Some PBers, e.g. Stodge, believe the moniker "College" refers to Nige's former school, Dulwich College, but there is no connection with his renounced status as an Old Alleynian.
P.S. In the above pic, College seems to be wearing an OE tie (the photo is a bit blurry. The original model is clearer: http://bit.ly/1gqaLH7 - definitely OH).
0 -
@StJohn Re your UKIP bet....
Yes, the math is fine and I can't see them scoring less than 25%. They could conceivably score just over 35%, but the odds of them doing so would be (much) shorter than 2/5. So the bet works.
What I want to know is how you get Ladbrokes to take enough of your money to make betting at 2/5 worthwhile - at gunpoint?0 -
Yes.nigel4england said:
Do you think they should?corporeal said:
You don't think pb should pay attention to the BBC's national projections?nigel4england said:
OGH is clutching at straws, his hatred of UKIP is clouding his judgement.maaarsh said:
OGH seems to think it's very relevant that these meta-numbers suggest UKIP's vote has fallen over 25% in a year. Some people think those numbers are obviously barmy, and others thing questioning those numbers is the preserve of fruitcakes and loons.SouthamObserver1 said:Is anyone actually suggesting UKIP did badly? I haven't heard that and certainly not from the academics doing the projections. As I understood it they said that the UKIP vote falling back a bit is neither here nor there when over a four year period it has grown so much.
A piss poor trait when it comes to betting.
This isn't some random thing, it's Oxford professors with a track record of making this kind of projections.
By all means discuss it, critique it etc. But for a political site that deals heavily in polling, stats, projections etc to just ignore it would seem pretty odd to me.0 -
Tories now wiped out in Lewisham unless something really unexpected happens. Looks to be going the way of Newham. Labour polling 98.8% in some wards here. Probably.0
-
Carlisle, popular votes:
Lab 8,394 (32.25%)
Con 8,158 (31.34%)
UKIP 5,741 (22.06%)
Ind 1,468 (5.64%)
Green 1,388 (5.33%)
LD 705 (2.71%)
TUSC 174 (0.67%)
Changes since 2010 locals:
Lab -4.20%
Con -8.15%
UKIP +21.39%
Ind +3.37%
Green +2.10%
LD -10.80%
TUSC -0.83%
Swing, Con to Lab: 6.18%0 -
AndreaAndreaParma_82 said:@Avery
We have a problem for Rowenna...Conservatives just outpolled Labour yesterday in Itchen wards
Just think of it as a glottal stop.
Her eloquence will only be paused.
0 -
Very vague! Example: Cornwall lost LDs, London didn't!corporeal said:
At the 2010 electionSunil_Prasannan said:
So if I gave you London and, say, the NE Region, you could tell me the results in the SW? Really?corporeal said:
If you gave me the Westminster results of two regions of England I could probably take a fair shot at what the voting results in a 3rd region were.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Comparing this year's seats with last year's seats is akin to comparing Welsh Assembly with Scottish Parliament results. A completely different demographic.corporeal said:
Yes?Sunil_Prasannan said:
But you just said:corporeal said:
Because you can't directly compare them to last year's, because they're in different areas and the last time these seats were contested was in 2010 and if possible we'd like a more recent comparison.Sunil_Prasannan said:Why don't they use the absolute % of votes cast rather than come up with "projections"?
UKIP up on 2010 is obvious, where they are in relation to 2013 is more interesting.
"because they're in different areas and the last time these seats were contested was in 2010"
We want recency and comparability. Last year's seats aren't comparable, and 2010's aren't recent.
So to fix that they try to project the annual results to a national figure to give use figures that are recent and comparable.
It's certainly not perfect, but not voodoo either.
London (rounding off)
Labour, -2
Con +3
LD 0
UKIP 0
Cornwall
Labour -7
LD -3
Con +9
UKIP 0
(Wiki happened to have breakdowns for those two).
So taking London and part of the south west and no adjustments whatsoever you can see a vague relationship.
You don't think clever people with more data and better adjustments than that could find an even better set of relationships? Swings across the country tend not to be totally independent of each other..0 -
Total votes surely?maaarsh said:Andy - do you take total votes or just the highest candidate per party in a multi member ward?
0 -
Thanks Peter.
That's very helpful.
I haven't had a bet - but given that there are still some doubts about her certainty to run and also her current general ability, I think she represents very poor value to actually be the next POTUS, at current odds. So no bet for me.
Please keep us posted.
All the best.0 -
Yes I was surprised by the popular votes for the whole of Southampton which only gave Labour a lead of 1,676 (2.93%), and suspected the Tories might have done well in Itchen.AndreaParma_82 said:@Avery
We have a problem for Rowenna...Conservatives just outpolled Labour yesterday in Itchen wards0 -
@Danny565 - I agree completely. Labour's abject failure to engage with, let alone win over, those not already inclined to support the party is among the major failings of EdM's leadership. The problem is that he and Labour are happy in their not being the Tories comfort zone. And if you can effectively be a majority government on 31% of the vote what incentive do you have to change?0
-
I'm using highest vote, not average or total votes.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Total votes surely?maaarsh said:Andy - do you take total votes or just the highest candidate per party in a multi member ward?
For example if you have a ward where there are 3 Con, 3 Lab, 3 LD, 1 UKIP, 1 Green standing, you have to take just the highest vote otherwise you get an inflated result for the parties with 3 candidates.
Apparently people like Rallings & Thrasher use this method.0 -
Yes, if I were starting from scratch I certainly wouldn't back her at the current odds, although I wouldn't lay either.stjohn said:Thanks Peter.
That's very helpful.
I haven't had a bet - but given that there are still some doubts about her certainty to run and also her current general ability, I think she represents very poor value to actually be the next POTUS, at current odds. So no bet for me.
Please keep us posted.
All the best.
Bit more interesting on the Republican side. Have a look at Scott Walker, if you haven't already.
The best to you too.
0 -
Very vague sure, done with less than half the South West and with not even back of an envelope calculations for adjustments.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Very vague! Example: Cornwall lost LDs, London didn't!corporeal said:
At the 2010 electionSunil_Prasannan said:
So if I gave you London and, say, the NE Region, you could tell me the results in the SW? Really?corporeal said:
If you gave me the Westminster results of two regions of England I could probably take a fair shot at what the voting results in a 3rd region were.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Comparing this year's seats with last year's seats is akin to comparing Welsh Assembly with Scottish Parliament results. A completely different demographic.corporeal said:
Yes?Sunil_Prasannan said:
But you just said:corporeal said:
Because you can't directly compare them to last year's, because they're in different areas and the last time these seats were contested was in 2010 and if possible we'd like a more recent comparison.Sunil_Prasannan said:Why don't they use the absolute % of votes cast rather than come up with "projections"?
UKIP up on 2010 is obvious, where they are in relation to 2013 is more interesting.
"because they're in different areas and the last time these seats were contested was in 2010"
We want recency and comparability. Last year's seats aren't comparable, and 2010's aren't recent.
So to fix that they try to project the annual results to a national figure to give use figures that are recent and comparable.
It's certainly not perfect, but not voodoo either.
London (rounding off)
Labour, -2
Con +3
LD 0
UKIP 0
Cornwall
Labour -7
LD -3
Con +9
UKIP 0
(Wiki happened to have breakdowns for those two).
So taking London and part of the south west and no adjustments whatsoever you can see a vague relationship.
You don't think clever people with more data and better adjustments than that could find an even better set of relationships? Swings across the country tend not to be totally independent of each other..
For example, in 2005 the Lib Dems polled well and won all 6 Cornish MPs so they were coming down from something of a high water mark. Whereas London not so much.0 -
Yes, the math is fine and I can't see them scoring less than 25%. They could conceivably score just over 35%, but the odds of them doing so would be (much) shorter than 2/5. So the bet works.
What I want to know is how you get Ladbrokes to take enough of your money to make betting at 2/5 worthwhile - at gunpoint?
Peter. Shadsy is very fair and allows some bets to be placed at OK stakes.
Btw, if he reads this, his politicalbookie.wordpress.com blog highlighted by OGH recently, is the best recent development in political betting in ages. Well worth a read each day.
I got £53.86 at 15/8 and £58.66 at 13/8 to win approx £42 on either outcome - or lose £112!0 -
Ilford North actual (NOT 'projected'!!) votes in the Local Election, 22/5/14:
(eight wards)
Con 41.2%
Lab 38.9%
UKIP 10.4%
LD 6.3%
Oth 3.2%0 -
I agree with you that's probably the complacent way of thinking for the likes of Douglas Alexander, and maybe even EdM himself, but I think they're foolish to think it. Even though I don't expect UKIP to completely collapse next year, I expect the Tories to peel off a few voters from them and get to 33-34% of the vote in next year's election, so if Labour stay stuck on 31% then they would be toast in such a scenario.SouthamObserver1 said:@Danny565 - I agree completely. Labour's abject failure to engage with, let alone win over, those not already inclined to support the party is among the major failings of EdM's leadership. The problem is that he and Labour are happy in their not being the Tories comfort zone. And if you can effectively be a majority government on 31% of the vote what incentive do you have to change?
I do have a slight hope judging by some Labour people waking up and saying publicly that there needs to be a change, though. And I'm also hopeful that the penny might finally be dropping that the way to win over these types of working class/lower middle class supporters is absolutely NOT by embracing Tory economic policies. As I said earlier, I find it quite hard to believe that people are voting UKIP because they want so-called "economic credibility", when UKIP are pretty much the antithesis of "credibility". Nor do I believe people in grim Great Yarmouth which is suffering horribly economically, where there was one of the biggest Lab->UKIP swings compared to 2012, is desperately crying out for more spending cuts.0 -
Looking at those figures, the Tories should be about 90% certain to hold Ilford North next year. The problems will come after that if the constituency continues to change.Sunil_Prasannan said:Ilford North actual (NOT 'projected'!!) votes in the Local Election, 22/5/14:
(eight wards)
Con 41.2%
Lab 38.9%
UKIP 10.4%
LD 6.3%
Oth 3.2%0 -
@StJohn
Shadsy fair!!!!! How very dare you????!!!!! If he reads that, he'll feel insulted.
Seriously, I couldn't agree more and would encourage any political punter to check it daily.0 -
Alf Garnett almost won a seat for UKIP in Rochdale:
http://democracy.rochdale.gov.uk/mgElectionAreaResults.aspx?XXR=0&ID=94&RPID=15310320 -
I used the total votes cast for Ilford North above. If only because they were the actual total number of votes cast.AndyJS said:
I'm using highest vote, not average or total votes.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Total votes surely?maaarsh said:Andy - do you take total votes or just the highest candidate per party in a multi member ward?
For example if you have a ward where there are 3 Con, 3 Lab, 3 LD, 1 UKIP, 1 Green standing, you have to take just the highest vote otherwise you get an inflated result for the parties with 3 candidates.
Apparently people like Rallings & Thrasher use this method.0 -
2000 people waiting for the vote...now dispersed !0
-
Nite everybody. Been an interesting and civilised forum tonite.0
-
OK, here's Ilford North again, using top candidate only for each party with multiple candidates per ward:
Con 36.5%
Lab 34.6%
UKIP 12.9%
LD 8.1%
Oth 8.0%
0 -
0
-
It combines three core Labour voter cohorts - it's highly multi-ethnic and it's got a lot of young working-class people in jobs (so you don't get the demotivation that you run into in really run-down areas) plus some prosperous Guardian fringes (which is where the Green vote comes from). And rents are a significant issue, whereas relatively few people are anywhere near owning their homes so Tory stuff about help to buy and lower IHT seems pretty irrelevant.BobaFett said:
That the Tories didn't even stand says something.NickPalmer said:My Holloway ward had two LD councillors till this week, but the Greens were seen as coming on strong after doing well in the Mayoral and Assembly races. As it turned out, they and the LibDems split the non-Labour vote between them (the Tories didn't bother to stand), giving a huge Labour margin on about 55%. Possibly a straw in the wind that the Greens aren't doing that wonderfully. I know the figure that they got 10% where they stood - but there's a reason why they stood there...that they were the sort of wards they could expect to get 10%.
What's your view on why Labour is so strong here compared to elsewhere?
-1 -
Greens just picked up a seat in Lewisham so it wont be a clean sweep for Labour there.
And Sian Berry has been elected in Camden. And there's a Green party leadership election due this summer. Just saying.0 -
Swing in Carlisle should have been 1.98% not 6.18%. The rest of the post was correct.0
-
We'll win the Euro vote, comrade!AveryLP said:A bar chart to cheer the kippers up:
http://bit.ly/1jFhCMt0 -
Are you lot still on about the BBC share of the vote?!
UKIP did very well, they topped the polling in two councils, one of which was with, what, 29% of the vote and they got f all in most of London, Winchester, Manchester, Liverpool, Three Rivers, etc etc etc etc, and yet despite a great result, the kippers are bleating that the projected NATIONAL share isn't enough?
Grow up. They don't run any councils, they are opposition in hardly any, they topped ten vote counts in 2013 and afaik two today. Yeah, they are crap in London, it's not like the rest of the councils were 'poor areas' for them - their vote is evenly distributed outside London and Scotland. They got fewer councillors than the busted Lib Dems, yet a higher national share.
They are a party 'starting to register', to even pretend they are polling within 10-12% of either Red or Blue nationally in council elections is pathetic fantasy.
Stop projecting where you want them to be, and deal with where they are. And while you're at it, be proud of what they achieved, whilst the rest of us are disgusted by it.0 -
Lewisham must have changed their minds about counting the council seats tomorrow.0
-
"We", Comrade?Sunil_Prasannan said:
We'll win the Euro vote, comrade!AveryLP said:A bar chart to cheer the kippers up:
http://bit.ly/1jFhCMt
0 -
You must have missed my post yesterday where I said I voted Blue at local level but Purple at Euro level.AveryLP said:
"We", Comrade?Sunil_Prasannan said:
We'll win the Euro vote, comrade!AveryLP said:A bar chart to cheer the kippers up:
http://bit.ly/1jFhCMt0 -
Ah, the schizophrenic plural!Sunil_Prasannan said:
You must have missed my post yesterday where I said I voted Blue at local level but Purple at Euro level.AveryLP said:
"We", Comrade?Sunil_Prasannan said:
We'll win the Euro vote, comrade!AveryLP said:A bar chart to cheer the kippers up:
http://bit.ly/1jFhCMt
0 -
'We' in the sense of football team 'we'AveryLP said:
Ah, the schizophrenic plural!Sunil_Prasannan said:
You must have missed my post yesterday where I said I voted Blue at local level but Purple at Euro level.AveryLP said:
"We", Comrade?Sunil_Prasannan said:
We'll win the Euro vote, comrade!AveryLP said:A bar chart to cheer the kippers up:
http://bit.ly/1jFhCMt
'We' played really well on Saturday.
Did you go to the game?
No, I never go to the game.0 -
Anyway the important thing is the triple ripple Essex real men have spoken. They love Nigel and they would like to drink and work out with him.0
-
You don't understand the argument.dyedwoolie said:Are you lot still on about the BBC share of the vote?!
UKIP did very well, they topped the polling in two councils, one of which was with, what, 29% of the vote and they got f all in most of London, Winchester, Manchester, Liverpool, Three Rivers, etc etc etc etc, and yet despite a great result, the kippers are bleating that the projected NATIONAL share isn't enough?
Grow up. They don't run any councils, they are opposition in hardly any, they topped ten vote counts in 2013 and afaik two today. Yeah, they are crap in London, it's not like the rest of the councils were 'poor areas' for them - their vote is evenly distributed outside London and Scotland. They got fewer councillors than the busted Lib Dems, yet a higher national share.
They are a party 'starting to register', to even pretend they are polling within 10-12% of either Red or Blue nationally in council elections is pathetic fantasy.
Stop projecting where you want them to be, and deal with where they are. And while you're at it, be proud of what they achieved, whilst the rest of us are disgusted by it.0 -
I'm expecting a riot in Tower Hamlets if Biggs wins - although he prob won't.
0 -
Welwyn Hatfield, popular votes:
Con 11,000 (38.68%)
Lab 6,326 (22.24%)
UKIP 6,243 (21.95%)
LD 3,374 (11.86%)
Green 1,318 (4.63%)
TUSC 177 (0.62%)
Changes since 2010 locals:
Con -13.31%
Lab +0.15%
UKIP +21.95%
LD -11.27%
Green +2.31%
TUSC +0.62%
Swing, Con to Lab: 6.73%0 -
Now I think about it...MrJones said:
You don't understand the argument.dyedwoolie said:Are you lot still on about the BBC share of the vote?!
UKIP did very well, they topped the polling in two councils, one of which was with, what, 29% of the vote and they got f all in most of London, Winchester, Manchester, Liverpool, Three Rivers, etc etc etc etc, and yet despite a great result, the kippers are bleating that the projected NATIONAL share isn't enough?
Grow up. They don't run any councils, they are opposition in hardly any, they topped ten vote counts in 2013 and afaik two today. Yeah, they are crap in London, it's not like the rest of the councils were 'poor areas' for them - their vote is evenly distributed outside London and Scotland. They got fewer councillors than the busted Lib Dems, yet a higher national share.
They are a party 'starting to register', to even pretend they are polling within 10-12% of either Red or Blue nationally in council elections is pathetic fantasy.
Stop projecting where you want them to be, and deal with where they are. And while you're at it, be proud of what they achieved, whilst the rest of us are disgusted by it.
I think the 23% last time was too high quite honestly.
@dyedwoolie UKIP neither fills me with pride nor digusts me to be honest.0 -
Of course I do. Nothing in the results from Thursday suggests that UKIP would be scoring over 17% nationally.MrJones said:
You don't understand the argument.dyedwoolie said:Are you lot still on about the BBC share of the vote?!
UKIP did very well, they topped the polling in two councils, one of which was with, what, 29% of the vote and they got f all in most of London, Winchester, Manchester, Liverpool, Three Rivers, etc etc etc etc, and yet despite a great result, the kippers are bleating that the projected NATIONAL share isn't enough?
Grow up. They don't run any councils, they are opposition in hardly any, they topped ten vote counts in 2013 and afaik two today. Yeah, they are crap in London, it's not like the rest of the councils were 'poor areas' for them - their vote is evenly distributed outside London and Scotland. They got fewer councillors than the busted Lib Dems, yet a higher national share.
They are a party 'starting to register', to even pretend they are polling within 10-12% of either Red or Blue nationally in council elections is pathetic fantasy.
Stop projecting where you want them to be, and deal with where they are. And while you're at it, be proud of what they achieved, whilst the rest of us are disgusted by it.
The Beeb quite clearly screwed up the vote shares in 2013, when UKIP were nowhere near being within 2% of the Tories nationally.
0 -
"I think the 23% last time was too high quite honestly."Pulpstar said:
Now I think about it...MrJones said:
You don't understand the argument.dyedwoolie said:Are you lot still on about the BBC share of the vote?!
UKIP did very well, they topped the polling in two councils, one of which was with, what, 29% of the vote and they got f all in most of London, Winchester, Manchester, Liverpool, Three Rivers, etc etc etc etc, and yet despite a great result, the kippers are bleating that the projected NATIONAL share isn't enough?
Grow up. They don't run any councils, they are opposition in hardly any, they topped ten vote counts in 2013 and afaik two today. Yeah, they are crap in London, it's not like the rest of the councils were 'poor areas' for them - their vote is evenly distributed outside London and Scotland. They got fewer councillors than the busted Lib Dems, yet a higher national share.
They are a party 'starting to register', to even pretend they are polling within 10-12% of either Red or Blue nationally in council elections is pathetic fantasy.
Stop projecting where you want them to be, and deal with where they are. And while you're at it, be proud of what they achieved, whilst the rest of us are disgusted by it.
I think the 23% last time was too high quite honestly.
@dyedwoolie UKIP neither fills me with pride nor digusts me to be honest.
Yeah.
0 -
Precisely. 2014 is accurate. 2013 wasn't.MrJones said:
"I think the 23% last time was too high quite honestly."Pulpstar said:
Now I think about it...MrJones said:
You don't understand the argument.dyedwoolie said:Are you lot still on about the BBC share of the vote?!
UKIP did very well, they topped the polling in two councils, one of which was with, what, 29% of the vote and they got f all in most of London, Winchester, Manchester, Liverpool, Three Rivers, etc etc etc etc, and yet despite a great result, the kippers are bleating that the projected NATIONAL share isn't enough?
Grow up. They don't run any councils, they are opposition in hardly any, they topped ten vote counts in 2013 and afaik two today. Yeah, they are crap in London, it's not like the rest of the councils were 'poor areas' for them - their vote is evenly distributed outside London and Scotland. They got fewer councillors than the busted Lib Dems, yet a higher national share.
They are a party 'starting to register', to even pretend they are polling within 10-12% of either Red or Blue nationally in council elections is pathetic fantasy.
Stop projecting where you want them to be, and deal with where they are. And while you're at it, be proud of what they achieved, whilst the rest of us are disgusted by it.
I think the 23% last time was too high quite honestly.
@dyedwoolie UKIP neither fills me with pride nor digusts me to be honest.
Yeah.0 -
St Albans, popular vote:
Con 17,018 (36.58%)
LD 10,985 (23.61%)
Lab 9,137 (19.64%)
UKIP 4,705 (10.11%)
Green 3,424 (7.36%)
Ind 1,241 (2.67%)
TUSC 14 (0.03%)
Changes since 2010 locals:
Con -5.45%
LD -14.63%
Lab +5.49%
UKIP +9.61%
Green +2.63%
Ind +2.64%0 -
Actual votes in 2010 were 20% for UKIP, and that didn't include London, Scotland, Wales. So I agree the projection of 23% probably wasn't right. If anything it should have been about 15%.0
-
UKIP 1.26/1.27
Lutfur Rahman has won !0 -
Thanks for the links.0
-
Thanks for the links.0
