politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » From the latest Ashcroft Marginals polling that should have

HurstLlama said:

AveryLP said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

antifrank said:

shadsy said:

Got an update on the beting on next EU Commission President. Juncker still odds-on despite Cameron's opposition.
http://politicalbookie.wordpress.com/2014/06/02/will-cameron-stop-juncker-becoming-eu-chief/

Sometimes I wish I was a bookie.

Weren't you looking for a suitable mid-life-crisis-crazy-lifechange option a while back?

At the time I recommended af grow a moustache and buy a Jaguar F Type.

Had he done so, he could now have been standing for election to the European Parliament.

Oi! You are at it again. Always these comments about moustaches. Why? You wouldn't do it about skin colour, eye colour, or baldness. So why this continual comment about moustaches? This is outright bigotry. A person has a dark skin therefore he must have a natural sense of rhythm and a weakness outside the off-stump is no worse than this person has a moustache and must therefore be a baby-eating, right-wing loon.

Enough of these comments Mr. P., it is perfectly possible to be somewhat walrussy about the upper lip and be a respectable member of society who is kind to cats.

JackW said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

JackW said:

ToryJim said:

Just a thought re the Spanish abdication, it is 411 years since the last time an Elizabeth in England faced a Phillip in Spain.

It's 456 years since England since had a Spanish King Phillip as reigning monarch.

Hang on! Wasn't a condition of their marriage that Phillip specifically could not be styled King of England?

Utterly incorrect.

On marriage by Act of Parliament as King Philip I he enjoyed all the rights and dignities as joint sovereign during his marriage to Queen Mary. On her death he ceased to be King of England :

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

Pulpstar said:

MikeSmithson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Socrates said:

FrankBooth said:

Socrates said:

FrankBooth said:

Just caught up with the previous thread. All about Ed and his problems on television. It does beg the question, if Ed is so useless, weird and unappealing on TV, why is Cameron trying to hide away from tv debates? What sort of election campaign are we going to get? Does he just want to hide behind the Tories' financial advantage and just have a mass advertising campaign? The TV companies need to be bold and threaten to empty chair him.

Cameron's not scared of Miliband. He's scared of Farage.

Labour and Lib Dems would settle for the same debates as last time. Or is Cameron afraid of being seen to exclude Farage? But surely he could then share that responsibility with the others?

If Ofcom allow debates with the Liberal Democrats, but not UKIP, who are ahead of them in the polls, it would be outrageous. I suspect Cameron realises that agreeing to debates means UKIP will inevitably included.

Greens outpolled the LDs last week.

Dave is being equitable by inviting the Greens and Kippers into the debate.

In the first past the poll elections on May 22nd UKIP won 3.8% of the seats - the LD 10.4%.

The party retained control of 6 of the 7 councils they hold. UKIP hold no councils and have no MPs.

Debate involvement should depend on how far the board is tilted in your favour rather than how many votes you receive ?

I suppose it's consistent with FPTP, and true.

But slightly troubling nonetheless.

Scott_P said:

@JoeWatts_: William Hill says they have taken an £8000 bet for the Tories to win the Newark by-election.

Anorak said:

dyedwoolie said:

Bond_James_Bond said:

ToryJim said:

O/t but the travails of Good Morning Britain are hilarious

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2645877/Good-Morning-Britain-heading-chop-ratings-slump-not-host-Susanna-Reid-pull-viewers.html

I find Susanna rather foxy although I'd never watch a TV programme on that basis.

Probably I have watched three TV programmes in total in the last 15 years and I really don;t miss it.

She's like someone's really hot Mum when you're a teenager. Cougar.
GMB - garbage like the other side. Peebee for brekkie, not Susanna Reid.

Highly technical question (and not in fact the start of a joke): What's the difference between a milf and a cougar?

Anorak said:

dyedwoolie said:

Bond_James_Bond said:

ToryJim said:

O/t but the travails of Good Morning Britain are hilarious

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2645877/Good-Morning-Britain-heading-chop-ratings-slump-not-host-Susanna-Reid-pull-viewers.html

I find Susanna rather foxy although I'd never watch a TV programme on that basis.

Probably I have watched three TV programmes in total in the last 15 years and I really don;t miss it.

She's like someone's really hot Mum when you're a teenager. Cougar.
GMB - garbage like the other side. Peebee for brekkie, not Susanna Reid.

Highly technical question (and not in fact the start of a joke): What's the difference between a milf and a cougar?

AveryLP said:

HurstLlama said:

AveryLP said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

antifrank said:

shadsy said:

Got an update on the beting on next EU Commission President. Juncker still odds-on despite Cameron's opposition.
http://politicalbookie.wordpress.com/2014/06/02/will-cameron-stop-juncker-becoming-eu-chief/

Sometimes I wish I was a bookie.

Weren't you looking for a suitable mid-life-crisis-crazy-lifechange option a while back?

At the time I recommended af grow a moustache and buy a Jaguar F Type.

Had he done so, he could now have been standing for election to the European Parliament.

Oi! You are at it again. Always these comments about moustaches. Why? You wouldn't do it about skin colour, eye colour, or baldness. So why this continual comment about moustaches? This is outright bigotry. A person has a dark skin therefore he must have a natural sense of rhythm and a weakness outside the off-stump is no worse than this person has a moustache and must therefore be a baby-eating, right-wing loon.

Enough of these comments Mr. P., it is perfectly possible to be somewhat walrussy about the upper lip and be a respectable member of society who is kind to cats.

Mr. Llama

You have fallen into the UKIP opposition trap.

The more you protest, the more you encourage!

And the more intriguing the prospect of meeting you becomes.

I bet you won't outdo my old drinking friend, Bernie, an ex RSM from the Knightsbridge barracks. The only man I have ever known to protest his wife's application for divorce by demonstrating in court and in person the principal grounds for the petition.

antifrank said:

AveryLP said:

HurstLlama said:

AveryLP said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

antifrank said:

shadsy said:

Got an update on the beting on next EU Commission President. Juncker still odds-on despite Cameron's opposition.
http://politicalbookie.wordpress.com/2014/06/02/will-cameron-stop-juncker-becoming-eu-chief/

Sometimes I wish I was a bookie.

Weren't you looking for a suitable mid-life-crisis-crazy-lifechange option a while back?

At the time I recommended af grow a moustache and buy a Jaguar F Type.

Had he done so, he could now have been standing for election to the European Parliament.

Oi! You are at it again. Always these comments about moustaches. Why? You wouldn't do it about skin colour, eye colour, or baldness. So why this continual comment about moustaches? This is outright bigotry. A person has a dark skin therefore he must have a natural sense of rhythm and a weakness outside the off-stump is no worse than this person has a moustache and must therefore be a baby-eating, right-wing loon.

Enough of these comments Mr. P., it is perfectly possible to be somewhat walrussy about the upper lip and be a respectable member of society who is kind to cats.

Mr. Llama

You have fallen into the UKIP opposition trap.

The more you protest, the more you encourage!

And the more intriguing the prospect of meeting you becomes.

I bet you won't outdo my old drinking friend, Bernie, an ex RSM from the Knightsbridge barracks. The only man I have ever known to protest his wife's application for divorce by demonstrating in court and in person the principal grounds for the petition.

I hope that the principal ground for the petition was unreasonable behaviour rather than adultery.

Pulpstar said:

Every divorce petition should be for unreasonable behaviour, only vindictive idiots would stick adultery down.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

AveryLP said:

HurstLlama said:

AveryLP said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

antifrank said:

shadsy said:

Got an update on the beting on next EU Commission President. Juncker still odds-on despite Cameron's opposition.
http://politicalbookie.wordpress.com/2014/06/02/will-cameron-stop-juncker-becoming-eu-chief/

Sometimes I wish I was a bookie.

Weren't you looking for a suitable mid-life-crisis-crazy-lifechange option a while back?

At the time I recommended af grow a moustache and buy a Jaguar F Type.

Had he done so, he could now have been standing for election to the European Parliament.

Oi! You are at it again. Always these comments about moustaches. Why? You wouldn't do it about skin colour, eye colour, or baldness. So why this continual comment about moustaches? This is outright bigotry. A person has a dark skin therefore he must have a natural sense of rhythm and a weakness outside the off-stump is no worse than this person has a moustache and must therefore be a baby-eating, right-wing loon.

Enough of these comments Mr. P., it is perfectly possible to be somewhat walrussy about the upper lip and be a respectable member of society who is kind to cats.

Mr. Llama

You have fallen into the UKIP opposition trap.

The more you protest, the more you encourage!

And the more intriguing the prospect of meeting you becomes.

I bet you won't outdo my old drinking friend, Bernie, an ex RSM from the Knightsbridge barracks. The only man I have ever known to protest his wife's application for divorce by demonstrating in court and in person the principal grounds for the petition.

Nigel Farage lacks a moustache, Comrade Chancellor!

HurstLlama said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

AveryLP said:

HurstLlama said:

AveryLP said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

antifrank said:

shadsy said:

Got an update on the beting on next EU Commission President. Juncker still odds-on despite Cameron's opposition.
http://politicalbookie.wordpress.com/2014/06/02/will-cameron-stop-juncker-becoming-eu-chief/

Sometimes I wish I was a bookie.

Weren't you looking for a suitable mid-life-crisis-crazy-lifechange option a while back?

At the time I recommended af grow a moustache and buy a Jaguar F Type.

Had he done so, he could now have been standing for election to the European Parliament.

Oi! You are at it again. Always these comments about moustaches. Why? You wouldn't do it about skin colour, eye colour, or baldness. So why this continual comment about moustaches? This is outright bigotry. A person has a dark skin therefore he must have a natural sense of rhythm and a weakness outside the off-stump is no worse than this person has a moustache and must therefore be a baby-eating, right-wing loon.

Enough of these comments Mr. P., it is perfectly possible to be somewhat walrussy about the upper lip and be a respectable member of society who is kind to cats.

Mr. Llama

You have fallen into the UKIP opposition trap.

The more you protest, the more you encourage!

And the more intriguing the prospect of meeting you becomes.

I bet you won't outdo my old drinking friend, Bernie, an ex RSM from the Knightsbridge barracks. The only man I have ever known to protest his wife's application for divorce by demonstrating in court and in person the principal grounds for the petition.

Nigel Farage lacks a moustache, Comrade Chancellor!

And that is greatly to be regretted. Like John Major, he has the natural lip for it. Whether he could actually grow one worth the name is another matter and not something we are ever likely to discover.

malcolmg said:

FrankBooth said:

malcolmg - I fail to see how an independent Scotland could charge different fees to students from rUK or the rest of the EU (if Scotland stays in). Either they'd have to introduce fees for all or have it free for all.

Frank, Not sure myself but still of little consequence to the vote overall. Must be some way I am sure but if not I would rather have independence and English students getting free education than being shackled to Westminster and not having democracy.

Richard_Nabavi said:

isam said:

Hmm the Hill bet and the Betfair movements suggest a good Newark Ashcroft for the Tories... what chance a leak?

Could be a leak, but bear in mind also that the place would have been crawling with canvassers over the weekend, so hundreds of people will be getting a feel for the lie of the land.

antifrank said:

I thought that the difference between a cougar and a MILF was three pints.

TheScreamingEagles said:

antifrank said:

I thought that the difference between a cougar and a MILF was three pints.

No that's the difference between a MILF and a GILF

ToryJim said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

antifrank said:

I thought that the difference between a cougar and a MILF was three pints.

No that's the difference between a MILF and a GILF

*shudders*

MyBurningEars said:

Decoupling household income not only seems pretty sensible to me, but the notion of treating wives as independent economic units was a major mark of women's liberation. I'd be loathe to see that reversed.

MyBurningEars said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Socrates said:

The other absurd part of our tax system is that a household where one partner earns £50k and one partner earns £20k pays dramatically more tax than one where both earn £35k. How is that fair?

Something to do with women not wanting to be seen as chattels. Curiously, those who benefit most from not being seen as chattels are highly-paid lawyers married to highly-paid lawyers.

Or to put it another way, why would it be fair for someone who earns £35k to pay as much tax as someone else who earns £50k, because of who he/she is living with at the time?

Decoupling household income not only seems pretty sensible to me, but the notion of treating wives as independent economic units was a major mark of women's liberation. I'd be loathe to see that reversed.

Wasn't it Lord Denning who bemoaned the fact that English law doesn't have a notion of "family" property? On that basis alone, taxing "family income" doesn't sound particularly promising.

DavidL said:

The tories are putting a surprising amount of effort into Newark. I suspect this is because a UKIP win would make the position about the debates pretty much unarguable. The greens have 1 MP already but have not topped a national election like UKIP.

Whether it is good tactics to seek to exclude Farage or not (I am not sure, especially given UKIP's focus on WWC voters of late) is a separate matter but clearly that is Cameron's objective at the moment. It is another reason why Farage should have been brave enough to go for this one himself.

MikeSmithson said:

Pulpstar said:

MikeSmithson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Socrates said:

FrankBooth said:

Socrates said:

FrankBooth said:

Just caught up with the previous thread. All about Ed and his problems on television. It does beg the question, if Ed is so useless, weird and unappealing on TV, why is Cameron trying to hide away from tv debates? What sort of election campaign are we going to get? Does he just want to hide behind the Tories' financial advantage and just have a mass advertising campaign? The TV companies need to be bold and threaten to empty chair him.

Cameron's not scared of Miliband. He's scared of Farage.

Labour and Lib Dems would settle for the same debates as last time. Or is Cameron afraid of being seen to exclude Farage? But surely he could then share that responsibility with the others?

If Ofcom allow debates with the Liberal Democrats, but not UKIP, who are ahead of them in the polls, it would be outrageous. I suspect Cameron realises that agreeing to debates means UKIP will inevitably included.

Greens outpolled the LDs last week.

Dave is being equitable by inviting the Greens and Kippers into the debate.

In the first past the poll elections on May 22nd UKIP won 3.8% of the seats - the LD 10.4%.

The party retained control of 6 of the 7 councils they hold. UKIP hold no councils and have no MPs.

Debate involvement should depend on how far the board is tilted in your favour rather than how many votes you receive ?

I suppose it's consistent with FPTP, and true.

But slightly troubling nonetheless.

My view is that the Lib Dems would do better WITHOUT any debates - look what happened in the Euros

Tykejohnno said:

DavidL said:

The tories are putting a surprising amount of effort into Newark. I suspect this is because a UKIP win would make the position about the debates pretty much unarguable. The greens have 1 MP already but have not topped a national election like UKIP.

Whether it is good tactics to seek to exclude Farage or not (I am not sure, especially given UKIP's focus on WWC voters of late) is a separate matter but clearly that is Cameron's objective at the moment. It is another reason why Farage should have been brave enough to go for this one himself.

Flapping Tories Threaten Candidates in Last Ditch Newark Bid

http://order-order.com/2014/06/02/flapping-tories-threaten-candidates-in-last-ditch-newark-bid/

Tykejohnno said:

DavidL said:

The tories are putting a surprising amount of effort into Newark. I suspect this is because a UKIP win would make the position about the debates pretty much unarguable. The greens have 1 MP already but have not topped a national election like UKIP.

Whether it is good tactics to seek to exclude Farage or not (I am not sure, especially given UKIP's focus on WWC voters of late) is a separate matter but clearly that is Cameron's objective at the moment. It is another reason why Farage should have been brave enough to go for this one himself.

Flapping Tories Threaten Candidates in Last Ditch Newark Bid

http://order-order.com/2014/06/02/flapping-tories-threaten-candidates-in-last-ditch-newark-bid/

ToryJim said:

Tykejohnno said:

DavidL said:

The tories are putting a surprising amount of effort into Newark. I suspect this is because a UKIP win would make the position about the debates pretty much unarguable. The greens have 1 MP already but have not topped a national election like UKIP.

Whether it is good tactics to seek to exclude Farage or not (I am not sure, especially given UKIP's focus on WWC voters of late) is a separate matter but clearly that is Cameron's objective at the moment. It is another reason why Farage should have been brave enough to go for this one himself.

Flapping Tories Threaten Candidates in Last Ditch Newark Bid

http://order-order.com/2014/06/02/flapping-tories-threaten-candidates-in-last-ditch-newark-bid/

Similar emails have gone out several times in recent weeks, hardly evidence of flapping.

Socrates said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Socrates said:

How many lawyers do you know that pay basic rate income tax?

None, that is my point. But I know a lot who are married to other lawyers, with both of them probably earning well over £100K and benefitting from two basic-rate tax bands.

Oh, I see. Didn't realise you were agreeing with me!

anotherDave said:

Tykejohnno said:

Eric Pickles to be given task of wooing UKIP voters back to Tories before General Election

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/eric-pickles-given-task-wooing-3632045

Isn't changing the party chairman a year before the election a bad idea?

Socrates said:

MyBurningEars said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Socrates said:

The other absurd part of our tax system is that a household where one partner earns £50k and one partner earns £20k pays dramatically more tax than one where both earn £35k. How is that fair?

Something to do with women not wanting to be seen as chattels. Curiously, those who benefit most from not being seen as chattels are highly-paid lawyers married to highly-paid lawyers.

Or to put it another way, why would it be fair for someone who earns £35k to pay as much tax as someone else who earns £50k, because of who he/she is living with at the time?

Decoupling household income not only seems pretty sensible to me, but the notion of treating wives as independent economic units was a major mark of women's liberation. I'd be loathe to see that reversed.

Wasn't it Lord Denning who bemoaned the fact that English law doesn't have a notion of "family" property? On that basis alone, taxing "family income" doesn't sound particularly promising.

Because they're not just "living together". I'm speaking about married couples with children, whose assets would be treated as community assets in a divorce. Apparently its all joint when you split up, but they're independent when you're living together. Complete nonsense.

RodCrosby said:

Con 1.3 >>

RodCrosby said:

Lab 75 >>

Richard_Nabavi said:

There is no doubt that the Tories have sharpened up their act over the last year or two. Although I'm no great fan of Grant Shapps as a presenter of Conservative policies, it does look as though he deserves a lot of credit for making the campaigning much more focused and professional.

SouthamObserver said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Observer, why do you say he'll be the last king?

The popularity of the monarchy is at an all time low. I suspect that at some there'll be a referendum and people will vote for it to be abolished. Felipe has a hell of a job on his hands to prevent that happening.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Observer, that'd be a shame.

Funny how a referendum to abolish monarchy would be a one time deal, but a referendum to kowtow to Brussels would just be run again and again until the right answer popped up.

SouthamObserver said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Observer, why do you say he'll be the last king?

The popularity of the monarchy is at an all time low. I suspect that at some there'll be a referendum and people will vote for it to be abolished. Felipe has a hell of a job on his hands to prevent that happening.

MikeSmithson said:

Hill have taken an £8000 bet for the Conservatives to win the Newark by-election – for which they are now 2/9 favourites.

ToryJim said:

SouthamObserver said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Observer, why do you say he'll be the last king?

The popularity of the monarchy is at an all time low. I suspect that at some there'll be a referendum and people will vote for it to be abolished. Felipe has a hell of a job on his hands to prevent that happening.

He's young, fairly popular in comparison to the rest of the family. His wife is glamorous and he has two young daughters. All this together with some careful reforms could put the monarchy in Spain back on track. That said I think of any nation likely to ditch monarchy Spain has to be top of the list.

MikeSmithson said:

Hill have taken an £8000 bet for the Conservatives to win the Newark by-election – for which they are now 2/9 favourites.