politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » I’m not convinced that Rentoul’s right when he says the pol

SouthamObserver said:

ToryJim said:

SouthamObserver said:

ToryJim said:

SouthamObserver said:

ToryJim said:

Interesting piece about the Trojan Horse stuff and the philosophical differences between Labour and the Tories.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/06/the-trojan-horse-affair-illuminates-a-vital-difference-between-the-tories-and-labour/

I agree there is scope to highlight the difference of outlook, and that Labour's closed mind and standing up for special interests puts them on the wrong side of the argument.

Labour believes that the pooling of some resources and a level of locally accountable oversight would enhance the ability of schools to provide the service we all want them to. They cite the London Challenge as being a great example of how this can work in practice. What do you so dislike about that approach and why do you see it as standing up for special interests?

I just think that it would be the start of rolling back the innovations of recent years, not just Gove's, and I think that would be wrong.

The London Challenge has been a huge success story. I struggle to see how seeking to replicate it elsewhere would be wrong.

I'm not familiar with that but in general what I hear from Labour doesn't encourage me alas.

If you are not familiar with that then you can't have been listening very closely to what Labour has been saying. You should read up about the results it achieved.

Socrates said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Further to my previous post: Are UKIP really sure they've got the right candidate for what should be one of their best shots?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2523883/National-Front-past-UKIP-star-centre-race-row--police-probe-abuse-transvestite-husband.html

She seems thoroughly unsuitable. Whatever the truth of her National Front past, anyone proposing that all immigrants should be sent back home is nasty and unpleasant.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Neil said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Looks like the Tory party is picking a fight with Oxfam, big mistake, there'll only be one winner.

Wait for pbc's Oxfam haters to find their voice - it wont take long!

From what I've read, Conor Burn' complaint to the Charities Commission is likely to be upheld, re political campaigning by Oxfam.

This is going to get messy.

Smarmeron said:

@Richard_Nabavi

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/labour-queries-tory-funds-from-tobacco-industry-1310207.html

Scott_P said:

@JohnRentoul: Biggest political bet ever reported by Wm Hill: £400,000 on Scotland to vote No at odds of 1/4. Bet placed in Surrey by man, no Scots accent

shadsy said:

I've posted a short article on #indyref betting.
http://politicalbookie.wordpress.com/2014/06/10/31-scotland-to-vote-yes-a-good-bet/

RodCrosby said:

Betfair most seats

Lab 1.96
Con 2.08

crossover beckons?

bigjohnowls said:

CON now 2.06.

Look out for the corks flying.

Certain Tory Majority imminent

TheWatcher said:

HurstLlama said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Looks like the Tory party is picking a fight with Oxfam, big mistake, there'll only be one winner.

An interesting conjunction of posts this morning. Oxfam (and other big charities) seem to spend an awful lot of time and money lobbying government - a good and proper thing. Large companies lobbying government - evil and should be stopped. And those companies give big donations to the Conservative Party - even more evil, even if nobody can actually find any record of any such donation.

Anyway, I would not be too sure about Oxfam and the big charities coming out as winners if they get into a fight with HMG. To be sure more people give money to Oxfam than the Conservative party but that might not continue to be the case if the financial affairs of the big charities came under the spot light. Personally, having had the time to do some digging in recent years, I will not give a penny to any national or international charity save BUAV, the RNLI, and service charities.

Take a look at the expensive HQ's of charities such as the RSPCA and WWF to understand where their priorities lie.

TheWatcher said:

HurstLlama said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Looks like the Tory party is picking a fight with Oxfam, big mistake, there'll only be one winner.

An interesting conjunction of posts this morning. Oxfam (and other big charities) seem to spend an awful lot of time and money lobbying government - a good and proper thing. Large companies lobbying government - evil and should be stopped. And those companies give big donations to the Conservative Party - even more evil, even if nobody can actually find any record of any such donation.

Anyway, I would not be too sure about Oxfam and the big charities coming out as winners if they get into a fight with HMG. To be sure more people give money to Oxfam than the Conservative party but that might not continue to be the case if the financial affairs of the big charities came under the spot light. Personally, having had the time to do some digging in recent years, I will not give a penny to any national or international charity save BUAV, the RNLI, and service charities.

Take a look at the expensive HQ's of charities such as the RSPCA and WWF to understand where their priorities lie.

bigjohnowls said:

Neil said:

bigjohnowls said:

CON now 2.06.

Look out for the corks flying.

Certain Tory Majority imminent

It's the most seats market, not an overall majority one.

I know that you know that Wont stop the victory bunting going up though with PB Tories

Richard_Nabavi said:

Further to my previous post: Are UKIP really sure they've got the right candidate for what should be one of their best shots?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2523883/National-Front-past-UKIP-star-centre-race-row--police-probe-abuse-transvestite-husband.html

JackW said:

Bury North - TCTC
Pudsey - TCTC
Broxtowe - Likely Lab Gain
Warwickshire North - Likely Lab Gain
Cambridge - Likely LibDem Hold
Ipswich - TCTC
Watford - TCTC
Croydon Central - Likely Con Hold
Enfield - Likely Con Hold
Cornwall North - TCTC
Great Yarmouth - Likely Con Hold
Vale of Glamorgan - Likely Con Hold
Ochill and South Perthshire - TCTC

BobaFett said:

@Richard_Tyndall

True - he's PB's best anti-tipster

Richard_Nabavi said:

JackW said:

Bury North - TCTC
Pudsey - TCTC
Broxtowe - Likely Lab Gain
Warwickshire North - Likely Lab Gain
Cambridge - Likely LibDem Hold
Ipswich - TCTC
Watford - TCTC
Croydon Central - Likely Con Hold
Enfield - Likely Con Hold
Cornwall North - TCTC
Great Yarmouth - Likely Con Hold
Vale of Glamorgan - Likely Con Hold
Ochill and South Perthshire - TCTC

If Jack is right (and I wouldn't dare suggest otherwise), then there's some good value in the 'likely' selections:

Enfield North, Con: 11/4 (Ladbrokes)

Cambridge, LibDem: 5/4 PP, Evens Ladbrokes [I'm already on at 6/4]

Croydon Central, Con: Evens (Ladbrokes)

Great Yarmouth, Con: Evens (Ladbrokes)

Any views?

TheScreamingEagles said:

Scott_P said:

@JohnRentoul: Biggest political bet ever reported by Wm Hill: £400,000 on Scotland to vote No at odds of 1/4. Bet placed in Surrey by man, no Scots accent

That's from JohnO's neck of the woods.

For an experiment I'm going to see how much William Hill will allow me to bet on this market online.

Anyone want to make any predictions. I'm going for less than £100

Neil said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Enfield North, Con: 11/4 (Ladbrokes)

Labour won the locals here quite comfortably (ok, UKIP polled well but there was also a large Green vote for Labour to squeeze). I was surprised to see JackW call it as a Con hold. Will it be his Watford?

Sean_F said:

ToryJim said:

Interesting article from Dan Hodges, I have sympathy on a philosophical level just think removing faith schools would be controversial and impractical.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100275679/all-faith-based-schools-are-trojan-horse-schools-lets-ban-every-single-one-of-them/

He goes further still, advocating the banning of single-sex schools and (it seems) private education. Most single-sex schools, private schools, or faith schools don't pose a danger to our society.

ToryJim said:

JackW said:

bigjohnowls said:

Did JackW predict an outright Tory victory in 2010?

No.

My ARSE predicted Con largest party on 305 seats.

Shabby to be one seat out. I'll try harder for next year.

How much did it change in the last year though?

Oliver_PB said:

Sean_F said:

ToryJim said:

Interesting article from Dan Hodges, I have sympathy on a philosophical level just think removing faith schools would be controversial and impractical.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100275679/all-faith-based-schools-are-trojan-horse-schools-lets-ban-every-single-one-of-them/

He goes further still, advocating the banning of single-sex schools and (it seems) private education. Most single-sex schools, private schools, or faith schools don't pose a danger to our society.

I disagree. Segregating the rich and poor is a huge danger to society, one much bigger than any Islamic extremism.

I doubt it's a coincidence that Thatcher went to a selective single-sex school.

peter_from_putney said:

shadsy said:

I've posted a short article on #indyref betting.
http://politicalbookie.wordpress.com/2014/06/10/31-scotland-to-vote-yes-a-good-bet/

Bliss! At last a quick and effective way of navigating Ladbrokes' political markets via Shadsy's blog, without encountering the horror story that is their main website.

Any chance please Shadsy of re-instating your Labour and Conservative GE seat bands, which are priced-up for the LibDems, but seemingly not for the two major parties?

Wulfrun_Phil said:

OT. Having put in a prediction a lot closer than any of the polling firms, albeit having had the advantage of not being constrained to the data alone, can I put in my two pennyworth.

The critical thing to remember is that Labour is lousy at campaigning at all things European. Even the party doesn't really know what it really stands for and in so far as it does it goes to great pains to hide it, possibly because may judge that its stance will put off more voters than it will attract. Hence its European campaign was about anything but the EU. That sort of thing translates into no more than grudging support in polls from people who will be far less inclined to go to the bother of voting than turnout filters will indicate. So it wasn't any surprise whatsoever that Labour underperformed against its polling in the Euro elections. It might have been much worse for them but for the coincidence of local elections in Labour heartlands.

The same applies to the Conservatives in reverse. Many of its members may have decamped to UKIP, but supporters that remain were left in no doubt where it stood, and the message seemed to be popular. I thought they ran an effective campaign and were picking up momentum which the polls would struggle to detect.

So my prediction was basically that Lab would underperform on the polling, Con would overperform, and UKIP would be there or thereabouts. And so it proved.

What does this tell us about the likely accuracy of GE 2015 polls? Well, nothing at all, because for all these reasons the circumstances of the Euro elections were very different to the context we can expect at GE 2015. As also applies to Newark.

What do I think will happen in 2015? Well, it's nonetheless that Labour will underperform against the polls in GE 2015. But that's nothing to do with anything that we've seen to date, but rather the consequences of the introduction of an untried system of individual voter registration likely to play havoc with registration by transient populations in private rented accommodation.

BobaFett said:

Oxfam will be loving this.

Maximum publicity for its campaign.

And the Tory Party attacking it.

The perfect storm indeed.

NickPalmer said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

OT. Having put in a prediction a lot closer than any of the polling firms, albeit having had the advantage of not being constrained to the data alone, can I put in my two pennyworth.

The critical thing to remember is that Labour is lousy at campaigning at all things European. Even the party doesn't really know what it really stands for and in so far as it does it goes to great pains to hide it, possibly because may judge that its stance will put off more voters than it will attract. Hence its European campaign was about anything but the EU. That sort of thing translates into no more than grudging support in polls from people who will be far less inclined to go to the bother of voting than turnout filters will indicate. So it wasn't any surprise whatsoever that Labour underperformed against its polling in the Euro elections. It might have been much worse for them but for the coincidence of local elections in Labour heartlands.

The same applies to the Conservatives in reverse. Many of its members may have decamped to UKIP, but supporters that remain were left in no doubt where it stood, and the message seemed to be popular. I thought they ran an effective campaign and were picking up momentum which the polls would struggle to detect.

So my prediction was basically that Lab would underperform on the polling, Con would overperform, and UKIP would be there or thereabouts. And so it proved.

What does this tell us about the likely accuracy of GE 2015 polls? Well, nothing at all, because for all these reasons the circumstances of the Euro elections were very different to the context we can expect at GE 2015. As also applies to Newark.

What do I think will happen in 2015? Well, it's nonetheless that Labour will underperform against the polls in GE 2015. But that's nothing to do with anything that we've seen to date, but rather the consequences of the introduction of an untried system of individual voter registration likely to play havoc with registration by transient populations in private rented accommodation.

By the way, FWIW Labour expects to win Cambridge in a canter. It's exactly the sort of seat where the swing from the LibDems is largest.

ToryJim said:

OblitusSumMe said:

ToryJim said:

Interesting article from Dan Hodges, I have sympathy on a philosophical level just think removing faith schools would be controversial and impractical.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100275679/all-faith-based-schools-are-trojan-horse-schools-lets-ban-every-single-one-of-them/

I think we could at least do two things:

1. Stop creating more faith schools.

2. Work out how to recreate the academic success of faith-based schools in secular schools.

I think we need to do 2 before we worry about 1

state_go_away said:

ToryJim said:

OblitusSumMe said:

ToryJim said:

Interesting article from Dan Hodges, I have sympathy on a philosophical level just think removing faith schools would be controversial and impractical.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100275679/all-faith-based-schools-are-trojan-horse-schools-lets-ban-every-single-one-of-them/

I think we could at least do two things:

1. Stop creating more faith schools.

2. Work out how to recreate the academic success of faith-based schools in secular schools.

I think we need to do 2 before we worry about 1

The academic success of faith schools is nothing to do with religion making either good teaching or pupils its the general intake of kids (ie those usually with interested parents). There is nothing to solve before you need to get rid of 1) imo

JackW said:

Sean_F said:

JackW said:

Neil said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Enfield North, Con: 11/4 (Ladbrokes)

Labour won the locals here quite comfortably (ok, UKIP polled well but there was also a large Green vote for Labour to squeeze). I was surprised to see JackW call it as a Con hold. Will it be his Watford?

I didn't call Enfield North as Con Hold (2500+ maj) but Likely Con Hold. Further please note this is a projection for May 2015 and not a spot call on the position now.

I think the Conservatives will struggle to hold Enfield North, unless the polls are looking very good by May 2015.

Thank you Sean. I always value your opinion on Greater London politics.

Enfield North was on the very cusp of TCTC (Below 500 votes) but I have to call it as the model sees it.

BTW all the "JackW Dozen" TCTC will be "called" come the final week.

JackW said:

Sean_F said:

JackW said:

Neil said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Enfield North, Con: 11/4 (Ladbrokes)

Labour won the locals here quite comfortably (ok, UKIP polled well but there was also a large Green vote for Labour to squeeze). I was surprised to see JackW call it as a Con hold. Will it be his Watford?

I didn't call Enfield North as Con Hold (2500+ maj) but Likely Con Hold. Further please note this is a projection for May 2015 and not a spot call on the position now.

I think the Conservatives will struggle to hold Enfield North, unless the polls are looking very good by May 2015.

Thank you Sean. I always value your opinion on Greater London politics.

Enfield North was on the very cusp of TCTC (Below 500 votes) but I have to call it as the model sees it.

BTW all the "JackW Dozen" TCTC will be "called" come the final week.