politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » What’s believed to be the largest political bet ever – £400

TheScreamingEagles said:

This sounds familiar

Of course there are, respond the wilder Nats. These people are suffering from Jockholm Syndrome. You couldn’t be proud of voting No, could you and deep down you have to know doing so is an act of betrayal. Toom tabard and all that.

JackW said:

MikeL said:

Re the JackW 9am forecast:

This is forecasting a net gain of 9 Con seats - yet the "dozen" has two Con losses and no Con gains.

So where are the Con gains forecast to arise?

And does this not suggest that the "dozen" is not doing its job as it appears to be missing where the Con gains are forecast to arise.

Thanks for your comment and a casual glance would indicate to some degree that you have a fair point.

However covering a range of options with 13 seats is tricky. I've tried to give a broad geographical and political spread within the context of the likely outcome from the ARSE national projection. The Cornwall North projection is TCTC but if "called" today would be Con Gain.

Within that context the present Conservative figure of 315 is the second highest since July last year and has usually been in the 290/300 range which would make the 13 seats slightly more appropriate. Even so the difference is at the margin as indeed are a number of seats that made the long list but not the final cut.

Further I think in fairness I haven't chosen a batch of easy seats. I might get most wrong or right and yet be within a point or two in each case both with the seats and the national projection.

OblitusSumMe said:

BobaFett said:

I feel bad enough pretending to my four year old that Santa exists.

I was awful as the tooth fairy. I kept on forgetting to swap the tooth out for some money.

I ended up getting my daughter to write a letter of complaint so that I could reply with a letter of apology - and interest for the delay.

Not a patch on Tolkien's efforts though.

Carnyx said:

You might want to read what Mr Obama said. It's presumably only the context of a press question that makes it clear he may even be talking about Scottish independence. And that's not even clear. He could be hoping the Scots stay in NATO, for all one knows.

MikeL said:

JackW said:

MikeL said:

Re the JackW 9am forecast:

This is forecasting a net gain of 9 Con seats - yet the "dozen" has two Con losses and no Con gains.

So where are the Con gains forecast to arise?

And does this not suggest that the "dozen" is not doing its job as it appears to be missing where the Con gains are forecast to arise.

Thanks for your comment and a casual glance would indicate to some degree that you have a fair point.

However covering a range of options with 13 seats is tricky. I've tried to give a broad geographical and political spread within the context of the likely outcome from the ARSE national projection. The Cornwall North projection is TCTC but if "called" today would be Con Gain.

Within that context the present Conservative figure of 315 is the second highest since July last year and has usually been in the 290/300 range which would make the 13 seats slightly more appropriate. Even so the difference is at the margin as indeed are a number of seats that made the long list but not the final cut.

Further I think in fairness I haven't chosen a batch of easy seats. I might get most wrong or right and yet be within a point or two in each case both with the seats and the national projection.

OK JackW - many thanks - I was not looking to criticise in any way - I have the highest regard for your forecasts.

Incidentally, whilst you're around, what are your views on what appears to be an increase of approx 2 points in the Lab lead since the Euros? This hasn't caused your forecast to move to any noticeable degree so what do you make of it?

DavidL said:

OblitusSumMe said:

BobaFett said:

I feel bad enough pretending to my four year old that Santa exists.

I was awful as the tooth fairy. I kept on forgetting to swap the tooth out for some money.

I ended up getting my daughter to write a letter of complaint so that I could reply with a letter of apology - and interest for the delay.

Not a patch on Tolkien's efforts though.

That rings bells. My son stopped believing in the tooth fairy on the basis that nothing magical could be so incompetent and fail to turn up so regularly. Not my finest hour.

JackW said:

MikeL said:

JackW said:

MikeL said:

Re the JackW 9am forecast:

This is forecasting a net gain of 9 Con seats - yet the "dozen" has two Con losses and no Con gains.

So where are the Con gains forecast to arise?

And does this not suggest that the "dozen" is not doing its job as it appears to be missing where the Con gains are forecast to arise.

Thanks for your comment and a casual glance would indicate to some degree that you have a fair point.

However covering a range of options with 13 seats is tricky. I've tried to give a broad geographical and political spread within the context of the likely outcome from the ARSE national projection. The Cornwall North projection is TCTC but if "called" today would be Con Gain.

Within that context the present Conservative figure of 315 is the second highest since July last year and has usually been in the 290/300 range which would make the 13 seats slightly more appropriate. Even so the difference is at the margin as indeed are a number of seats that made the long list but not the final cut.

Further I think in fairness I haven't chosen a batch of easy seats. I might get most wrong or right and yet be within a point or two in each case both with the seats and the national projection.

OK JackW - many thanks - I was not looking to criticise in any way - I have the highest regard for your forecasts.

Incidentally, whilst you're around, what are your views on what appears to be an increase of approx 2 points in the Lab lead since the Euros? This hasn't caused your forecast to move to any noticeable degree so what do you make of it?

No problems. It was a fair question and it gave me an opportunity to give a fuller explanation.

I indicated prior to the May elections that I expected Labour to enjoy a bounce back in the polls in the Summer. I expect this situation to continue but within the context of the past years overall decline.

In essence Labours deflating lead will have a little more air before slowly deflating again. I expect some crossover polls through the rest of the year but no regular and consistent Conservative leads until the new year.

In broad terms when the voters are more highly engaged Labour suffer.

RobD said:

Carnyx said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

ToryJim said:

Interesting piece on Independence from Alex Massie

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/06/who-will-fill-a-cowards-grave-100-days-to-decide-scotlands-future/

YESNP adopting Obama's Yes We Can slogan looking stupid after the US President's recent statement in support of the Union. It's no surprise, I'm sure he'd have been a Lincoln Unionist rather than a Southern Confederate in the US's great struggle.

You might want to read what Mr Obama said. It's presumably only the context of a press question that makes it clear he may even be talking about Scottish independence. And that's not even clear. He could be hoping the Scots stay in NATO, for all one knows.

I thought it was abundantly clear he was talking about Scotland in the UK?

dr_spyn said:

World Cup 2010, Uruguay finished 3rd - Italy 4th. England will be hoping that both teams have regressed in the last 4 years.

RobD said:

Carnyx said:

RobD said:

Carnyx said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

ToryJim said:

Interesting piece on Independence from Alex Massie

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/06/who-will-fill-a-cowards-grave-100-days-to-decide-scotlands-future/

YESNP adopting Obama's Yes We Can slogan looking stupid after the US President's recent statement in support of the Union. It's no surprise, I'm sure he'd have been a Lincoln Unionist rather than a Southern Confederate in the US's great struggle.

You might want to read what Mr Obama said. It's presumably only the context of a press question that makes it clear he may even be talking about Scottish independence. And that's not even clear. He could be hoping the Scots stay in NATO, for all one knows.

I thought it was abundantly clear he was talking about Scotland in the UK?

In context, yes, but look at the wording.

"The UK has been an extraordinary partner to us. From the outside at least it looks like things have worked pretty well and we obviously have a deep interest in making sure one of the closest allies that we will ever have remains a strong, robust, united and effective partner. Ultimately these are decisions to be made by folks there."

It's only the 'united' that is specific to the indyref and it is only the context that gives the indyref. It's pretty weak wording, considering it was bang in front of Mr Cameron, which ends by saying it's for the natives to decide. And even that had to be dragged out by a planted media question according to the FT correspondent.

BTW what nobody seems to have pointed out is that Mr Salmond has one thing in common with Mr Obama - both have upset Mr Trump to the degree that he has launched press advertising and media campaigns against both. .

So it was clear in context? What is the problem then.

BobaFett said:

Bond_James_Bond said:

Lennon said:

Bond_James_Bond said:

Thanks all.

@Tissue Price - I can't see England beating Costa Rica (or the other two either). I can see England coming home without winning a game. I'd like to be wrong, but defeat at the hands of Italy and Uruguay seems nailed on. If at that point England are already eliminated, then they might scrape a win against whomever they play last, although if they play Italy or Uruguay last, even then I doubt it.

My guess would be Brazil versus Argentina in the final with Germany and Italy playing off for third.

England's playing order is Italy, Uruguay and then Costa Rica. Means that the final game could easily be meaningless for both sides.

Lennon said:

Bond_James_Bond said:

Thanks all.

@Tissue Price - I can't see England beating Costa Rica (or the other two either). I can see England coming home without winning a game. I'd like to be wrong, but defeat at the hands of Italy and Uruguay seems nailed on. If at that point England are already eliminated, then they might scrape a win against whomever they play last, although if they play Italy or Uruguay last, even then I doubt it.

My guess would be Brazil versus Argentina in the final with Germany and Italy playing off for third.

England's playing order is Italy, Uruguay and then Costa Rica. Means that the final game could easily be meaningless for both sides.

Easterross said:

Serious question, do any of you chaps in Englandshire expect the shower of numpties recently arrived in Brazil to do anything other than be on a plane home on conclusion of the group stage? They really are totally uninspiring and instead of actively supporting Italy and the other teams playing them, I just want them to be put out of their misery. Not a ball kicked and it seems half of them are already nursing injuries. Just not a patch on the likes of Beckham, Nevilles x 2, Scoles etc from a decade or so ago.

They're reliably disappointing, the more so in the bigger events, which is why I think they'll do something especially infuriating - like lose the first two games then win the last stylishly when it doesn't matter.

ISTR they beat Germany 3 nil some years ago on a similar basis, then returned to their usual form as soon as it did.

When was this 3-0 over Germany then? Do tell.

BobaFett said:

dr_spyn said:

World Cup 2010, Uruguay finished 3rd - Italy 4th. England will be hoping that both teams have regressed in the last 4 years.

Uruguay only got to the semi by virtue of sickening cheating by one Luis Suarez, who scooped a goal bound ball out of the net against Ghana in the last minute. Made me realise the rules of football should be changed so, in such circumstances, a penalty goal is awarded.

No way should you be able to gain an advantage by cheating, which is what happened.

antifrank said:

Neil said:

BobaFett said:

No way should you be able to gain an advantage by cheating, which is what happened.

I wish someone had told Thierry Henry this before the UEFA play-offs for that tournament.

I can't understand where some people get the idea that the Irish can't put past injustices behind them.

Neil said:

Excuse me, I've only mentioned the famine and the most egregious handball in the history of football on this thread so far. If I'd been seeking to rake over past injustices I would have brought up the Penal Laws too.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Neil said:

antifrank said:

Neil said:

BobaFett said:

No way should you be able to gain an advantage by cheating, which is what happened.

I wish someone had told Thierry Henry this before the UEFA play-offs for that tournament.

I can't understand where some people get the idea that the Irish can't put past injustices behind them.

Excuse me, I've only mentioned the famine and the most egregious handball in the history of football on this thread so far. If I'd been seeking to rake over past injustices I would have brought up the Penal Laws too.

Keep it real, this was the most egregious handball in football history, it ultimately denied England their second world cup

www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ccNkksrfls

TheScreamingEagles said:

RobD said:

Carnyx said:

RobD said:

Carnyx said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

ToryJim said:

Interesting piece on Independence from Alex Massie

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/06/who-will-fill-a-cowards-grave-100-days-to-decide-scotlands-future/

YESNP adopting Obama's Yes We Can slogan looking stupid after the US President's recent statement in support of the Union. It's no surprise, I'm sure he'd have been a Lincoln Unionist rather than a Southern Confederate in the US's great struggle.

You might want to read what Mr Obama said. It's presumably only the context of a press question that makes it clear he may even be talking about Scottish independence. And that's not even clear. He could be hoping the Scots stay in NATO, for all one knows.

I thought it was abundantly clear he was talking about Scotland in the UK?

In context, yes, but look at the wording.

"The UK has been an extraordinary partner to us. From the outside at least it looks like things have worked pretty well and we obviously have a deep interest in making sure one of the closest allies that we will ever have remains a strong, robust, united and effective partner. Ultimately these are decisions to be made by folks there."

It's only the 'united' that is specific to the indyref and it is only the context that gives the indyref. It's pretty weak wording, considering it was bang in front of Mr Cameron, which ends by saying it's for the natives to decide. And even that had to be dragged out by a planted media question according to the FT correspondent.

BTW what nobody seems to have pointed out is that Mr Salmond has one thing in common with Mr Obama - both have upset Mr Trump to the degree that he has launched press advertising and media campaigns against both. .

So it was clear in context? What is the problem then.

Watch the video here.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/05/barack-obama-suggests-scotland-should-stay-uk-independence

As Mike once told me "Never forget the golden rule of Scottish politics, no matter what happens, ultimately it is good for Yes and the SNP"

ToryJim said:

Secret Pardons issued to paramilitaries during the troubles NI Secretary has admitted.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-27760311

Luckyguy1983 said:

There is a school of thought that the IRA was always a front for the establishment

antifrank said:

I liked the fact that Martin McGuinness had drawn England in his office sweepstake.

TheScreamingEagles said:

peter_from_putney said:

Anyway, SeanT is very definitely a North London boy, snobbishly so in fact, and is always very disparaging about those, like yours truly, who live south of the river.

Was it thee who was asking for the Con and Lab seat bands market?

http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-uk-general-election/total-seats-labour

and here

http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-uk-general-election/total-seats-conservative

antifrank said:

I liked the fact that Martin McGuinness had drawn England in his office sweepstake.

peter_from_putney said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

peter_from_putney said:

Anyway, SeanT is very definitely a North London boy, snobbishly so in fact, and is always very disparaging about those, like yours truly, who live south of the river.

Was it thee who was asking for the Con and Lab seat bands market?

http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-uk-general-election/total-seats-labour

and here

http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-uk-general-election/total-seats-conservative

TSE - Many thanks for the links to Lab & Con seat bands which, as if by magic, have re-appeared from Ladbrokes this afternoon.
I had thought of backing both parties in combination to win between 301-325 seats, but this produces winning odds of only 11/8 so no real value there - perhaps I'll have another look if/when other bookies enter the fray.

Luckyguy1983 said:

ToryJim said:

Such a school should be in special measures

Very good.

There are people who believe that there is no such thing as terrorism. That there never has been. That it's a political tool. I don't agree, but I'm open to the idea. Certainly if terrorism did not exist, someone would surely have to invent it.

Charles said:

Rule #1: never trust a English King

Richard_Nabavi said:

Charles said:

Rule #1: never trust a English King

Why pick on English kings particularly?

Charles said:

Don't get me started on the Treaty of Windsor.

Rule #1: never trust a English King

ToryJim said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

ToryJim said:

Such a school should be in special measures

Very good.

There are people who believe that there is no such thing as terrorism. That there never has been. That it's a political tool. I don't agree, but I'm open to the idea. Certainly if terrorism did not exist, someone would surely have to invent it.

Well the concept of intimidating people into actions they otherwise wouldn't take isn't new. It's arguable but one of the earliest terror cells were either the Jewish Sicarii or the Islamic Hashhashin.

ToryJim said:

Bercow wants us to vote electronically from home. I'm not sure I agree, I'm not against innovation but there has to be a certain otherness to voting. We shouldn't reduce Parliamentary democracy to an x-factor episode.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10890445/Let-people-vote-electronically-from-their-armchairs-says-John-Bercow.html

Smarmeron said:

Theresa May? give permission.
Interesting way to pressure an unannounced decision?

ToryJim said:

Bercow wants us to vote electronically from home. I'm not sure I agree, I'm not against innovation but there has to be a certain otherness to voting. We shouldn't reduce Parliamentary democracy to an x-factor episode.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10890445/Let-people-vote-electronically-from-their-armchairs-says-John-Bercow.html

Luckyguy1983 said:

ToryJim said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

ToryJim said:

Such a school should be in special measures

Very good.

There are people who believe that there is no such thing as terrorism. That there never has been. That it's a political tool. I don't agree, but I'm open to the idea. Certainly if terrorism did not exist, someone would surely have to invent it.

Well the concept of intimidating people into actions they otherwise wouldn't take isn't new. It's arguable but one of the earliest terror cells were either the Jewish Sicarii or the Islamic Hashhashin.

I googled them -my history doesn't really go any further back than the Tudors. This caught my eye -'Victims of the Sicarii included Jonathan the High Priest, although it is possible that his murder was orchestrated by the Roman governor Antonius Felix.' -State sponsored attack being blamed on A.N.Other nasty terrorist?!!

History can teach us everything -there's nothing new under the sun.

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

RobD said:

Smarmeron said:

Theresa May? give permission.
Interesting way to pressure an unannounced decision?

"The Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC) said that each cannon had a life-expectancy of five years, or longer with good maintenance, and if approval was not given by Ms May, then they could be re-sold".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-27781673

So if it is not used, it still breaks after 5 years. Call me skeptical, but I don't buy that.

Even if it gets used everyday. It's only a lorry with a water tank, a pump and a directional hose attached. With a decent maintenance regime (the kind that you need to have to gain an operators licence from VOSA), they should be able to last for way, way more than 5 years.
Who the hell does government have working for them?
I can be their fleet manager for a very modest fee.

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

RobD said:

Smarmeron said:

Theresa May? give permission.
Interesting way to pressure an unannounced decision?

"The Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC) said that each cannon had a life-expectancy of five years, or longer with good maintenance, and if approval was not given by Ms May, then they could be re-sold".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-27781673

So if it is not used, it still breaks after 5 years. Call me skeptical, but I don't buy that.

Even if it gets used everyday. It's only a lorry with a water tank, a pump and a directional hose attached. With a decent maintenance regime (the kind that you need to have to gain an operators licence from VOSA), they should be able to last for way, way more than 5 years.
Who the hell does government have working for them?
I can be their fleet manager for a very modest fee.

RobD said:

MarkHopkins said:

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

RobD said:

Smarmeron said:

Theresa May? give permission.
Interesting way to pressure an unannounced decision?

"The Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC) said that each cannon had a life-expectancy of five years, or longer with good maintenance, and if approval was not given by Ms May, then they could be re-sold".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-27781673

So if it is not used, it still breaks after 5 years. Call me skeptical, but I don't buy that.

Even if it gets used everyday. It's only a lorry with a water tank, a pump and a directional hose attached. With a decent maintenance regime (the kind that you need to have to gain an operators licence from VOSA), they should be able to last for way, way more than 5 years.
Who the hell does government have working for them?
I can be their fleet manager for a very modest fee.

Not new. Second-hand from Germany.

But still, if it is not used ever, it shouldn't deteriorate much over 5 years.

MarkHopkins said:

RobD said:

MarkHopkins said:

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

RobD said:

Smarmeron said:

Theresa May? give permission.
Interesting way to pressure an unannounced decision?

"The Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC) said that each cannon had a life-expectancy of five years, or longer with good maintenance, and if approval was not given by Ms May, then they could be re-sold".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-27781673

So if it is not used, it still breaks after 5 years. Call me skeptical, but I don't buy that.

Even if it gets used everyday. It's only a lorry with a water tank, a pump and a directional hose attached. With a decent maintenance regime (the kind that you need to have to gain an operators licence from VOSA), they should be able to last for way, way more than 5 years.
Who the hell does government have working for them?
I can be their fleet manager for a very modest fee.

Not new. Second-hand from Germany.

But still, if it is not used ever, it shouldn't deteriorate much over 5 years.

They will need to play practice with them.