politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » New IndyRef poll from Survation sees more Scottish people m
Comments
-
Does anyone think there's value in backing the Lib Dems in Winchester at 4/1?
The Tory majority is 3k, add in UKIP doing well there, the Lib Dems could win by default?0 -
Final result from yesterday , North Herts DC Hitchwood/Offa/Hoo Con hold
Con 734 UKIP 203 Lab 116 Green 74 Lib Dem 57
Summary
Labour hold 3 ( 1 Penistone West a marginal seat which is usually Conservative ) Conservatives hold 2 ( 1 Torridge widely expected to be a UKIP gain ) Lib Dem gain 1 from Conservative ( widely expected to be a Meb Ker gain )0 -
PMIs are backward looking.rcs1000 said:@AveryLP
TBH, I think you over-analyse.
The key metric is the PMIs - because they are quickly collected, have a very broad base, and have been much better at predicting quarterly and annual GDP than monthly swings in retail sales, industrial production, etc.
And they remain broadly positive. Here are the latest Markit Manufacturing PMIs, sorted from best to worst. Remember: 50 or above is economic growth. Below 50 is recession, shrinkage.UK 57.5
USA 57.3
Ireland 55.3
Spain 54.6
Italy 52.6
Netherlands 52.3
Germany 52.0
Japan 51.5
India 51.5
China 50.7
Poland 50.3
Russia 49.1
Brazil 48.7
South Korea 48.4
France 48.20 -
Do it Dave, you know it makes sense.peter_from_putney said:TheScreamingEagles said:
FPT - Peter, it was I who tipped Lord Howard at 25/1peter_from_putney said:Labourites should enjoy whilst they may Stephen Fisher's latest projection of a 1 seat Labour lead over the Tories at the next GE (296 vs 295), calculated by reference to UKPR's latest average polling results which shows Labour as having a 5% lead (36% vs 31%). These figures already look out of date with YouGov and Populus showing Labour leads of 3% and 2% respectively this morning, compared with a 7% Labour lead shown by both these pollsters earlier in the week.
Based on his updated projection, Prof. Fisher estimates that even with Labour's improved showing, there is a 52% probability of a hung parliament after the next General Election, equivalent to decimal odds of 1.92. This compares with odds of 5/4 or 2.25 decimal available from those nice people at SkyBet and BETFRED. That's a 35% better ROI than is currently indicated by Prof. Fisher's numbers ..... this looks like value to me but DYOR.
Many congratulations TSE, I bow before you. I actually had a couple of quid on myself, so fingers crossed!TheScreamingEagles said:
FPT - Peter, it was I who tipped Lord Howard at 25/1peter_from_putney said:Labourites should enjoy whilst they may Stephen Fisher's latest projection of a 1 seat Labour lead over the Tories at the next GE (296 vs 295), calculated by reference to UKPR's latest average polling results which shows Labour as having a 5% lead (36% vs 31%). These figures already look out of date with YouGov and Populus showing Labour leads of 3% and 2% respectively this morning, compared with a 7% Labour lead shown by both these pollsters earlier in the week.
Based on his updated projection, Prof. Fisher estimates that even with Labour's improved showing, there is a 52% probability of a hung parliament after the next General Election, equivalent to decimal odds of 1.92. This compares with odds of 5/4 or 2.25 decimal available from those nice people at SkyBet and BETFRED. That's a 35% better ROI than is currently indicated by Prof. Fisher's numbers ..... this looks like value to me but DYOR.0 -
Two other good reasons to do this:TheScreamingEagles said:Currently Available at 25/1
Why David Cameron should send Theresa May to Brussels
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jameskirkup/100279597/why-david-cameron-should-send-theresa-may-to-brussels/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
1) Juncker has been complaining that the member states aren't sending him enough women. He'd be likely to give her a high-ranking job if he could be persuaded she would actually do it properly instead of grandstanding to the British press.
2) It gets rid of a potential leadership challenger.0 -
Will she go though?edmundintokyo said:
Two other good reasons to do this:TheScreamingEagles said:Currently Available at 25/1
Why David Cameron should send Theresa May to Brussels
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jameskirkup/100279597/why-david-cameron-should-send-theresa-may-to-brussels/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
1) Juncker has been complaining that the member states aren't sending him enough women. He'd be likely to give her a high-ranking job if he could be persuaded she would actually do it properly instead of grandstanding to the British press.
2) It gets rid of a potential leadership challenger.
Ah feck it, I'll stick a tenner on her at 25/10 -
Completely Off topic, but I am incensed.
I have just read Melvyn Bragg's latest email newsletter that accompanies his excellent weekly programme, "In Our Time". In it he says it is to be the last one as the BBC have decided it is no longer affordable. FFS! How much does it cost to have someone, once a week, type up a thousand words and hit the send button? The BBC sent how many people to Brazil for the football? But it can't afford an hour of a clerk-typist's time once a week. Bah.0 -
But it does this so clumsily people would think he is frit.edmundintokyo said:TheScreamingEagles said:Currently Available at 25/1
Why David Cameron should send Theresa May to Brussels
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jameskirkup/100279597/why-david-cameron-should-send-theresa-may-to-brussels/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
2) It gets rid of a potential leadership challenger.0 -
Liverpool agree to sell Suarez to Barcelona for £75million0
-
Not a sniff lol.TheScreamingEagles said:Does anyone think there's value in backing the Lib Dems in Winchester at 4/1?
The Tory majority is 3k, add in UKIP doing well there, the Lib Dems could win by default?
0 -
I don't think they would. There hasn't been much in the media about a potential leadership challenge by Theresa May; They prefer talking about Boris. It only seems like a serious possibility to us because we're very politically nerdy, and also because Tim, who was very sharp when it came to handicapping the other side, used to post about the idea.TOPPING said:
But it does this so clumsily people would think he is frit.edmundintokyo said:TheScreamingEagles said:Currently Available at 25/1
Why David Cameron should send Theresa May to Brussels
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jameskirkup/100279597/why-david-cameron-should-send-theresa-may-to-brussels/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
2) It gets rid of a potential leadership challenger.0 -
From cricinfo:
""am i the only one who noticed england seems to have Balance today. hopefully they can go a few sessions on the Trott without losing wickets and make the indians Cook under pressure. if these two Root themselves in until the Bell tomorrow, the they will have Broad smiles after closing down indias Prior two days performance."0 -
Goodbye Luis, you won't be missed, hell even Djimi Traore won more trophies at Liverpool than you did.
#FullOfSadness #FuckOffBarcelona.0 -
They're normally considered leading indicators, although no forward looking indicator is free from taking into account past and present conditions, simply because they impact on business decisions.FalseFlag said:
PMIs are backward looking.rcs1000 said:@AveryLP
TBH, I think you over-analyse.
The key metric is the PMIs - because they are quickly collected, have a very broad base, and have been much better at predicting quarterly and annual GDP than monthly swings in retail sales, industrial production, etc.
And they remain broadly positive. Here are the latest Markit Manufacturing PMIs, sorted from best to worst. Remember: 50 or above is economic growth. Below 50 is recession, shrinkage.UK 57.5
USA 57.3
Ireland 55.3
Spain 54.6
Italy 52.6
Netherlands 52.3
Germany 52.0
Japan 51.5
India 51.5
China 50.7
Poland 50.3
Russia 49.1
Brazil 48.7
South Korea 48.4
France 48.20 -
May to Europe removes a challenger to ..... Osborne.TOPPING said:
But it does this so clumsily people would think he is frit.edmundintokyo said:
2) It gets rid of a potential leadership challenger.TheScreamingEagles said:Currently Available at 25/1
Why David Cameron should send Theresa May to Brussels
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jameskirkup/100279597/why-david-cameron-should-send-theresa-may-to-brussels/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
0 -
Oliver Kay @OliverKayTimes 1m
When #mufc sold Ronaldo, someone at club said: "It was a rocky marriage but the sex was great."
Analogy works even better for Suarez at #LFC0 -
No, first time incumbent.TheScreamingEagles said:Does anyone think there's value in backing the Lib Dems in Winchester at 4/1?
The Tory majority is 3k, add in UKIP doing well there, the Lib Dems could win by default?
0 -
Suarez is moving to the Home office?0
-
For Suarez it was surely the food that was great.TheScreamingEagles said:Oliver Kay @OliverKayTimes 1m
When #mufc sold Ronaldo, someone at club said: "It was a rocky marriage but the sex was great."
Analogy works even better for Suarez at #LFC
0 -
You've probably seen this already, but..TheScreamingEagles said:Goodbye Luis, you won't be missed, hell even Djimi Traore won more trophies at Liverpool than you did.
#FullOfSadness #FuckOffBarcelona.
Titi Camara @TitiCamara22 · Jul 7
When I left Liverpool not many people thought I could have been replaced. Liverpool will survive without Suarez0 -
I didTissue_Price said:
You've probably seen this already, but..TheScreamingEagles said:Goodbye Luis, you won't be missed, hell even Djimi Traore won more trophies at Liverpool than you did.
#FullOfSadness #FuckOffBarcelona.
Titi Camara @TitiCamara22 · Jul 7
When I left Liverpool not many people thought I could have been replaced. Liverpool will survive without Suarez
Liverpool fans always remember Titi with fondness.
0 -
Could do with an indian wicket now, been poking at the rising Indian price all morning:
Right now
-4.75 England
+140.70 India
-11.91 Draw0 -
A decent chance at 4/1though Conservatives should be favouritesPulpstar said:
Not a sniff lol.TheScreamingEagles said:Does anyone think there's value in backing the Lib Dems in Winchester at 4/1?
The Tory majority is 3k, add in UKIP doing well there, the Lib Dems could win by default?
Local election results for wards making up parliamentary seat
Lib Dem 13884 Con 126310 -
first time unpopular incumbentTCPoliticalBetting said:
No, first time incumbent.TheScreamingEagles said:Does anyone think there's value in backing the Lib Dems in Winchester at 4/1?
The Tory majority is 3k, add in UKIP doing well there, the Lib Dems could win by default?0 -
Compared with how things stood with Suarez one year ago, coupled with the player's recent behaviour, this looks like a good bit of business for Liverpool, grateful thanks are due to Rodgers.TheScreamingEagles said:Liverpool agree to sell Suarez to Barcelona for £75million
0 -
Hmm Food for thought - Conservatives badly underperforming UNS in Lib-Dem/Con marginals methinks.MarkSenior said:
A decent chance at 4/1though Conservatives should be favouritesPulpstar said:
Not a sniff lol.TheScreamingEagles said:Does anyone think there's value in backing the Lib Dems in Winchester at 4/1?
The Tory majority is 3k, add in UKIP doing well there, the Lib Dems could win by default?
Local election results for wards making up parliamentary seat
Lib Dem 13884 Con 126310 -
Rod is sometimes right, sometimes wrong. He forecast that Labour would finish third on the night at the Euros. He was wrong about that. The Tories finished third, the only time they have ever done so in a national election.RodCrosby said:
I said I expected "crossover" by May, meaning, as I soon clarified, at least some Tory polling leads. TICKDavidL said:
Our own King of swingback was projecting fairly consistent tory leads by May. That has not happened. I miss Rod's contributions and would be interested to see what his current thinking was. He did well at the last election.
I also said it would be "nip and tuck" thereafter until January 2015, when the Tories would start to draw clearly ahead. Let's wait and see how accurate that is...0 -
If May did go to Brussels, who do the panel think would get the Home Sec job??0
-
Boris? That would be two challengers sorted!taffys said:If May did go to Brussels, who do the panel think would get the Home Sec job??
0 -
Boris? That would be two challengers sorted!
LOL...but seriously, nobody immediately comes to mind. And it has to be a heavy hitter.I'm sure Sajid Javed would be good, but too early.
0 -
Based on?MarkSenior said:
first time unpopular incumbentTCPoliticalBetting said:
No, first time incumbent.TheScreamingEagles said:Does anyone think there's value in backing the Lib Dems in Winchester at 4/1?
The Tory majority is 3k, add in UKIP doing well there, the Lib Dems could win by default?
The local LDs are split over trying to force Clegg out.
0 -
Agreed on Sajid Javid. Hammond would be the obvious choice..taffys said:Boris? That would be two challengers sorted!
LOL...but seriously, nobody immediately comes to mind. And it has to be a heavy hitter.I'm sure Sajid Javed would be good, but too early.
0 -
Him driving two of the Conservative councillors into defecting to the Lib Dems losing the Conservatives overall control of the council .TCPoliticalBetting said:
Based on?MarkSenior said:
first time unpopular incumbentTCPoliticalBetting said:
No, first time incumbent.TheScreamingEagles said:Does anyone think there's value in backing the Lib Dems in Winchester at 4/1?
The Tory majority is 3k, add in UKIP doing well there, the Lib Dems could win by default?
The local LDs are split over trying to force Clegg out.0 -
Watch out for low turnout inflating LD share.Pulpstar said:
Hmm Food for thought - Conservatives badly underperforming UNS in Lib-Dem/Con marginals methinks.MarkSenior said:
A decent chance at 4/1though Conservatives should be favouritesPulpstar said:
Not a sniff lol.TheScreamingEagles said:Does anyone think there's value in backing the Lib Dems in Winchester at 4/1?
The Tory majority is 3k, add in UKIP doing well there, the Lib Dems could win by default?
Local election results for wards making up parliamentary seat
Lib Dem 13884 Con 12631
There are Seniors in every LD constituency who are happy spending the whole of a local elections day walking back and forth between home and polling station.
Tories are far more languid. They vote only when it matters.
0 -
Betting on Theresa May heading to Brussels because a Telegraph Journo has done one of those hypothetical pieces on it ?!
Not for me, Thanks !0 -
Labour are the kings of apathy surely !AveryLP said:
Watch out for low turnout inflating LD share.Pulpstar said:
Hmm Food for thought - Conservatives badly underperforming UNS in Lib-Dem/Con marginals methinks.MarkSenior said:
A decent chance at 4/1though Conservatives should be favouritesPulpstar said:
Not a sniff lol.TheScreamingEagles said:Does anyone think there's value in backing the Lib Dems in Winchester at 4/1?
The Tory majority is 3k, add in UKIP doing well there, the Lib Dems could win by default?
Local election results for wards making up parliamentary seat
Lib Dem 13884 Con 12631
There are Seniors in every LD constituency who are happy spending the whole of a local elections day walking back and forth between home and polling station.
Tories are far more languid. They vote only when it matters.0 -
They would be better giving it to IDS and letting Hammond carry on the excellent workRichard_Nabavi said:
Agreed on Sajid Javid. Hammond would be the obvious choice..taffys said:Boris? That would be two challengers sorted!
LOL...but seriously, nobody immediately comes to mind. And it has to be a heavy hitter.I'm sure Sajid Javed would be good, but too early.sort out the messat DWP.
0 -
Hammond would be the obvious choice..
True.
I'd Like Nadhim Zahawi to get a job somewhere. He's very good at doing the hard yards, such as going on QT, or appearing on TV to defend controversial policies. Not sure he's senior minister material, but a good person to have in a tight corner.0 -
Sajid Javed ought to go far, definitely a potential party leader and if he is lucky in the cycle PM. However, I think Mr. Javed will get bored by politics before he gets to the top of the greasy pole.taffys said:Boris? That would be two challengers sorted!
LOL...but seriously, nobody immediately comes to mind. And it has to be a heavy hitter.I'm sure Sajid Javed would be good, but too early.0 -
Lucky for the LibDems Clegg seems to have a master plan to unite them...TCPoliticalBetting said:
Based on?MarkSenior said:
first time unpopular incumbentTCPoliticalBetting said:
No, first time incumbent.TheScreamingEagles said:Does anyone think there's value in backing the Lib Dems in Winchester at 4/1?
The Tory majority is 3k, add in UKIP doing well there, the Lib Dems could win by default?
The local LDs are split over trying to force Clegg out.0 -
However, I think Mr. Javed will get bored by politics before he gets to the top of the greasy pole.
Very senior minister material for me, not sure he has the charisma to be leader in an increasingly presidential age.0 -
Cricket - the Draw lay looks a reasonable each-way bet at 1.3. These are two losing teams (England recently, India specifically away from home) and you'd have to think that one of them can find a way to screw this up. England could be all out for 270 or 670 here.0
-
Labour people often have better things to do with their time - such as going to work. Higher proportion of supporters in work than any other party ;-)Pulpstar said:
Labour are the kings of apathy surely !AveryLP said:
Watch out for low turnout inflating LD share.Pulpstar said:
Hmm Food for thought - Conservatives badly underperforming UNS in Lib-Dem/Con marginals methinks.MarkSenior said:
A decent chance at 4/1though Conservatives should be favouritesPulpstar said:
Not a sniff lol.TheScreamingEagles said:Does anyone think there's value in backing the Lib Dems in Winchester at 4/1?
The Tory majority is 3k, add in UKIP doing well there, the Lib Dems could win by default?
Local election results for wards making up parliamentary seat
Lib Dem 13884 Con 12631
There are Seniors in every LD constituency who are happy spending the whole of a local elections day walking back and forth between home and polling station.
Tories are far more languid. They vote only when it matters.
0 -
Aren't we talking Con-LD seats?Pulpstar said:
Labour are the kings of apathy surely !AveryLP said:
Watch out for low turnout inflating LD share.Pulpstar said:
Hmm Food for thought - Conservatives badly underperforming UNS in Lib-Dem/Con marginals methinks.MarkSenior said:
A decent chance at 4/1though Conservatives should be favouritesPulpstar said:
Not a sniff lol.TheScreamingEagles said:Does anyone think there's value in backing the Lib Dems in Winchester at 4/1?
The Tory majority is 3k, add in UKIP doing well there, the Lib Dems could win by default?
Local election results for wards making up parliamentary seat
Lib Dem 13884 Con 12631
There are Seniors in every LD constituency who are happy spending the whole of a local elections day walking back and forth between home and polling station.
Tories are far more languid. They vote only when it matters.
0 -
EU diplomat on the big portfolios: "None of these portfolios is likely to go to Britain. You don't reward someone who is against you,"
http://www.euractiv.com/sections/eu-priorities-2020/juncker-may-punish-cameron-top-job-carve-3034140 -
Is Kirkup a mate of Goves and would the Gove vs May dustup be a reason to pack one of them off somewhere to avoid the risk of escalating boat-rocking?
0 -
"None of these portfolios is likely to go to Britain. You don't reward someone who is against you"
The latest tremor over Portugal just makes me want to walk out the door and leave Germany to it.
And the ''who gives a f8ck, its only Europe''reaction in the markets says it all. This union is becoming increasingly irrelevant and is wilfully ignoring those telling it that, whilst mouthing mendacious platitudes to try and keep the sceptics on side.
-1 -
'82 was a really rather good year for claret. It's what I grew up on after the '76 ran outDavidL said:
No it really wasn't (although as a trainee solicitor at the time I really didn't know any better).Theuniondivvie said:
Plenty of claret available in Hillhead, even in '82. Whether it was Woy quality is another matter.DavidL said:
I certainly remember Hillhead because I was canvassing there for Woy. We used to ask for a glass of claret in the pub when we had finished which, as I recall, we found a lot funnier than the locals.
0 -
May is the woman that's been plotting to hand over a whole bunch of justice matters to Brussels, including abolishing many long-standing British protections for suspects. She'd be a terrible Commissioner.taffys said:If May did go to Brussels, who do the panel think would get the Home Sec job??
0 -
May getting out of domestic British politics is just too wonderful a prospect to be true.Pulpstar said:Betting on Theresa May heading to Brussels because a Telegraph Journo has done one of those hypothetical pieces on it ?!
Not for me, Thanks !0 -
Depends if you want them to stay against you or whether you would like them to come into the fold. If the UK sends a "big-beast" to Brussels and Juncker gives them a trivial job or the EU Parliament rejects a commission because it contains the UK rep in a big job then might that not be an indicator that it it is time for us to go and our "partners" are expecting us to go, maybe even ushering us to the exit.Socrates said:EU diplomat on the big portfolios: "None of these portfolios is likely to go to Britain. You don't reward someone who is against you,"
http://www.euractiv.com/sections/eu-priorities-2020/juncker-may-punish-cameron-top-job-carve-3034140 -
@edmundintokyo
So far, so plausible: there is a reason for the data retention regime of the 2009 Regulations to be placed on a firmer statutory footing following the ECJ decision.
But this is not what the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill (which has the unfortunate acronym DRIP) is doing; the DRIP Bill is going further than dealing with the ECJ decision. In effect, the UK government is using the ECJ decision as a pretext to force through, at speed, primary legislation affecting individual rights without proper scrutiny or deliberation. And the UK government has even managed to get the main opposition party to nod along with this. It is a remarkable and cynical political exercise.
It's unbelievable the way they're trying to rush this through.0 -
They are, the way Brendan Rodgers has turned Jordan Henderson into the Mackem Messi is testament to his coaching skills.peter_from_putney said:
Compared with how things stood with Suarez one year ago, coupled with the player's recent behaviour, this looks like a good bit of business for Liverpool, grateful thanks are due to Rodgers.TheScreamingEagles said:Liverpool agree to sell Suarez to Barcelona for £75million
I'm not sure it's a good footballing move for Suarez though.
At Liverpool, the team was designed around him and to get the best out of him.
At Barca, he's not going to be top dog, or even second dog.
He'll probably be third after Messi and Neymar.
How's he going to react to that?
The one thing that is guaranteed is that Liverpool are going to draw Barca in the Champs league this season.0 -
?? It (the '82s) wouldn't have been ready for, say, 20 years so surely the dates don't quite work, Charles? Unless of course you are 30 yrs old. Which you may be...Charles said:
'82 was a really rather good year for claret. It's what I grew up on after the '76 ran outDavidL said:
No it really wasn't (although as a trainee solicitor at the time I really didn't know any better).Theuniondivvie said:
Plenty of claret available in Hillhead, even in '82. Whether it was Woy quality is another matter.DavidL said:
I certainly remember Hillhead because I was canvassing there for Woy. We used to ask for a glass of claret in the pub when we had finished which, as I recall, we found a lot funnier than the locals.0 -
Not even Mike "I tipped Obama at 50-1" Smithson has a perfect record and Rod's record at predicting British political trends is better than many on here.BobaFett said:
Rod is sometimes right, sometimes wrong. He forecast that Labour would finish third on the night at the Euros. He was wrong about that. The Tories finished third, the only time they have ever done so in a national election.RodCrosby said:
I said I expected "crossover" by May, meaning, as I soon clarified, at least some Tory polling leads. TICKDavidL said:
Our own King of swingback was projecting fairly consistent tory leads by May. That has not happened. I miss Rod's contributions and would be interested to see what his current thinking was. He did well at the last election.
I also said it would be "nip and tuck" thereafter until January 2015, when the Tories would start to draw clearly ahead. Let's wait and see how accurate that is...0 -
What a silly article. That someone could write an entire piece on this - and in the FT to boot - without apparently having noticed the 2016 sunset clause does rather suggest that he is not exactly the sharpest legal brain.edmundintokyo said:Other interesting thing about the emergency law: It seems to make Mike into a telecommunications service. Hopefully parliament will fully consider the implications of this in its extensive three-day-long scrutiny process.
http://blogs.ft.com/david-allen-green/2014/07/11/drip-drip-drip-the-emergency-surveillance-law-erodes-our-civil-liberties/0 -
Of course he knows about the 2016 sunset clause. You think any of this is going to get repealed in 2016? It'll be the same move as this one: To allow X to continue doing the work they're currently doing, we need to renew everything in the old thing, plus throw in a load more while pretending it's the same.Richard_Nabavi said:
What a silly article. That someone could write an entire piece on this - and in the FT to boot - without apparently having noticed the 2016 sunset clause does rather suggest that he is not exactly the sharpest legal brain.edmundintokyo said:Other interesting thing about the emergency law: It seems to make Mike into a telecommunications service. Hopefully parliament will fully consider the implications of this in its extensive three-day-long scrutiny process.
http://blogs.ft.com/david-allen-green/2014/07/11/drip-drip-drip-the-emergency-surveillance-law-erodes-our-civil-liberties/0 -
Strange as they also have a much higher percentage of wasters and layabouts with their mittens out looking for my money as well.BobaFett said:
Labour people often have better things to do with their time - such as going to work. Higher proportion of supporters in work than any other party ;-)Pulpstar said:
Labour are the kings of apathy surely !AveryLP said:
Watch out for low turnout inflating LD share.Pulpstar said:
Hmm Food for thought - Conservatives badly underperforming UNS in Lib-Dem/Con marginals methinks.MarkSenior said:
A decent chance at 4/1though Conservatives should be favouritesPulpstar said:
Not a sniff lol.TheScreamingEagles said:Does anyone think there's value in backing the Lib Dems in Winchester at 4/1?
The Tory majority is 3k, add in UKIP doing well there, the Lib Dems could win by default?
Local election results for wards making up parliamentary seat
Lib Dem 13884 Con 12631
There are Seniors in every LD constituency who are happy spending the whole of a local elections day walking back and forth between home and polling station.
Tories are far more languid. They vote only when it matters.
Must be a broad church.0 -
The 2016 sunset clause is the same trick pulled by George Bush when slashing taxes. By the time 2016 rolls around you lot will be arguing that your opponents and wanting to change the law to make things easier for terrorists, as the GOP said the Democrats wanted to raise taxes.Richard_Nabavi said:
What a silly article. That someone could write an entire piece on this - and in the FT to boot - without apparently having noticed the 2016 sunset clause does rather suggest that he is not exactly the sharpest legal brain.edmundintokyo said:Other interesting thing about the emergency law: It seems to make Mike into a telecommunications service. Hopefully parliament will fully consider the implications of this in its extensive three-day-long scrutiny process.
http://blogs.ft.com/david-allen-green/2014/07/11/drip-drip-drip-the-emergency-surveillance-law-erodes-our-civil-liberties/0 -
I didn't forecast it. I said it looked like a value bet.BobaFett said:
Rod is sometimes right, sometimes wrong. He forecast that Labour would finish third on the night at the Euros. He was wrong about that. The Tories finished third, the only time they have ever done so in a national election.RodCrosby said:
I said I expected "crossover" by May, meaning, as I soon clarified, at least some Tory polling leads. TICKDavidL said:
Our own King of swingback was projecting fairly consistent tory leads by May. That has not happened. I miss Rod's contributions and would be interested to see what his current thinking was. He did well at the last election.
I also said it would be "nip and tuck" thereafter until January 2015, when the Tories would start to draw clearly ahead. Let's wait and see how accurate that is...
0 -
It's actually worse than that, because at that point you _have_ to pass a new law, so you get another of these emergencies to exploit to pass a load more legislation that you didn't dare try sneak through in the last emergency.Socrates said:
The 2016 sunset clause is the same trick pulled by George Bush when slashing taxes. By the time 2016 rolls around you lot will be arguing that your opponents and wanting to change the law to make things easier for terrorists, as the GOP said the Democrats wanted to raise taxes.Richard_Nabavi said:
What a silly article. That someone could write an entire piece on this - and in the FT to boot - without apparently having noticed the 2016 sunset clause does rather suggest that he is not exactly the sharpest legal brain.edmundintokyo said:Other interesting thing about the emergency law: It seems to make Mike into a telecommunications service. Hopefully parliament will fully consider the implications of this in its extensive three-day-long scrutiny process.
http://blogs.ft.com/david-allen-green/2014/07/11/drip-drip-drip-the-emergency-surveillance-law-erodes-our-civil-liberties/0 -
Yes, of course he knows about it. He deliberately chose not to mention it, because it completely blows out of the water his hyperbole about "a pretext to force through, at speed, primary legislation affecting individual rights without proper scrutiny or deliberation". We now have a period of two years of scrutiny and deliberation.edmundintokyo said:Of course he knows about the 2016 sunset clause. You think any of this is going to get repealed in 2016? It'll be the same move as this one: To allow X to continue doing the work they're going, we need to renew everything in the old thing, plus throw in a load more while pretending it's the same.
So he's not stupid, just pursuing a political agenda.
Still, it's useful article nonetheless. I found the explanation very helpful in understanding why the government has been persuaded that these changes are necessary.0 -
You should have the "scrutiny and deliberation" BEFORE the law is passed not afterwards.Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes, of course he knows about it. He deliberately chose not to mention it, because it completely blows out of the water his hyperbole about "a pretext to force through, at speed, primary legislation affecting individual rights without proper scrutiny or deliberation". We now have a period of two years of scrutiny and deliberation.edmundintokyo said:Of course he knows about the 2016 sunset clause. You think any of this is going to get repealed in 2016? It'll be the same move as this one: To allow X to continue doing the work they're going, we need to renew everything in the old thing, plus throw in a load more while pretending it's the same.
So he's not stupid, just pursuing a political agenda.
Still, it's useful article nonetheless. I found the explanation very helpful in understanding why the government has been persuaded that these changes are necessary.
This is a bad law being rushed through by Parliamentarians with little regard for British liberties. We are governed by mendacious incompetents.
0 -
You forecast it!RodCrosby said:
I didn't forecast it. I said it looked like a value bet.BobaFett said:
Rod is sometimes right, sometimes wrong. He forecast that Labour would finish third on the night at the Euros. He was wrong about that. The Tories finished third, the only time they have ever done so in a national election.RodCrosby said:
I said I expected "crossover" by May, meaning, as I soon clarified, at least some Tory polling leads. TICKDavidL said:
Our own King of swingback was projecting fairly consistent tory leads by May. That has not happened. I miss Rod's contributions and would be interested to see what his current thinking was. He did well at the last election.
I also said it would be "nip and tuck" thereafter until January 2015, when the Tories would start to draw clearly ahead. Let's wait and see how accurate that is...
RodCrosby Posts: 2,213
May 25
Labour on the way to third place nationally after that result...
RodCrosby Posts: 2,213
May 25 edited May 25
Casino_Royale said:
» show previous quotes
How do you calculate?
Tories were 12% ahead of Lab in 2009. Looks like 1% now after 2 results. Lab need a >6% Con-Lab swing to beat the Tories.
Sky have voteshare C -2.8, Lab 8.2.
Not enough.0 -
Terrorists. paedophiles, tax avoiders (so potentially anyone with a bank account).Socrates said:
The 2016 sunset clause is the same trick pulled by George Bush when slashing taxes. By the time 2016 rolls around you lot will be arguing that your opponents and wanting to change the law to make things easier for terrorists, as the GOP said the Democrats wanted to raise taxes.Richard_Nabavi said:
What a silly article. That someone could write an entire piece on this - and in the FT to boot - without apparently having noticed the 2016 sunset clause does rather suggest that he is not exactly the sharpest legal brain.edmundintokyo said:Other interesting thing about the emergency law: It seems to make Mike into a telecommunications service. Hopefully parliament will fully consider the implications of this in its extensive three-day-long scrutiny process.
http://blogs.ft.com/david-allen-green/2014/07/11/drip-drip-drip-the-emergency-surveillance-law-erodes-our-civil-liberties/0 -
Well, that's a nice balanced, well-argued point. It seems you are another of those who work backwards from assuming all politicians are mendacious incompetents, and that therefore the bill must be bad. It seems very reasonable to me; for example, updating the definition of “telecommunications service” to take account of the very big technological changes since 2000.Cyclefree said:This is a bad law being rushed through by Parliamentarians with little regard for British liberties. We are governed by mendacious incompetents.
0 -
No-one has a perfect record. I was merely pointing out that people would be foolish to put all their faith in the predictions of one individual.OblitusSumMe said:
Not even Mike "I tipped Obama at 50-1" Smithson has a perfect record and Rod's record at predicting British political trends is better than many on here.BobaFett said:
Rod is sometimes right, sometimes wrong. He forecast that Labour would finish third on the night at the Euros. He was wrong about that. The Tories finished third, the only time they have ever done so in a national election.RodCrosby said:
I said I expected "crossover" by May, meaning, as I soon clarified, at least some Tory polling leads. TICKDavidL said:
Our own King of swingback was projecting fairly consistent tory leads by May. That has not happened. I miss Rod's contributions and would be interested to see what his current thinking was. He did well at the last election.
I also said it would be "nip and tuck" thereafter until January 2015, when the Tories would start to draw clearly ahead. Let's wait and see how accurate that is...
Interestingly Steve Fisher's model now predicts Labour most seats – not that I see any great purpose to, or place any great faith in, his model either.
0 -
No it doesn't.BobaFett said:Interestingly Steve Fisher's model now predicts Labour most seats
0 -
That's a betting tip based on results at that moment. One that narrowly failed to come off.BobaFett said:
You forecast it!RodCrosby said:
I didn't forecast it. I said it looked like a value bet.BobaFett said:
Rod is sometimes right, sometimes wrong. He forecast that Labour would finish third on the night at the Euros. He was wrong about that. The Tories finished third, the only time they have ever done so in a national election.RodCrosby said:
I said I expected "crossover" by May, meaning, as I soon clarified, at least some Tory polling leads. TICKDavidL said:
Our own King of swingback was projecting fairly consistent tory leads by May. That has not happened. I miss Rod's contributions and would be interested to see what his current thinking was. He did well at the last election.
I also said it would be "nip and tuck" thereafter until January 2015, when the Tories would start to draw clearly ahead. Let's wait and see how accurate that is...
RodCrosby Posts: 2,213
May 25
Labour on the way to third place nationally after that result...
RodCrosby Posts: 2,213
May 25 edited May 25
Casino_Royale said:
» show previous quotes
How do you calculate?
Tories were 12% ahead of Lab in 2009. Looks like 1% now after 2 results. Lab need a >6% Con-Lab swing to beat the Tories.
Sky have voteshare C -2.8, Lab 8.2.
Not enough.
If you want a proper forecast, the next time Labour get a lead of over 5% in two polls, BobaFett will start trumping on about a trend.
Sadly, there is no value in the betting on this market.
0 -
Nice to see the Indians continue to get inside edges given with no chance of overturn due to their inexplicable denial of DRS. I say 'inexplicable'....0
-
If Fishers model came off as shown today, the country would be ungovernable and, fortunately, given his extra one seat, Deadhand Ed would cop the blame when the ship went down.BobaFett said:
No-one has a perfect record. I was merely pointing out that people would be foolish to put all their faith in the predictions of one individual.OblitusSumMe said:
Not even Mike "I tipped Obama at 50-1" Smithson has a perfect record and Rod's record at predicting British political trends is better than many on here.BobaFett said:
Rod is sometimes right, sometimes wrong. He forecast that Labour would finish third on the night at the Euros. He was wrong about that. The Tories finished third, the only time they have ever done so in a national election.RodCrosby said:
I said I expected "crossover" by May, meaning, as I soon clarified, at least some Tory polling leads. TICKDavidL said:
Our own King of swingback was projecting fairly consistent tory leads by May. That has not happened. I miss Rod's contributions and would be interested to see what his current thinking was. He did well at the last election.
I also said it would be "nip and tuck" thereafter until January 2015, when the Tories would start to draw clearly ahead. Let's wait and see how accurate that is...
Interestingly Steve Fisher's model now predicts Labour most seats – not that I see any great purpose to, or place any great faith in, his model either.
Something nice in the midst of chaos.
0 -
Huzzah
Racing drivers could roar through the streets of London in just a year under laws being rushed through by David Cameron.
Mayor Boris Johnson welcomed the chance for a “spectacular” Monaco-style Grand Prix in the capital, potentially generating millions of pounds in fees and sponsorship.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/new-law-could-see-f1-in-london-9600359.html0 -
Out of interest do you think that updating the definition of “telecommunications service” to take account of the very big technological changes since 2000 is an emergency that doesn't have time to be considered like a normal piece of legislation before it's enacted?Richard_Nabavi said:It seems very reasonable to me; for example, updating the definition of “telecommunications service” to take account of the very big technological changes since 2000.
PS. When we were speculating on this the other day Richard adorably believed that the emergency would be some kind of actual terrorist emergency or something, rather than a piece of legislation that looked illegal when it was passed being officially found to be illegal three months ago.0 -
Indeed. The argument that a law must be passed in order for it to be subject to scrutiny is one of the most bizarre yet made on this site by the authoritarians. Their casuistry surpasses even the Jesuits.Cyclefree said:You should have the "scrutiny and deliberation" BEFORE the law is passed not afterwards.
0 -
Hardly everywhere. This scandal seems to be rather geographically contained -the only problem being it's in our seat of government.dyedwoolie said:
This whole thing is going to stoke up the 'they're everywhere!' BrigadeMrJones said:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/10959997/Westminster-whistleblower-told-to-back-off-over-paedophiles.html
"But he claimed his boss told him that the money was going to a "legitimate" organisation and that the funding was "at the request of Special Branch". "
Paedogeddon is upon us
0 -
Three months and swing back will be starting to crank into gear and I can start posting amusingly damning predictions for Ed and co. I shall be more unbearable than ever, and you'll all love it and despair.
Aneurin Bevin, Neil Kinnock, Gordon Brown, Harold Wilson, Keir Hardie, can you hear me Keir Hardie? Your boys took one hell of a beating!0 -
@dyedwoolie
Not that I take much notice of cricket, but didn't one of the Indian players also get given out, when DRS would have shown him not out?
Swings and roundabouts? Or perhaps you have an inborn sense of entitlement?0 -
No I don't. It is something which the government has been indicating for a long while was necessary. No doubt they have been discussing the exact scope of it for a while.edmundintokyo said:
Out of interest do you think that updating the definition of “telecommunications service” to take account of the very big technological changes since 2000 is an emergency that doesn't have time to be considered like a normal piece of legislation before it's enacted?
If the argument is that this Bill should have been brought in earlier, then, yes, OK, fair enough, that is a valid point. I don't know why it wasn't, but I'd hazard a guess that it is related to the New Politics, Parties Working Together, and all that other hung-parliament stuff which makes is harder to govern.
0 -
That's my point. There's a serious problem, but the shrieking paedophobes will be convincing us it's paedogeddon and every bush must be nuked and every park patrolled by armed guards (with appropriate CRB checks of course)Luckyguy1983 said:
Hardly everywhere. This scandal seems to be rather geographically contained -the only problem being it's in our seat of government.dyedwoolie said:
This whole thing is going to stoke up the 'they're everywhere!' BrigadeMrJones said:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/10959997/Westminster-whistleblower-told-to-back-off-over-paedophiles.html
"But he claimed his boss told him that the money was going to a "legitimate" organisation and that the funding was "at the request of Special Branch". "
Paedogeddon is upon us
The nation loves hysteria.0 -
I don't know much about the new law, so can't comment upon the merits of it, however what has interested me is that Ed Miliband is backing the proposals.edmundintokyo said:
Out of interest do you think that updating the definition of “telecommunications service” to take account of the very big technological changes since 2000 is an emergency that doesn't have time to be considered like a normal piece of legislation before it's enacted?Richard_Nabavi said:It seems very reasonable to me; for example, updating the definition of “telecommunications service” to take account of the very big technological changes since 2000.
PS. When we were speculating on this the other day Richard adorably believed that the emergency would be some kind of actual terrorist emergency or something, rather than a piece of legislation that looked illegal when it was passed being found to be illegal three months ago.
When bad legislation was attempted under the last government, the opposition (both the Tories and Liberal Democrats) made a big thing of opposing them, so it can't be that Ed is worried about the soft on terrorism attacks/0 -
It's funny how the definition just so happens to expand to give the government more power. Pure coincidence!Richard_Nabavi said:
Well, that's a nice balanced, well-argued point. It seems you are another of those who work backwards from assuming all politicians are mendacious incompetents, and that therefore the bill must be bad. It seems very reasonable to me; for example, updating the definition of “telecommunications service” to take account of the very big technological changes since 2000.Cyclefree said:This is a bad law being rushed through by Parliamentarians with little regard for British liberties. We are governed by mendacious incompetents.
0 -
And two or three got off when they should have been out.Smarmeron said:@dyedwoolie
Not that I take much notice of cricket, but didn't one of the Indian players also get given out, when DRS would have shown him not out?
Swings and roundabouts? Or perhaps you have an inborn sense of entitlement?
The difference being, England supports the use of technology to make the game fairer and less prone to 'events'. India doesn't.0 -
It does – by 296 vs 295. The princely sum of one seat. As I say though, I place no faith in it as as a forecasting tool.Richard_Nabavi said:
No it doesn't.BobaFett said:Interestingly Steve Fisher's model now predicts Labour most seats
0 -
I do not assume that. I form my opinion on the facts. I see a bad law being rushed through; I see spurious arguments being used to justify it; I look at similar laws rushed through - and their consequences; I see very little evidence of Parliamentarians placing any value on the liberties of the citizen or the need to balance our rights and the power of the state; and I draw my conclusions from this.Richard_Nabavi said:
Well, that's a nice balanced, well-argued point. It seems you are another of those who work backwards from assuming all politicians are mendacious incompetents, and that therefore the bill must be bad. It seems very reasonable to me; for example, updating the definition of “telecommunications service” to take account of the very big technological changes since 2000.Cyclefree said:This is a bad law being rushed through by Parliamentarians with little regard for British liberties. We are governed by mendacious incompetents.
I do not wish to get personal but you are the one who seems to strive every sinew to put the best possible construction on the motives of what this government is doing. It seems to me to be a stance which flies in the face of recent and not so recent history.
0 -
@dyedwoolie
Accepting the umpires decision is just not "cricket" then?
How very English, morality fits where it touches.0 -
And as the polls show PM Ed Miliband headed for a 97 style wipeout, he can only hoarsely exclaim through the tears and bacon 'if only we hadn't gained Broxtowe'BobaFett said:
It does – by 296 vs 295. The princely sum of one seat. As I say though, I place no faith in it as as a forecasting tool.Richard_Nabavi said:
No it doesn't.BobaFett said:Interestingly Steve Fisher's model now predicts Labour most seats
0 -
Sigh.BobaFett said:It does – by 296 vs 295. The princely sum of one seat. As I say though, I place no faith in it as as a forecasting tool.
I give up.
0 -
Bwahahahaha. Indeed.Smarmeron said:@dyedwoolie
Accepting the umpires decision is just not "cricket" then?
How very English, morality fits where it touches.
And yes, I am very English. And quite proud of the fact. And morality, in any case, is entirely subjective and personal. There is no categorical imperative here.
In the fine words of Nate Ruess
I'll die for my own sins, thanks a lot,
We'll rise up ourselves, thanks for nothing at all0 -
And it's even more of a coincidence that you have failed to acknowledge that other parts of the Bill reduce the government's power.Socrates said:It's funny how the definition just so happens to expand to give the government more power. Pure coincidence!
0 -
I hope they draw Juventus. Henderson is just a hard running typical English player, Scousers had their chance and blew it. There won't be another one in the near future.TheScreamingEagles said:
They are, the way Brendan Rodgers has turned Jordan Henderson into the Mackem Messi is testament to his coaching skills.peter_from_putney said:
Compared with how things stood with Suarez one year ago, coupled with the player's recent behaviour, this looks like a good bit of business for Liverpool, grateful thanks are due to Rodgers.TheScreamingEagles said:Liverpool agree to sell Suarez to Barcelona for £75million
I'm not sure it's a good footballing move for Suarez though.
At Liverpool, the team was designed around him and to get the best out of him.
At Barca, he's not going to be top dog, or even second dog.
He'll probably be third after Messi and Neymar.
How's he going to react to that?
The one thing that is guaranteed is that Liverpool are going to draw Barca in the Champs league this season.0 -
@CycleFree
"We are governed by mendacious incompetents."
I agree, but that is not anything new. With the odd exception here and there we have always been governed by mendacious incompetents. What do you find so shocking about this new law?
The interception by HMG of the content of communication has always gone on and is arguably better governed now than at any time in our history. The use of so-called metadata (i.e. who is talking to who and where they are as opposed to what they are saying) has also been of some use in public protection and the detection of crime (though these days it is far less useful than perhaps HMG would have us believe). Both of these activities have to go on. The question is really about authorisation and oversight, oh, and who gets access to the data (do local councils, the ambulance service and the Charity Commission to name but three actually need to know?).
As far as I can see the new bill does not make the situation any worse than it was and that was better than before RIPA was passed. So why the fuss?0 -
@dyedwoolie
Your team's sin appears to have been agreeing to no DRS,
Stop whining, you sound like a Tory when you do. ;-)0 -
I'm not sure exactly what the opposition opposed last time - I don't think they were particularly opposed to some of the really bad legislation that was passed during the worst period with the Blair Home Secretaries after 9/11?TheScreamingEagles said:
When bad legislation was attempted under the last government, the opposition (both the Tories and Liberal Democrats) made a big thing of opposing them, so it can't be that Ed is worried about the soft on terrorism attacks/
Either way, Labour are generally more exposed on security issues and need to be more worried about looking weak, in the same way that the Tories are more exposed on the NHS.
The other political angle here is that it probably helps Labour for the LibDems to cut off any remaining limbs.0 -
It's only one seat.Richard_Nabavi said:
Sigh.BobaFett said:It does – by 296 vs 295. The princely sum of one seat. As I say though, I place no faith in it as as a forecasting tool.
I give up.
No need to give up just yet.0 -
Stop pointing out my excellent traits of Englishness and Toryism. I'll get a big head.Smarmeron said:@dyedwoolie
Your team's sin appears to have been agreeing to no DRS,
Stop whining, you sound like a Tory when you do. ;-)0 -
Yes, I do believe that most politicians, of all parties, are decent. honourable, honest, and are genuinely trying to do the best for the country. That's hardly an unreasonable view.Cyclefree said:I do not wish to get personal but you are the one who seems to strive every sinew to put the best possible construction on the motives of what this government is doing.
In this particular case, it's not just what the government is doing, it is all the main political parties. You can be as cynical as you like, but it is stretching credulity well beyond breaking point to conclude that David Cameron, Nick Clegg, Ed Miliband, Theresa May, Dominic Grieve, Yvette Cooper, William Hague, and all the other senior politicians from all parties who agree that this needs to be done, and who are overseen in this by a Select Committee chaired by Ming Campbell, are engaged in some collective conspiracy against our liberties for no good reason.0 -
You must be looking at some different polls to the ones I'm seeing !dyedwoolie said:
And as the polls show PM Ed Miliband headed for a 97 style wipeout, he can only hoarsely exclaim through the tears and bacon 'if only we hadn't gained Broxtowe'BobaFett said:
It does – by 296 vs 295. The princely sum of one seat. As I say though, I place no faith in it as as a forecasting tool.Richard_Nabavi said:
No it doesn't.BobaFett said:Interestingly Steve Fisher's model now predicts Labour most seats
0 -
0
-
Yes they were. 90 days detention for a start.edmundintokyo said:I'm not sure exactly what the opposition opposed last time - I don't think they were particularly opposed to some of the really bad legislation that was passed during the worst period with the Blair Home Secretaries after 9/11?
0 -
I was thinking 90 days detention without charge.edmundintokyo said:
I'm not sure exactly what the opposition opposed last time - I don't think they were particularly opposed to some of the really bad legislation that was passed during the worst period with the Blair Home Secretaries after 9/11?TheScreamingEagles said:
When bad legislation was attempted under the last government, the opposition (both the Tories and Liberal Democrats) made a big thing of opposing them, so it can't be that Ed is worried about the soft on terrorism attacks/
Either way, Labour are generally more exposed on security issues and need to be more worried about looking weak, in the same way that the Tories are more exposed on the NHS.
The other political angle here is that it probably helps Labour for the LibDems to cut off any remaining limbs.
0
