politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Don’t write off an Autumn Election
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Don’t write off an Autumn Election
Lame ducks. Britain’s not supposed to have them given that there are no term limits for ministers and for that matter, no formal terms at all as far as governments are concerned:
0
Comments
-
Labour are clearly not ready for a fight, based on their Conference. But will they use the time until May to get some policies in place? If not, they might go with an early election on the basis that the economy is only going to become an ever-stronger weapon in the Tories' arsenal...0
-
LuckyGuy1983 It was Thatcher who wanted to topple Saddam in 1990, Bush Senior chickened out. Of course Wesley Clark wanted to take on the Russians in Kosovo0
-
We're in October and there has to be 25 working days between dissolving Parliament and holding the GE and surely noone wants a GE in December. I'd rate it as much less than a 8/1 shot.0
-
But I agree with Neil - highly unlikely.0
-
Don't the Libdems need a longer period of manufactured differentiation (not that I think it'll make much difference)?0
-
It is a fascinating question though: if Labour were offered an election now, would they take it?0
-
Good afternoon, everyone.
Mr. Herdson, an interesting article. I was intrigued by the 8/1 Mr. Eagles (or was it Mr. Smithson?) mentioned for a second election in 2015.Betting Post
F1: my pre-race wittering has been scrawled on the face of the internet. Look into the mirror of insight here:
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/japan-pre-race.html
On a less pretentious note, I backed Bottas at 3 (Betfair) to be winner without Hamilton/Rosberg, hedged at 1.5. If it's mostly dry, he's got a good chance, if it's superwet, the race will start and end behind the safety car (and the bet would come off). Good car, good driver, and he's also pretty fast in the wet.0 -
Why would there be an Autumn election before there is an Autumn Statement and a Spring Budget? Both of these ought to have good things to say for the government.0
-
Hahaha.
Funniest political thread of this parliament.
8/1 ROFL? 800/1 might just be value.0 -
I imagine there could well be an Autumn election.
In 2015.0 -
MM
'But will they use the time until May to get some policies in place"
Hopefully they'll use it to get their election strategy in place. In this election it'll be far more important than policies. They need to organize a really smart negative campaign rather like the one the SNP managed in Scotland.0 -
Bah, misread it in a hurry. I thought this was Autumn 2015.
I cannot see one this year. I'd be staggered if it happened.
Edited extra bit: speaking of work, I must away once more.0 -
Lib Dem conference is going well
https://mobile.twitter.com/spygun/status/518335093077983234?p=v
picking up must have a dozen now
https://mobile.twitter.com/timsculthorpe/status/518376531388022784/photo/10 -
If it happens, it will not be something scheduled in advance but the consequence of a disagreement running out of control.Flightpath said:Why would there be an Autumn election before there is an Autumn Statement and a Spring Budget? Both of these ought to have good things to say for the government.
0 -
The falling out would need to be immediate for the election to come in 2014, even on the basis David Herdson describes. An early election is possible, but in 2014? Looks like 80/1 to me. There just isn't enough time.0
-
OT Since we were talking about the Mail's website on FPT - I tripped across this in my RSS feed. And what a jolly little entertaining story it is.
Stunt doubles, not leading actors, have graced the screen in many of Hollywood's most famous scenes - yet we never spot them.
I've always wondered about this. One thing about The Mail - it does do great fun science stuff. Much better than the DT's Weird section.
Researchers have now found out why - and say it is our brains fooling us.
They say the phenomenon is actually a survival mechanism - giving us a sense of stability.
dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2780144/The-science-stunt-doubles-Researchers-reveal-never-spot-stand-big-screen.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=14900 -
Morris - thanks for the pre-race piece. I'm not betting - my betfair's been decimated by my indyref bet.0
-
The L/Dems; where are they?
I've seen more people in a single Glasgow taxi than are currently at the LibDem Conference pic.twitter.com/d4jbBl1q2O
— Old Holborn (@Holbornlolz)
October 4, 20140 -
That'll do me, Audrey. I'll have a fiver at 800/1.audreyanne said:Hahaha.
Funniest political thread of this parliament.
8/1 ROFL? 800/1 might just be value.
OK?
0 -
We have a three by-elections pending. By the time the party strategists have digested the results of those, fed them into the computer and analysed the possibilities it will be the end of October at the earliest.
The there’s an Autumn statement, which admittedly could be delayed or very brief.
I’m with those who are sure there won’t be an election until May, but I have long thought, although often been advised here that I am wrong, that the Coalition won’t last long after Christmas!
A minority govt. could then manage for ..... what....10 weeks.0 -
@Holbornlolz @philhenrick note slogan !!! Bless
— Mikkil (@MikkiL) October 4, 20140 -
We were the goodies Malky, seekers of truth, justice and the pursuit of happiness - extending our reach to the stars above.malcolmg said:
Mr Briskin, good to hear you got fleeced, hope you are now regretting voting for the baddies as well.JBriskin said:Morris - thanks for the pre-race piece. I'm not betting - my betfair's been decimated by my indyref bet.
0 -
They'd look a bit crap refusing. I suppose if one of the coalition parties had dropped the other one then Ed Miliband would have the option of taking over as PM for a couple of months and hoping to get a bounce, but it seems like a hell of a gamble compared to just going ahead and fighting an election where he'd probably gain seats.MarqueeMark said:It is a fascinating question though: if Labour were offered an election now, would they take it?
0 -
Actual lol. pic.twitter.com/d4jbBl1q2O
— Old Holborn (@Holbornlolz) October 4, 2014
3rd time lucky!0 -
I thought this was funnier from Tim Stanley
Packed Lib Dem conference begins pic.twitter.com/lfwL8ADSlj
— Tim Stanley (@timothy_stanley) October 4, 2014MikeK said:The L/Dems; where are they?
I've seen more people in a single Glasgow taxi than are currently at the LibDem Conference pic.twitter.com/d4jbBl1q2O
— Old Holborn (@Holbornlolz)
October 4, 20140 -
we all have many years to regret it ( fingers crossed ). Never mind the stars I will settle for somewhere nice in Europe.JBriskin said:
We were the goodies Malky, seekers of truth, justice and the pursuit of happiness - extending our reach to the stars above.malcolmg said:
Mr Briskin, good to hear you got fleeced, hope you are now regretting voting for the baddies as well.JBriskin said:Morris - thanks for the pre-race piece. I'm not betting - my betfair's been decimated by my indyref bet.
0 -
I must away - 23 episodes to watch before 4AM on Wednesday...
Play nice.0 -
However will we cope without Plato's crowd control?
Malky - I'm shit at languages, thankfully Ms B a bit better. I would prefer somewhere a little warmer though.0 -
This is a rather silly article. The Lib Dems will continue to support the coalition to the bitter end and it's very much to their advantage to do so.0
-
Please define "Autumn". Is it from September until end-of November or some EU standard that no-one knows, observes, or GASA...?Peter_the_Punter said:
That'll do me, Audrey. I'll have a fiver at 800/1.audreyanne said:Hahaha.
Funniest political thread of this parliament.
8/1 ROFL? 800/1 might just be value.
OK?
:dodgy-'fall'-for-puntahs:0 -
From a very frazzled memory:malcolmg said:we all have many years to regret it ( fingers crossed ). Never mind the stars I will settle for somewhere nice in Europe.
Are Did not a lot of "Middle-Ages/Renaissance" Jockanese settle in Poland? The name "Jacobi" must surely be Stuart...?
Edited to add: Long day; typing is shyte....
0 -
And whilst you're about it Peter the P, maybe explain what would be in it for me?FluffyThoughts said:
Please define "Autumn". Is it from September until end-of November or some EU standard that no-one knows, observes, or GASA...?Peter_the_Punter said:
That'll do me, Audrey. I'll have a fiver at 800/1.audreyanne said:Hahaha.
Funniest political thread of this parliament.
8/1 ROFL? 800/1 might just be value.
OK?
:dodgy-'fall'-for-puntahs:
Ah well, the thread made me laugh anyway.0 -
If that's a jacobite joke at least some lurkers will be educated - perhaps0
-
This feeds into my view that the Fixed-term Parliaments Act is rather flimsy if one party would look "frit" if it voted against an early election - so not the most robust piece of legislation!edmundintokyo said:
They'd look a bit crap refusing. I suppose if one of the coalition parties had dropped the other one then Ed Miliband would have the option of taking over as PM for a couple of months and hoping to get a bounce, but it seems like a hell of a gamble compared to just going ahead and fighting an election where he'd probably gain seats.MarqueeMark said:It is a fascinating question though: if Labour were offered an election now, would they take it?
0 -
Wine-and-dinner with Auntie-Hortence probably. You are so lucky...!audreyanne said:
And whilst you're about it Peter the P, maybe explain what would be in it for me?
Ah well, the thread made me laugh anyway.0 -
It would be a change if they started supporting it.Fenman said:This is a rather silly article. The Lib Dems will continue to support the coalition to the bitter end and it's very much to their advantage to do so.
0 -
audreyanne said:
And whilst you're about it Peter the P, maybe explain what would be in it for me?FluffyThoughts said:
Please define "Autumn". Is it from September until end-of November or some EU standard that no-one knows, observes, or GASA...?Peter_the_Punter said:
That'll do me, Audrey. I'll have a fiver at 800/1.audreyanne said:Hahaha.
Funniest political thread of this parliament.
8/1 ROFL? 800/1 might just be value.
OK?
:dodgy-'fall'-for-puntahs:
Ah well, the thread made me laugh anyway.
Eh?
You stand to win a fiver. It's a betting Site, Audrey. You put up some odds. I'll take them.
0 -
Sure, but only because we're in the last year of the parliament when everyone's gearing up for an election already. What it really protects against is one party getting a polling lead and dumping the other in mid-term. If that had happened the opposition would want to avoid the election, so Ed Miliband would have said, "Thanks for giving up the PM job, I'll take over from here."MarqueeMark said:
This feeds into my view that the Fixed-term Parliaments Act is rather flimsy if one party would look "frit" if it voted against an early election - so not the most robust piece of legislation!edmundintokyo said:
They'd look a bit crap refusing. I suppose if one of the coalition parties had dropped the other one then Ed Miliband would have the option of taking over as PM for a couple of months and hoping to get a bounce, but it seems like a hell of a gamble compared to just going ahead and fighting an election where he'd probably gain seats.MarqueeMark said:It is a fascinating question though: if Labour were offered an election now, would they take it?
0 -
And the Tories?Fenman said:This is a rather silly article. The Lib Dems will continue to support the coalition to the bitter end and it's very much to their advantage to do so.
0 -
Briskin, I was in wilds of Spain on hols, they spoke not a word of English but it is easy to order in pubs and supermarkets are universal. Value in Spain was incredible, 24 cans of beer at under 5 Euro and giving away wine, I even bought bottles of wine from a pub and they took the princely sum of 3 Euro a bottle to take away.JBriskin said:However will we cope without Plato's crowd control?
Malky - I'm shit at languages, thankfully Ms B a bit better. I would prefer somewhere a little warmer though.
South of France or Germany and you are sorted though more expensive but still better than here.0 -
Sounds like you had fun Malky - I'm sure you didn't do it deliberately but I'm sure your holiday translation into Brisklish will have some people smiling
0 -
Mikkil retweeted
Suzanne Evans @SuzanneEvans1 3h3 hours ago
It gets worse...Doctor who lied about UKIP Health Policy also on Labour Short List for Stalybridge & Hyde! http://goo.gl/bWcXeg0 -
One thing to note: a wibbly wobbly Labour/Lib Dem/SNP coalition now is even less plausible than in 2010, even for a few months.0
-
I expect that negotiations are currently taking place and if the Lib Dems gain the pre election sweetners that they want in the March 2015 budget, then the coalition will last right up to polling day. If there is another hung parliament, the coalition might continue after polling day, while discussions take place between parties.
If the Lib Dems and Tories cannot agree an autumn statement, then yes they might both decide they will engineer an early election in say March. If the election was called today, I don't they can hold it until about 6 weeks time. So very little chance of an election before the end of the year.0 -
@Socrates
In the last thread you stated that the ECB was buying PIIGS debt through the OMT programme. Right now that programme is dormant (although it could be used) and there is no money lent to the PIIGS (or anyone else) through it.
I repeat again, and have linked to data from the ECB website, that the ECB has not been a net buyer of PIIGS debt in the last two years, and they hold more than 25% less periphery debt than they did at their peak in 2012. Your claim that they have been selling German debt to buy periphery debt is false.0 -
I'm on a 2015 or later election at 1-10 and I'd be very happy to top up another hundred liability at 1-8.0
-
Audrey mentioned 800/1, Pulpstar, although I don't think she really considered the potential liabilities when doing so.Pulpstar said:I'm on a 2015 or later election at 1-10 and I'd be very happy to top up another hundred liability at 1-8.
0 -
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 49s48 seconds ago
RT @TelegraphNews: Body of Alice Gross murder suspect Arnis Zalkalns found in London http://fw.to/ql2RMXO0 -
A reason why this might not happen is that Tories are still selecting in quite a few constituencies. 103 PPCc have been selected according to Tory Party website.david_herdson said:
And the Tories?Fenman said:This is a rather silly article. The Lib Dems will continue to support the coalition to the bitter end and it's very much to their advantage to do so.
0 -
Well I'll buy at 800-1 obviously lol.Peter_the_Punter said:
Audrey mentioned 800/1, Pulpstar, although I don't think she really considered the potential liabilities when doing so.Pulpstar said:I'm on a 2015 or later election at 1-10 and I'd be very happy to top up another hundred liability at 1-8.
0 -
So would I, but do you think she'd pay up if we won?Pulpstar said:
Well I'll buy at 800-1 obviously lol.Peter_the_Punter said:
Audrey mentioned 800/1, Pulpstar, although I don't think she really considered the potential liabilities when doing so.Pulpstar said:I'm on a 2015 or later election at 1-10 and I'd be very happy to top up another hundred liability at 1-8.
0 -
With the possible exception of a few places where MPs are standing down, none of those still to select will be targets. I can't imagine that there might be the kind of high dudgeon in response to some perceived Lib Dem betrayal, only for the PCP to put off withdrawing from the coalition for lack of a candidate in St Helens or wherever.rottenborough said:
A reason why this might not happen is that Tories are still selecting in quite a few constituencies. 103 PPCc have been selected according to Tory Party website.david_herdson said:
And the Tories?Fenman said:This is a rather silly article. The Lib Dems will continue to support the coalition to the bitter end and it's very much to their advantage to do so.
0 -
Betfair, Rochester & Strood:
UKIP 1.81
Con 2.34
Lab 13
Oth 160
http://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/market?id=1.1157074460 -
Paul Waugh retweeted
Joanna Carr @jocarr 21m21 minutes ago
More residential stamp duty raised last year from Kensington and Chelsea than Wales, Scotland and N Ireland combined. Via @TheEconomist
Food for thought.
0 -
The 6-5 has disappeared from Hills for UKIP sadly too.AndyJS said:Betfair, Rochester & Strood:
UKIP 1.81
Con 2.34
Lab 13
Oth 160
http://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/market?id=1.115707446
Got a ton on anyway.0 -
There could be a poll tonight.Pulpstar said:
The 6-5 has disappeared from Hills for UKIP sadly too.AndyJS said:Betfair, Rochester & Strood:
UKIP 1.81
Con 2.34
Lab 13
Oth 160
http://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/market?id=1.115707446
Got a ton on anyway.
0 -
Yes, I notice Hills and Corals have wiped the 5/4 UKIP which was available for quite some time.AndyJS said:Betfair, Rochester & Strood:
UKIP 1.81
Con 2.34
Lab 13
Oth 160
http://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/market?id=1.115707446
Ladbrokes are now the stand out at evens, but it's mostly 4/5. I still think that's value and if the Clacton by-election turns out as widely expected it'll be 1/2 by Friday morning.0 -
To be fair, she said that 800/1 was value. That's not the same as making a book - it's saying what you would need to be a punter.Peter_the_Punter said:
Audrey mentioned 800/1, Pulpstar, although I don't think she really considered the potential liabilities when doing so.Pulpstar said:I'm on a 2015 or later election at 1-10 and I'd be very happy to top up another hundred liability at 1-8.
0 -
Yesterday I put a couple of hundred quid on UKIP in Rochester with Betfair. I think it did shift the odds slightly.0
-
To be fair, it implies that she might be prepared to take a bet at those odds or something like it.Charles said:
To be fair, she said that 800/1 was value. That's not the same as making a book - it's saying what you would need to be a punter.Peter_the_Punter said:
Audrey mentioned 800/1, Pulpstar, although I don't think she really considered the potential liabilities when doing so.Pulpstar said:I'm on a 2015 or later election at 1-10 and I'd be very happy to top up another hundred liability at 1-8.
It also implies she knows something about odds and value, or at least more than David Herdson whose suggestion of 8/1 she found laughable. In the circumstances, I think an offer to take her at her word was fair enough.
It is, after all, a betting site, Charles.0 -
Won't be an election this year - Labour are still ahead in the Polls 0
-
It would have trimmed the Betfair price, Andy, but not necessarily the bookies.AndyJS said:Yesterday I put a couple of hundred quid on UKIP in Rochester with Betfair. I think it did shift the odds slightly.
They may have taken a surge of money on UKIP, or got wind of a poll, or maybe they took a proper look at the form!
0 -
Plato - PB's answer to Louise Mensch!Plato said:I must away - 23 episodes to watch before 4AM on Wednesday...
Play nice.
(only kidding!)0 -
Charles. The coalition agreement was between the parties. In the case of the Lib dems there was a conference and a vote. In the Conservatives case Cameron made the decision for the party. Such is the way the parties are run, set policy/manifestos etc.Charles said:
To be fair, she said that 800/1 was value. That's not the same as making a bk - it's saying what you would need to be a punter.Peter_the_Punter said:
Audrey mentioned 800/1, Pulpstar, although I don't think she really considered the potential liabilities when doing so.Pulpstar said:I'm on a 2015 or later election at 1-10 and I'd be very happy to top up another hundred liability at 1-8.
The Conservatives signed up to bring forward an elected lords, then didn't. With a significant chunk of the party rejecting any kind of elections (contrary to their owb manifesto).
The Lib Dems signed up to bring forward boundary reform and didn't.
Trying to pretend the two are different is a result of blue tinged bias rather than analysis.
0 -
I'd disagree - betting is only one aspect of the site these days.Peter_the_Punter said:
To be fair, it implies that she might be prepared to take a bet at those odds or something like it.Charles said:
To be fair, she said that 800/1 was value. That's not the same as making a book - it's saying what you would need to be a punter.Peter_the_Punter said:
Audrey mentioned 800/1, Pulpstar, although I don't think she really considered the potential liabilities when doing so.Pulpstar said:I'm on a 2015 or later election at 1-10 and I'd be very happy to top up another hundred liability at 1-8.
It also implies she knows something about odds and value, or at least more than David Herdson whose suggestion of 8/1 she found laughable. In the circumstances, I think an offer to take her at her word was fair enough.
It is, after all, a betting site, Charles.
I think she was using it metaphorically and you were being mean to pursue it.0 -
"the Coalition Agreement (p. 27) specifically tied boundary changes not to an elected Lords but to the AV referendum."corporeal said:
Charles. The coalition agreement was between the parties. In the case of the Lib dems there was a conference and a vote. In the Conservatives case Cameron made the decision for the party. Such is the way the parties are run, set policy/manifestos etc.Charles said:
To be fair, she said that 800/1 was value. That's not the same as making a bk - it's saying what you would need to be a punter.Peter_the_Punter said:
Audrey mentioned 800/1, Pulpstar, although I don't think she really considered the potential liabilities when doing so.Pulpstar said:I'm on a 2015 or later election at 1-10 and I'd be very happy to top up another hundred liability at 1-8.
The Conservatives signed up to bring forward an elected lords, then didn't. With a significant chunk of the party rejecting any kind of elections (contrary to their owb manifesto).
The Lib Dems signed up to bring forward boundary reform and didn't.
Trying to pretend the two are different is a result of blue tinged bias rather than analysis.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jessenorman/100258267/the-masters-of-truthiness-are-spreading-ignorance-about-lords-reform/0 -
No. One was a failure to control and deliver the party. The other was a deliberate decision to break his promises. There is a real difference there - and only the most partisan LibDem denies it.corporeal said:
Charles. The coalition agreement was between the parties. In the case of the Lib dems there was a conference and a vote. In the Conservatives case Cameron made the decision for the party. Such is the way the parties are run, set policy/manifestos etc.Charles said:
To be fair, she said that 800/1 was value. That's not the same as making a bk - it's saying what you would need to be a punter.Peter_the_Punter said:
Audrey mentioned 800/1, Pulpstar, although I don't think she really considered the potential liabilities when doing so.Pulpstar said:I'm on a 2015 or later election at 1-10 and I'd be very happy to top up another hundred liability at 1-8.
The Conservatives signed up to bring forward an elected lords, then didn't. With a significant chunk of the party rejecting any kind of elections (contrary to their owb manifesto).
The Lib Dems signed up to bring forward boundary reform and didn't.
Trying to pretend the two are different is a result of blue tinged bias rather than analysis.0 -
If you going to try to rewrite history, it's better not to choose an aspect where the documentary evidence trivially rebuts your rewrite.corporeal said:The Conservatives signed up to bring forward an elected lords, then didn't. With a significant chunk of the party rejecting any kind of elections (contrary to their owb manifesto).
The Lib Dems signed up to bring forward boundary reform and didn't.
Or do you think no-one has access to the Coalition Agreement any more?0 -
Are we expecting any polls in the Sundays?Sunil_Prasannan said:Won't be an election this year - Labour are still ahead in the Polls
0 -
I don't understand why they won't be honest about it. They did something in their own interest and got away with it, big deal. It's all the hand-wringing and lying about stuff that has brought them to 6% in the polls.Charles said:
No. One was a failure to control and deliver the party. The other was a deliberate decision to break his promises. There is a real difference there - and only the most partisan LibDem denies it.corporeal said:
Charles. The coalition agreement was between the parties. In the case of the Lib dems there was a conference and a vote. In the Conservatives case Cameron made the decision for the party. Such is the way the parties are run, set policy/manifestos etc.Charles said:
To be fair, she said that 800/1 was value. That's not the same as making a bk - it's saying what you would need to be a punter.Peter_the_Punter said:
Audrey mentioned 800/1, Pulpstar, although I don't think she really considered the potential liabilities when doing so.Pulpstar said:I'm on a 2015 or later election at 1-10 and I'd be very happy to top up another hundred liability at 1-8.
The Conservatives signed up to bring forward an elected lords, then didn't. With a significant chunk of the party rejecting any kind of elections (contrary to their owb manifesto).
The Lib Dems signed up to bring forward boundary reform and didn't.
Trying to pretend the two are different is a result of blue tinged bias rather than analysis.
They truly are the party of sanctimony.0 -
It's always been just one aspect of the site, Charles.Charles said:
I'd disagree - betting is only one aspect of the site these days.Peter_the_Punter said:
To be fair, it implies that she might be prepared to take a bet at those odds or something like it.Charles said:
To be fair, she said that 800/1 was value. That's not the same as making a book - it's saying what you would need to be a punter.Peter_the_Punter said:
Audrey mentioned 800/1, Pulpstar, although I don't think she really considered the potential liabilities when doing so.Pulpstar said:I'm on a 2015 or later election at 1-10 and I'd be very happy to top up another hundred liability at 1-8.
It also implies she knows something about odds and value, or at least more than David Herdson whose suggestion of 8/1 she found laughable. In the circumstances, I think an offer to take her at her word was fair enough.
It is, after all, a betting site, Charles.
I think she was using it metaphorically and you were being mean to pursue it.
It is however the aspect that distinguishes it from other political sites. It explains why you get less bullshit on here than most political sites. Shoot the breeze and you are likely to get shot down, financially if you are not careful.
Nobody's obliged to get involved in the betting, but if you start talking about odds, value and the like, you can't be surprised if the punting types around here take you up. David Herdson is one of the strongest political posters on here and knows a thing or two about betting too. If he considers the odds to be about 8/1, you can take it that he won't be that far wide of the mark. Of course if somebody thinks that he is so laughably wrong as to suggest 800/1 would be 'just about value', they are entitled to their opinion, but they can also expect to be asked to back it up with a small wager.
Or possibly concede that they had perhaps overegged it a bit.
0 -
The LibDems can promise anything they like at their conference. They aren't going to win the election!0
-
I gather Rochester and Stroud will be an open primary for selecting Tory candidate. And they wonder why nobody bothers to join political parties anymore.0
-
And there's no one there listening to what they're saying either.Sunil_Prasannan said:The LibDems can promise anything they like at their conference. They aren't going to win the election!
0 -
Even the partial-ELBOW for this week (8 polls, total 9,884 sample) shows a Lab lead of 3.78%.rottenborough said:
Are we expecting any polls in the Sundays?Sunil_Prasannan said:Won't be an election this year - Labour are still ahead in the Polls
0 -
But if they are going to campaign on the idea of them being back in some form of coalition then they'd better be clear what their red lines are going to be.Sunil_Prasannan said:The LibDems can promise anything they like at their conference. They aren't going to win the election!
0 -
Agree Charles - that is exactly how I read it.Charles said:
To be fair, she said that 800/1 was value. That's not the same as making a book - it's saying what you would need to be a punter.Peter_the_Punter said:
Audrey mentioned 800/1, Pulpstar, although I don't think she really considered the potential liabilities when doing so.Pulpstar said:I'm on a 2015 or later election at 1-10 and I'd be very happy to top up another hundred liability at 1-8.
0 -
They have spent 4.5 years trashing their coalition partners, trashing the very notion of coalition trashing their leaders for taking them into a coalition.rottenborough said:
But if they are going to campaign on the idea of them being back in some form of coalition then they'd better be clear what their red lines are going to be.Sunil_Prasannan said:The LibDems can promise anything they like at their conference. They aren't going to win the election!
Now they wring their hands praying for our votes but for what point? They have shown they do not have the guts for government.
0 -
NHS Fatcats have certainly got plenty to thank this government's funding ringfencing for:
' TOP executives at two under-fire NHS trusts in the region have been condemned over “outrageous” pay rises of up to 30 per cent.
Union chiefs have reacted furiously to the awards for senior directors at Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust and the Yorkshire Ambulance Service in contrast to pay rises for other staff who have seen a succession of freezes or increases limited to one per cent since 2011.
The Yorkshire Post can reveal controversial chief executive Phil Morley, who quit his post in Hull in the spring after a report raised concerns over staff shortages and highlighted claims of bullying, was handed an extra £10,000 in basic pay in 2013-14, taking his salary to £195,000-£200,000. '
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/nhs-bosses-accused-over-outrageous-pay-hikes-1-6877421
In David Cameron's Britain austerity is only for the 99%.
0 -
Corporeal clearly has a problem understanding the facts from history. So it maybe best to move on as Corporeal is convinced that the Lib Dems walk on water , are whiter than white (well their MPs are) and are always right in any argument with another party.Richard_Nabavi said:
If you going to try to rewrite history, it's better not to choose an aspect where the documentary evidence trivially rebuts your rewrite.corporeal said:The Conservatives signed up to bring forward an elected lords, then didn't. With a significant chunk of the party rejecting any kind of elections (contrary to their owb manifesto).
The Lib Dems signed up to bring forward boundary reform and didn't.
Or do you think no-one has access to the Coalition Agreement any more?
I did hear from the LD Conf that 2/3 of the delegates they approved for this Conference will not be turning up. 120 of them have a substitute....0 -
By Accident Or Design
I love that phrase.
Cool photo as well - I've always stated that PB is the Gold Standard.
I met a girl in Manchester one time - she took to me to a bar - and they had one of those scrolly word things with various phrases. I was slightly hypnotised by one of them-
NOT DIFFERENT, JUST BETTER, NOT DIFFERENT, JUST BETTER, NOT DIFFERENT JUST BETTER, NOT DIFFERENT JUST BETTER0 -
They did that last time with the infamous pledge and it worked out very well for their opponents.Sunil_Prasannan said:The LibDems can promise anything they like at their conference. They aren't going to win the election!
0 -
Corporeal should ask himself if the Labour Party did not have something to do with the HoL Bill being defeated. He is also confusing official tory policy with the votes of 90-odd of its backbenchers.Richard_Nabavi said:
If you going to try to rewrite history, it's better not to choose an aspect where the documentary evidence trivially rebuts your rewrite.corporeal said:The Conservatives signed up to bring forward an elected lords, then didn't. With a significant chunk of the party rejecting any kind of elections (contrary to their owb manifesto).
The Lib Dems signed up to bring forward boundary reform and didn't.
Or do you think no-one has access to the Coalition Agreement any more?
BTW
The parliaments of Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Israel and New Zealand (and the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, and the Northern Ireland Assembly) are do not have an upper house.
We can manage without. And why should 'lords' from Wales and Scotland etc have a view on English Bills?0 -
Sorry have been away doing housework and sorting out some admin.Peter_the_Punter said:
To be fair, it implies that she might be prepared to take a bet at those odds or something like it.Charles said:
To be fair, she said that 800/1 was value. That's not the same as making a book - it's saying what you would need to be a punter.Peter_the_Punter said:
Audrey mentioned 800/1, Pulpstar, although I don't think she really considered the potential liabilities when doing so.Pulpstar said:I'm on a 2015 or later election at 1-10 and I'd be very happy to top up another hundred liability at 1-8.
It also implies she knows something about odds and value, or at least more than David Herdson whose suggestion of 8/1 she found laughable. In the circumstances, I think an offer to take her at her word was fair enough.
It is, after all, a betting site, Charles.
Dear Peter, you are being rather curmudgeonly. You are allowing your fondness for David Herdson get the better of you. I merely suggested that odds of 8-1 on an autumn election are almost as laughable as the thread topic: that odds of 800-1 would be closer to a fair reflection on the likelihood of it happening.
However, do I wish to bet on an autumn election at those, or indeed any, odds? Nope.
p.s. last time I checked commenting on here about odds, value, spreads, likelihoods etc. didn't constitute a 'liability'
p.p.s. shhhh I also rather like David, but this wasn't him at his best.0 -
Its not only UKIP candidates and MEP's who add to the gaiety of the nation - their donors are characters too:
The multimillionaire is married to Ekaterina Paderina, a Russian whom disgraced former Lib Dem MP Mike Hancock tried to help in the late 1990s when she was threatened with deportation.....
One of the UK businesses of which Banks is director, Rock Services Ltd, had a turnover of £19.7m last year and paid corporation tax of £12,000. The company deducted £19.6m in “administrative expenses”.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/02/ukip-donor-belize-mining-southern-africa0 -
It was the mocking conversation with Pulpstar that was meanPeter_the_Punter said:
It's always been just one aspect of the site, Charles.Charles said:
I'd disagree - betting is only one aspect of the site these days.Peter_the_Punter said:
To be fair, it implies that she might be prepared to take a bet at those odds or something like it.Charles said:
To be fair, she said that 800/1 was value. That's not the same as making a book - it's saying what you would need to be a punter.Peter_the_Punter said:
Audrey mentioned 800/1, Pulpstar, although I don't think she really considered the potential liabilities when doing so.Pulpstar said:I'm on a 2015 or later election at 1-10 and I'd be very happy to top up another hundred liability at 1-8.
It also implies she knows something about odds and value, or at least more than David Herdson whose suggestion of 8/1 she found laughable. In the circumstances, I think an offer to take her at her word was fair enough.
It is, after all, a betting site, Charles.
I think she was using it metaphorically and you were being mean to pursue it.
It is however the aspect that distinguishes it from other political sites. It explains why you get less bullshit on here than most political sites. Shoot the breeze and you are likely to get shot down, financially if you are not careful.
Nobody's obliged to get involved in the betting, but if you start talking about odds, value and the like, you can't be surprised if the punting types around here take you up. David Herdson is one of the strongest political posters on here and knows a thing or two about betting too. If he considers the odds to be about 8/1, you can take it that he won't be that far wide of the mark. Of course if somebody thinks that he is so laughably wrong as to suggest 800/1 would be 'just about value', they are entitled to their opinion, but they can also expect to be asked to back it up with a small wager.
Or possibly concede that they had perhaps overegged it a bit.0 -
#800/1gate0
-
"... if the Labour Party did not have something to do with the HoL Bill being defeated"
As I recall The Bill never even made it on to floor of the House. Clegg withdrew it after some Conservative MPs said that they were unhappy about a major constitutional bill being pushed through without sufficient scrutiny and debate.0 -
Nah nah nah - I was reading the broadsheets at this time - LDs had a super-spad who was like Fuck You Tories, this is my swansong - thank you and goodbye.HurstLlama said:"... if the Labour Party did not have something to do with the HoL Bill being defeated"
As I recall The Bill never even made it on to floor of the House. Clegg withdrew it after some Conservative MPs said that they were unhappy about a major constitutional bill being pushed through without sufficient scrutiny and debate.
0 -
Parliament doesn't sit until 13 October and much of the first two weeks' business in the Commons is already scheduled. The Referendum Bill is in that, but I don't get the sense that the Conservatives would break the coalition over its defeat. Rather, they want a marker that only they will bring it in. Nothing else obviously stands out.
So for a 2014 election, the Government would need to fall apart in a three week window from 27 October to 17 November if an election is going to happen this year. In practice, the last week of those three would lead to an election just before Christmas, which I expect all parties would want to avoid. Given the coalition's durability to date, the likelihood that any government collapse would need a couple of weeks to dissolve Parliament and the current polls, this really is a remote prospect in 2014.0 -
@corporeal
'The Lib Dems signed up to bring forward boundary reform and didn't.'
Everybody knows this was in exchange for a referendum on AV,what's the point in pretending it wasn't?
Clegg lied about boundary changes just as he lied about tuition fees,get over it.
'As Clegg put it, “The one thing I’m not prepared to do is to be the last leader of the Lib Dems.” We can therefore be rationally certain that even if the elected Lords Bill had gone through, the Liberal Democrats would have found a means to block the boundary changes for which they had already voted.'0 -
You are wise to duck the bet, Audrey.audreyanne said:
Sorry have been away doing housework and sorting out some admin.Peter_the_Punter said:
To be fair, it implies that she might be prepared to take a bet at those odds or something like it.Charles said:
To be fair, she said that 800/1 was value. That's not the same as making a book - it's saying what you would need to be a punter.Peter_the_Punter said:
Audrey mentioned 800/1, Pulpstar, although I don't think she really considered the potential liabilities when doing so.Pulpstar said:I'm on a 2015 or later election at 1-10 and I'd be very happy to top up another hundred liability at 1-8.
It also implies she knows something about odds and value, or at least more than David Herdson whose suggestion of 8/1 she found laughable. In the circumstances, I think an offer to take her at her word was fair enough.
It is, after all, a betting site, Charles.
Dear Peter, you are being rather curmudgeonly. You are allowing your fondness for David Herdson get the better of you. I merely suggested that odds of 8-1 on an autumn election are almost as laughable as the thread topic: that odds of 800-1 would be closer to a fair reflection on the likelihood of it happening.
However, do I wish to bet on an autumn election at those, or indeed any, odds? Nope.
p.s. last time I checked commenting on here about odds, value, spreads, likelihoods etc. didn't constitute a 'liability'
p.p.s. shhhh I also rather like David, but this wasn't him at his best.
I didn't for one moment think you were serious, or had thought about the potential liabilities (4,000 quid for a fiver return.) I did however think your dismissive remark deserved to be put in perspective. David knows his politics and his odds. If he quotes 8/1 he's given the matter some thought, and the odds are not likely to be far out. You found his suggestion laughable. Fairy nuff. But if you suggest something closer to 800/1, on a betting site, you can't be surprised if somebody makes you an offer you damn well better refuse.
Fairy nuff?
0 -
Sunil Not with yougov they are not, we await tonight's polls0
-
[(4,000 quid for a fiver return.)]
Team casio going mainstream - look out people.0 -
Charles Moore with an interesting article on how capitalism is not producing enough benefits for ordinary people and that is responsible for the disconnection between political parties and the voters
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11138920/Todays-political-leaders-dont-realise-how-vulnerable-voters-feel.html0 -
You're being a bit of a silly bee Peter to be honest, and I'm quite tempted to take you up on the bet. However, as an occasional better I won't because the odds don't make it worth my while. That doesn't imply that my comment is devalued, merely that it's not a value punt for me. You know this. I know this.Peter_the_Punter said:
You are wise to duck the bet, Audrey.audreyanne said:
Sorry have been away doing housework and sorting out some admin.Peter_the_Punter said:
To be fair, it implies that she might be prepared to take a bet at those odds or something like it.Charles said:
To be fair, she said that 800/1 was value. That's not the same as making a book - it's saying what you would need to be a punter.Peter_the_Punter said:
Audrey mentioned 800/1, Pulpstar, although I don't think she really considered the potential liabilities when doing so.Pulpstar said:I'm on a 2015 or later election at 1-10 and I'd be very happy to top up another hundred liability at 1-8.
It also implies she knows something about odds and value, or at least more than David Herdson whose suggestion of 8/1 she found laughable. In the circumstances, I think an offer to take her at her word was fair enough.
It is, after all, a betting site, Charles.
Dear Peter, you are being rather curmudgeonly. You are allowing your fondness for David Herdson get the better of you. I merely suggested that odds of 8-1 on an autumn election are almost as laughable as the thread topic: that odds of 800-1 would be closer to a fair reflection on the likelihood of it happening.
However, do I wish to bet on an autumn election at those, or indeed any, odds? Nope.
p.s. last time I checked commenting on here about odds, value, spreads, likelihoods etc. didn't constitute a 'liability'
p.p.s. shhhh I also rather like David, but this wasn't him at his best.
I didn't for one moment think you were serious, or had thought about the potential liabilities (4,000 quid for a fiver return.) I did however think your dismissive remark deserved to be put in perspective. David knows his politics and his odds. If he quotes 8/1 he's given the matter some thought, and the odds are not likely to be far out. You found his suggestion laughable. Fairy nuff. But if you suggest something closer to 800/1, on a betting site, you can't be surprised if somebody makes you an offer you damn well better refuse.
Fairy nuff?
You also know as well as I do that odds of 8-1 on an autumn election are absolutely ludicrous, but I will take your rush to the defence of David, when it would cost you barely a dime, as endearing rather than the macho bullying it might otherwise appear.0
This discussion has been closed.