politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » No Overall Majority now an even hotter favourite for GE15
Comments
-
You missed the "over" for UKIP, they're well over 10% ahead of 2010.bigjohnowls said:
GE 2010 Con 37% so minus 7% to ukip plus 2% from LD. = 32%JonnyJimmy said:
LDs have lost about 10%, UKIP gained over 10%, and the gap has shrunk less than 10%.bigjohnowls said:
Because they started 7.2% behind and are now circa 2& ahead
Simples
How are the Tories level pegging?
GE2010 Lab 29.7% Add 8% from LD minus 3% to UKIP = 34%
The reason that the Tories are level, and why they'll be ahead come May, is simple.
Ed Miliband.
Because he's crap0 -
A very varied and lively debate on here tonight ..... PB.com at its best!0
-
I can't envisage a Tory lead of 7% on polling day. Around 5% is the highest it might be IMO, with 2-4% most likely.0
-
A Labour MAJORITY with them losing the vote share would be a terriblegreat result for democracy my betting fundFrankBooth said:OGH - I think a Lab majority having come 2nd in vote share on maybe 33/34% is looking more and more possible. Only really likely if they hold up well in Scotland meaning that the Miliband government would be almost comically illegitimate.
It depends on so many things. How many 2010 Lib Dems will vote Labour in the marginals. Where are they losing most votes to the Greens? Where will Ukip's marginals vote come from?
I think you are wrong on how local reputations will matter a lot next time. The result is up in the air, it's a stark choice between Miliband and Cameron/the Tories. Plenty of nice local MPs will be destroyed in the collateral.0 -
Are you thick? UKIP 5% TO 15%JonnyJimmy said:
You missed the "over" for UKIP, they're well over 10% ahead of 2010.bigjohnowls said:
GE 2010 Con 37% so minus 7% to ukip plus 2% from LD. = 32%JonnyJimmy said:
LDs have lost about 10%, UKIP gained over 10%, and the gap has shrunk less than 10%.bigjohnowls said:
Because they started 7.2% behind and are now circa 2& ahead
Simples
How are the Tories level pegging?
GE2010 Lab 29.7% Add 8% from LD minus 3% to UKIP = 34%
The reason that the Tories are level, and why they'll be ahead come May, is simple.
Ed Miliband.
Because he's crap
0 -
Oh, last post for tonight with a nice cartoon from the Times:
hermann kelly @hermannkelly 39m39 minutes ago
.@mortenmorland's cartoon on Cameron's Thatcher moment http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/article2481811.ece#tab-4 … @Conservatives @ConMEPs Hence #UKIP0 -
Hence only a fiveranother_richard said:
Stuart Dickson's predictions in 2010 left more than a little to be desired.Pulpstar said:
Stuart Dickson pointed it out when it was 25-1 at Ladbrokes. I searched in vain for the market, and finally spotted it at 8-1 (It was on the right hand side and out of alphabetical order for some reason), I wasn't altogether convinced that 8-1 was great value, so I ended up having a fiver on. If I'd have been able to get hold of the 25-1 may have been £20.another_richard said:I really don't see the interest in Dumfries & Galloway - Labour have a majority there of over 7000.
When have the Scottish Tories ever had a gain of that magnitude ?
His SNP/Inverness prediction has come in odds-wise too.0 -
51.62% for Dilma now with 99.85% counted0
-
I've disagreed with most predictions RodCrosby has made since I started posting, but I've never known him to lack evidence and analysis to his opinions. And if anyone wants to bet on no Tory>Lab gains, I'll happily lay you decent odds. I'd be pretty surprised if there weren't any.0
-
It really depends on the Ukip candidate. When they've put duds up before the other parties have been able to monster them.Ninoinoz said:
I think he'll cope just fine.JonnyJimmy said:
She joked that he looked like he had a finger up his bum and was enjoying it. If that's a "smear" against UKIP that upsets you then I worry how you'll cope with what the press will throw at UKIP during the election campaign...Socrates said:
Given that she's the sort of person that makes smears against political opponents' sexual habits, she deserves to lose her job.NickPalmer said:
I Thgo UKIP.JohnO said:
Have you any evidence, I mean any evidence at all, that Anna Soubry has "given up"?MikeSmithson said:
I think Anna Soubry has already given up. Nick P will be back with reasonable margin. Lord A had 45% 2010 LDs switching to him and he's done a huge amount on the ground.JBriskin said:
I would say to this - SHITEPrinceofTaranto said:So apparently Anna Soubry was at the anti- Indian Kashmir rally at Trafalgar Square today. Any idea how many Indian voters there are in Broxtowe she has just lost?
But since we are all aspiring writers here I will merely say-
Very Poor
Like Nick the candidates in 10 of LAB's top 40 targets are retreads. It'll be interesting to see if they still have an incumbency benefit.
Judging by the South Yorkshire PPC campaign, UKIP seem to have heavy artillery prepared to bombard Labour, at least.
Tim Fortescue? Mere heavy machine gun fire.0 -
Can I wake up from this nightmare now? (brazilian elections)0
-
I'm pretty sure that the 2010 kippers prevented the unseating of Ed Ballsnigel4england said:
I do remember seeing an analysis that guestimated that UKIP cost the Tories 7-8 seats vs the 20 the Telegraph claims (I think it may have been Rawlings & Thrasher, but wouldn't swear to it)
They may cause it this time...
Are you sure that UKIP is going to gain Ed Balls's seat?
No, but they could hand it to the Tories...
Doesn't look like it is possible.
The Tories are on course for zero gains from Labour.
I think you will be proved wrong on that.
Any particular predictions ?
And do you expect straight Lab to Con swing or a collapse in Labour's wwc vote to UKIP giving seats to the Conservatives by 'accident' ?
I think the national swing will be not far from zero. In which case we should expect Lab/Con to swap some seats in both directions. Since swing is a summary measure, the effect of third parties is included in it. But I think it quite possible UKIP could take votes disproportionally from Labour in some places, "handing" a seat to the Tories, although I don't expect more than a couple to fall this way.
At the moment...
Worthy of further analysis.
So you predict Rod that CON will get 7% more votes than LAB on May 7th 2015.
Its brave certainly but the Tories are going to bleed more support to UKIP than LAB which is continuing to get the huge 2010 LD switcher support.
Perhaps you can explain how with these two elements CON will be 7% ahead of LAB.
Only a fool would make a hostage to fortune by giving an exact prediction at this stage, aside from the sheer impossibility of being able to justify it. I will go this far though.
I think the result will be closer to a 7% Tory lead than it will be to the current polling.
Fine. But what are the voting dynamics behind that?
I've just got back from the pub having a drink with two guys buzzing about a UKIP meeting they'd been to. The purples are not going away and are going to eat into the vote shares of all parties. At the moment CON is most affected.
That is true Mike but as we get nearer to the GE, when the public at large are subjected to Ed in the debates, I think more of the WWC will turn to UKIP. What is Ed going to tell them, sorry but you are too stupid to have an a EU referendum? There will be more immigration not less so don't expect your income to rise anytime soon?
I also think plenty of Lib Dems will vote green rather than Ed.
Could you point to any polling numbers that support that? This is all based on your wishful thinking.
I get exasperated when people make assertions without evidence apart from saying they think it.
0 -
I was talking about Socrates, not Farage. I'm pretty sure Farage wouldn't get on his high horse about what Soubry said the way that Socrates (and other kippers) has.Ninoinoz said:
I think he'll cope just fine.JonnyJimmy said:
She joked that he looked like he had a finger up his bum and was enjoying it. If that's a "smear" against UKIP that upsets you then I worry how you'll cope with what the press will throw at UKIP during the election campaign...Socrates said:
Given that she's the sort of person that makes smears against political opponents' sexual habits, she deserves to lose her job.NickPalmer said:
I Thgo UKIP.JohnO said:
Have you any evidence, I mean any evidence at all, that Anna Soubry has "given up"?MikeSmithson said:
I think Anna Soubry has already given up. Nick P will be back with reasonable margin. Lord A had 45% 2010 LDs switching to him and he's done a huge amount on the ground.JBriskin said:
I would say to this - SHITEPrinceofTaranto said:So apparently Anna Soubry was at the anti- Indian Kashmir rally at Trafalgar Square today. Any idea how many Indian voters there are in Broxtowe she has just lost?
But since we are all aspiring writers here I will merely say-
Very Poor
Like Nick the candidates in 10 of LAB's top 40 targets are retreads. It'll be interesting to see if they still have an incumbency benefit.
Judging by the South Yorkshire PPC campaign, UKIP seem to have heavy artillery prepared to bombard Labour, at least.
Tim Fortescue? Mere heavy machine gun fire.0 -
Are you? UKIP 3.1% to around 18% nowbigjohnowls said:
Are you thick? UKIP 5% TO 15%JonnyJimmy said:
You missed the "over" for UKIP, they're well over 10% ahead of 2010.bigjohnowls said:
GE 2010 Con 37% so minus 7% to ukip plus 2% from LD. = 32%JonnyJimmy said:
LDs have lost about 10%, UKIP gained over 10%, and the gap has shrunk less than 10%.bigjohnowls said:
Because they started 7.2% behind and are now circa 2& ahead
Simples
How are the Tories level pegging?
GE2010 Lab 29.7% Add 8% from LD minus 3% to UKIP = 34%
The reason that the Tories are level, and why they'll be ahead come May, is simple.
Ed Miliband.
Because he's crap0 -
Oh, and LD - 23% to single figures nowJonnyJimmy said:
Are you? UKIP 3.1% to around 18% nowbigjohnowls said:
Are you thick? UKIP 5% TO 15%JonnyJimmy said:
You missed the "over" for UKIP, they're well over 10% ahead of 2010.bigjohnowls said:
GE 2010 Con 37% so minus 7% to ukip plus 2% from LD. = 32%JonnyJimmy said:
LDs have lost about 10%, UKIP gained over 10%, and the gap has shrunk less than 10%.bigjohnowls said:
Because they started 7.2% behind and are now circa 2& ahead
Simples
How are the Tories level pegging?
GE2010 Lab 29.7% Add 8% from LD minus 3% to UKIP = 34%
The reason that the Tories are level, and why they'll be ahead come May, is simple.
Ed Miliband.
Because he's crap0 -
Not really.FrankBooth said:
It really depends on the Ukip candidate. When they've put duds up before the other parties have been able to monster them.Ninoinoz said:
I think he'll cope just fine.JonnyJimmy said:
She joked that he looked like he had a finger up his bum and was enjoying it. If that's a "smear" against UKIP that upsets you then I worry how you'll cope with what the press will throw at UKIP during the election campaign...Socrates said:
Given that she's the sort of person that makes smears against political opponents' sexual habits, she deserves to lose her job.NickPalmer said:
I Thgo UKIP.JohnO said:
Have you any evidence, I mean any evidence at all, that Anna Soubry has "given up"?MikeSmithson said:
I think Anna Soubry has already given up. Nick P will be back with reasonable margin. Lord A had 45% 2010 LDs switching to him and he's done a huge amount on the ground.JBriskin said:
I would say to this - SHITEPrinceofTaranto said:So apparently Anna Soubry was at the anti- Indian Kashmir rally at Trafalgar Square today. Any idea how many Indian voters there are in Broxtowe she has just lost?
But since we are all aspiring writers here I will merely say-
Very Poor
Like Nick the candidates in 10 of LAB's top 40 targets are retreads. It'll be interesting to see if they still have an incumbency benefit.
Judging by the South Yorkshire PPC campaign, UKIP seem to have heavy artillery prepared to bombard Labour, at least.
Tim Fortescue? Mere heavy machine gun fire.
Tory Party HQ just seem to trawl Twitter for idiot comments from UKIP council candidates. Didn't stop UKIP winning the Euros, did it?
UKIP have some heavy duty firepower to aim at Labour in the GE.
Labour are already squealing about it.0 -
If you hadn't noticed globalisation means we're now competing with countries all over the world.Richard_Nabavi said:
Really?another_richard said:
And Osborne has failed on industrial production, on productivity and on the balance of payments. Meanwhile our competitors grow in number and strength.
Who are these 'competitors' who are doing better than Osborne?
You can just about make a case for the US - but you'd first have to adjust for the shale oil/gas effect and also correct for the fact that exports account for such a small proportion of the US economy, so the US is nothing like as exposed to the Eurozone as we are.
Other than that, there is not a major developed economy in the world doing better than we are at the moment. Osborne, starting from an abysmal inheritance from Labour, has achieved a staggeringly good result - and with no measurable deterioration in public services, and without an unemployment spike. Bravo!
How has relative productivity between this country and developing countries changed during the last decade ? Even on your narrow First World outlook we know the UK's productivity has declined compared to the G7 average.
As to Osborne's 'staggeringly good result' I assume you mean missing government borrowing targets by hundreds of billions is a 'staggeringly good result', lower industrial production is a 'staggeringly good result', falling real earnings is a 'staggeringly good result', stagnant productivity is a 'staggeringly good result', a record balance of payments deficit is a 'staggeringly good result', growing economic inequality is a 'staggeringly good result' and falling home ownership is a 'staggeringly good result'.
Of course you'll blame all those things on the Eurozone or Brown or the man in the moon in much the same way Labour blamed their economic failings on the banks or the USA or Fatcha.
There once was a time when Conservatives believed in taking some self-responsibility but now they're a mirror image of Labour.
0 -
@MikeSmithson
"I get exasperated when people make assertions without evidence apart from saying they think it. "
I know how you feel.. the Tories guesswork/wishful thinking/reading of the runes re Rochester was a sight to behold.0 -
Cough so contradict yourself thenJonnyJimmy said:
LDs have lost about 10%, UKIP gained over 10%, and the gap has shrunk less than 10%.bigjohnowls said:
Because they started 7.2% behind and are now circa 2& ahead
Simples
How are the Tories level pegging?
0 -
In 1992 the Tories polled the highest vote ever in a UK election with Major and Labour's vote only increased by 3%. Yet there was only one Tory gain from Labour, in Aberdeen South.Quincel said:I've disagreed with most predictions RodCrosby has made since I started posting, but I've never known him to lack evidence and analysis to his opinions. And if anyone wants to bet on no Tory>Lab gains, I'll happily lay you decent odds. I'd be pretty surprised if there weren't any.
0 -
They may cause it this time...MikeSmithson said:
I'm pretty sure that the 2010 kippers prevented the unseating of Ed Ballsnigel4england said:
I do remember seeing an analysis that guestimated that UKIP cost the Tories 7-8 seats vs the 20 the Telegraph claims (I think it may have been Rawlings & Thrasher, but wouldn't swear to it)
Are you sure that UKIP is going to gain Ed Balls's seat?
No, but they could hand it to the Tories...
Doesn't look like it is possible.
The Tories are on course for zero gains from Labour.
I think you will be proved wrong on that.
Any particular predictions ?
And do you expect straight Lab to Con swing or a collapse in Labour's wwc vote to UKIP giving seats to the Conservatives by 'accident' ?
I think the national swing will be not far from zero. In which case we should expect Lab/Con to swap some seats in both directions. Since swing is a summary measure, the effect of third parties is included in it. But I think it quite possible UKIP could take votes disproportionally from Labour in some places, "handing" a seat to the Tories, although I don't expect more than a couple to fall this
I've just got back from the pub having a drink with two guys buzzing about a UKIP meeting they'd been to. The purples are not going away and are going to eat into the vote shares of all parties. At the moment CON is most affected.
That is true Mike but as we get nearer to the GE, when the public at large are subjected to Ed in the debates, I think more of the WWC will turn to UKIP. What is Ed going to tell them, sorry but you are too stupid to have an a EU referendum? There will be more immigration not less so don't expect your income to rise anytime soon?
I also think plenty of Lib Dems will vote green rather than Ed.
Could you point to any polling numbers that support that? This is all based on your wishful thinking.
I get exasperated when people make assertions without evidence apart from saying they think it.
No i haven't, as you say more of an assumption, however if you rely solely on polling numbers you may be making a big mistake. This is a GE like no other for polling companies, with the Labour core vote deserting them in droves now they have somewhere else to go. And the debates are unlikely to be good for Ed.
As for your beloved Lib Dems I hope their vote stays exactly where it is rather than go to Labour, but I fear that pissed off LD's may go to Ed, but I'm hoping reality dawns on them and they take the alternative NOTA route and go green.0 -
Explain very clearly how I contradicted myself.bigjohnowls said:
Cough so contradict yourself thenJonnyJimmy said:
LDs have lost about 10%, UKIP gained over 10%, and the gap has shrunk less than 10%.bigjohnowls said:
Because they started 7.2% behind and are now circa 2& ahead
Simples
How are the Tories level pegging?
I said LDs down about 10 (14ish), UKIP up over 10 (15ish), I wasn't accurate, but that's why I said "about" and "over".0 -
Speaking of Rochester has anything more been learnt about the 'open' Conservative primary ?
Don't 'public' elections have to have a minimum level of independent scrutiny ?
0 -
They thought no-one would notice if they didn't reveal how many spoilt papers had been returned.another_richard said:Speaking of Rochester has anything more been learnt about the 'open' Conservative primary ?
Don't 'public' elections have to have a minimum level of independent scrutiny ?
We did notice. And it can only be assumed there were an embarrassingly large number of them.0 -
Mike, I think "polling numbers" [detailed crosstabs, etc] are about as useful as polls. Taken at face value, next to no use, and subject to inevitable change.
We have different approaches. You focus on contemporary details, I take the long view, cycles, real elections, historical precedents, the operation of the electoral system.
We will see which method is best soon enough, although I don't recall seeing an actual prediction (however vague) from you, so far!0 -
A fair point, and I didn't sufficiently check past elections. Still, if we both think our positions are more likely than not would you be up for a straight evens bet?AndyJS said:
In 1992 the Tories polled the highest vote ever in a UK election with Major and Labour's vote only increased by 3%. Yet there was only one Tory gain from Labour, in Aberdeen South.Quincel said:I've disagreed with most predictions RodCrosby has made since I started posting, but I've never known him to lack evidence and analysis to his opinions. And if anyone wants to bet on no Tory>Lab gains, I'll happily lay you decent odds. I'd be pretty surprised if there weren't any.
0 -
There was a 2.1% national swing to Labour which, according to amateur UNS theorists here, should have produced no Tory gains...AndyJS said:
In 1992 the Tories polled the highest vote ever in a UK election with Major and Labour's vote only increased by 3%. Yet there was only one Tory gain from Labour, in Aberdeen South.Quincel said:I've disagreed with most predictions RodCrosby has made since I started posting, but I've never known him to lack evidence and analysis to his opinions. And if anyone wants to bet on no Tory>Lab gains, I'll happily lay you decent odds. I'd be pretty surprised if there weren't any.
0 -
It is incredible that they haven't announced the actual number of votes for each candidate.. one can only assume they think there is more mileage in a cover up than a fess upAndyJS said:
They thought no-one would notice if they didn't reveal how many spoilt papers had been returned.another_richard said:Speaking of Rochester has anything more been learnt about the 'open' Conservative primary ?
Don't 'public' elections have to have a minimum level of independent scrutiny ?
We did notice. And it can only be assumed there were an embarrassingly large number of them.0 -
True you were not accurate.JonnyJimmy said:
Explain very clearly how I contradicted myself.bigjohnowls said:
Cough so contradict yourself thenJonnyJimmy said:
LDs have lost about 10%, UKIP gained over 10%, and the gap has shrunk less than 10%.bigjohnowls said:
Because they started 7.2% behind and are now circa 2& ahead
Simples
How are the Tories level pegging?
I said LDs down about 10 (14ish), UKIP up over 10 (15ish), I wasn't accurate, but that's why I said "about" and "over".
UKIP not up 15ish YG Oct UKIP average 15.6% So at GE2010 did they poll 0.6%?
No.
Goodnight
0 -
I wouldn't bet either way. You'd probably expect one or two Tory gains from Labour I suppose but it could easily be zero with the Tories just falling a few votes short in each of the possibilities.Quincel said:
A fair point, and I didn't sufficiently check past elections. Still, if we both think our positions are more likely than not would you be up for a straight evens bet?AndyJS said:
In 1992 the Tories polled the highest vote ever in a UK election with Major and Labour's vote only increased by 3%. Yet there was only one Tory gain from Labour, in Aberdeen South.Quincel said:I've disagreed with most predictions RodCrosby has made since I started posting, but I've never known him to lack evidence and analysis to his opinions. And if anyone wants to bet on no Tory>Lab gains, I'll happily lay you decent odds. I'd be pretty surprised if there weren't any.
0 -
All that talk of Morley reminds me of a prediction I made back in 2007:
“I think Labour will win here but suspect it could be closer than expected – say 2000 majority.
Balls strikes me as something of a cold fish and will struggle in an area like this filled with ambitious, independently minded working class voters.
Long term this will be won by the Conservatives the next time they win an overall majority.”
Funny how you remember the good predictions more than the bad ones ;-)
G'night everyone.
0 -
In 1992 Labour came close to losing Halifax to the Tories, their majority dropping from 1,212 to 478.0
-
Wowzers that's a misunderstanding... Sunday night drinks I reckonbigjohnowls said:
True you were not accurate.JonnyJimmy said:
Explain very clearly how I contradicted myself.bigjohnowls said:
Cough so contradict yourself thenJonnyJimmy said:
LDs have lost about 10%, UKIP gained over 10%, and the gap has shrunk less than 10%.bigjohnowls said:
Because they started 7.2% behind and are now circa 2& ahead
Simples
How are the Tories level pegging?
I said LDs down about 10 (14ish), UKIP up over 10 (15ish), I wasn't accurate, but that's why I said "about" and "over".
UKIP not up 15ish YG Oct UKIP average 15.6% So at GE2010 did they poll 0.6%?
No.
Goodnight0 -
Fair enough. I'm off to bed, but if anyone else is interested in a wager PM me or post here and I'll see it in the morning.AndyJS said:
I wouldn't bet either way. You'd probably expect one or two Tory gains from Labour I suppose but it could easily be zero with the Tories just falling a few votes short in each of the possibilities.Quincel said:
A fair point, and I didn't sufficiently check past elections. Still, if we both think our positions are more likely than not would you be up for a straight evens bet?AndyJS said:
In 1992 the Tories polled the highest vote ever in a UK election with Major and Labour's vote only increased by 3%. Yet there was only one Tory gain from Labour, in Aberdeen South.Quincel said:I've disagreed with most predictions RodCrosby has made since I started posting, but I've never known him to lack evidence and analysis to his opinions. And if anyone wants to bet on no Tory>Lab gains, I'll happily lay you decent odds. I'd be pretty surprised if there weren't any.
0 -
Reminds me of the Guardian account of a Super Bowl where they told you who won, but not the actual score.isam said:
It is incredible that they haven't announced the actual number of votes for each candidate.. one can only assume they think there is more mileage in a cover up than a fess upAndyJS said:
They thought no-one would notice if they didn't reveal how many spoilt papers had been returned.another_richard said:Speaking of Rochester has anything more been learnt about the 'open' Conservative primary ?
Don't 'public' elections have to have a minimum level of independent scrutiny ?
We did notice. And it can only be assumed there were an embarrassingly large number of them.0 -
On Topic:
It's quite interesting to compare the bookies' best odds on the GE outcome with Stephen Fisher's corresponding probabilities:
No Overall Majority: Bet365 ....... 1.9 = 52.6% probability vs Fisher's 55% probability.
Labour Majority: Bet365 ............ 3.25 = 30.8% probability vs Fisher's 21% probability.
Conservative Majority: Betfair ..... 5.275 (net) = 19.0% probability vs Fisher's 24% probability.
If you believe in Fisher's model, a LAY on a Labour Majority, currently 3.4 with Betfair excl 5% comm'n, looks like the value bet.
As ever, DYOR0 -
The Tory backbenchers are now Bennites - Steve Richards
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/26/tony-benn-new-face-of-tories-cameron-europe0 -
Sunil - I'm not entirely sure, I'm just trying to be down with da kids - but since I'd say you were odds on nailed on able to use a calculator.0
-
The Con probability is nuts, and should certainly be higher than Lab majority, which should be no higher than negligible...peter_from_putney said:On Topic:
It's quite interesting to compare the bookies' best odds on the GE outcome with Stephen Fisher's corresponding probabilities:
No Overall Majority: Bet365 ....... 1.9 = 52.6% probability vs Fisher's 55% probability.
Labour Majority: Bet365 ............ 3.25 = 30.8% probability vs Fisher's 21% probability.
Conservative Majority: Betfair ..... 5.275 (net) = 19.0% probability vs Fisher's 24% probability.
If you believe in Fisher's model, a LAY on a Labour Majority, currently 3.4 with Betfair excl 5% comm'n, looks like the value bet.
As ever, DYOR0 -
Paul Mason:
"Mainstream politics is imploding: is discontent with globalisation the cause?
Labour, the Lib Dems and the Conservatives are losing vital ground to Nigel Farage’s Ukip."
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/26/mainstream-politics-is-imploding-is-discontent-with-globalisation-the-cause0 -
You're right, make the most of it on the betting markets...as I'm sure you will.RodCrosby said:
The Con probability is nuts, and should certainly be higher than Lab majority, which should be no higher than negligible...peter_from_putney said:On Topic:
It's quite interesting to compare the bookies' best odds on the GE outcome with Stephen Fisher's corresponding probabilities:
No Overall Majority: Bet365 ....... 1.9 = 52.6% probability vs Fisher's 55% probability.
Labour Majority: Bet365 ............ 3.25 = 30.8% probability vs Fisher's 21% probability.
Conservative Majority: Betfair ..... 5.275 (net) = 19.0% probability vs Fisher's 24% probability.
If you believe in Fisher's model, a LAY on a Labour Majority, currently 3.4 with Betfair excl 5% comm'n, looks like the value bet.
As ever, DYOR0 -
Thanks for the link AndyJS, I was indeed looking for something to read.
But what a terrible opening paragraph-
[There are two conversations going on in British politics. One is about fiscal policy: getting the deficit down or failing to, modernising public services and boosting the NHS budget. The other starts with immigration and moves swiftly to Rotherham and the abuse of mainly white girls by mainly Pakistani-origin men; and then to Isis, where, according to intelligence, 400-500 UK Muslims are alleged to have joined a terrorist militia.]0 -
Dont those countries also have governments trying to repel boarders from populist anti-UK parties ? Bepe Grillo and Geert Wilders ?MarkHopkins said:"The demand for a hefty top-up payment surprised the Netherlands and Italy too, who are being asked to pay 643m euros and 340m, respectively."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-eu-29776473
It's not just Cameron who didn't know.0 -
Okay, I've read most of it now and it's not so bad (for the lurkers). I note he's the Northern Soul Lovin ex-Faisal - Here's Another Para!!!
[One is for Labour to become a party of the liberal salariat and the public sector workforce. Another is to become, in party parlance, “blue” – to ditch the policy of free movement of labour and to re-regulate the market in ways that assuage the economic and cultural discontent of the working class. (A third option, where the two wings co-exist, is not seen as likely by Labour watchers.]
0 -
I, JBriskin esquire, will find another link for us.
Indigo - pick a newspaper.0 -
JBriskin - he usually has interesting ideas but he's not the best of wordsmiths.0
-
Since Indigo is neglecting his duties - AndyJS, Pick a newspaper and I will linky linky.0
-
155 Gmt - Once more unto the breach dear friends
I have picked the guardian, for reasons of comparative analysis (arf)
Wish me luck0 -
Manchester United 1 - Chelsea 1
[Manchester United’s Robin van Persie nicks point off 10-man Chelsea
• Read Jacob Steinberg’s minute-by-minute report
• Check out the best pictures from Old Trafford
• Louis van Gaal confident Van Persie will return to form]
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/oct/26/manchester-united-chelsea-premier-league-match-report0 -
Arf - I'm giving myself a 30 min time out -
good luck everyone0 -
Sky News:
"Gordon Brown will not run for the leadership of the Scottish Labour Party, according to Sky sources.
The former Prime Minister, who returned to front-line politics during the independence referendum, is no longer a contender to succeed Johann Lamont."
0 -
FPT. "SouthamObserver Posts: 6,785
10:58AM
This is also a huge test of leadership for EdM. Is he brave and wise enough to stand up to the troughing Scottish Labour mafia or will he fudge it? If he does the latter, he may well be writing his own death sentence, but to do the former successfully will take a lot of guts and no little cunning, as well as vision. Brown will probably dictate what happens next. Unlike Ed he has a powerbase in the Labour party."
You have obviously not been following Scottish Labour politics at Holyrood for the last seven years very closely, and you may also have forgotten the fall out from the Falkirk/Grangemouth/Unite scandal too.
Euan Mccolm in The Scotsman - ‘London called shots’ during Johann Lamont tenure
"The camel’s back-breaking straw fell last week when Ed Miliband decided to remove Labour’s Scottish general secretary, Ian Price, without consulting the Scottish leader.
A source close to Lamont said: “A call came through from one of Ed’s people to one of Johann’s people. He passed on the news about Ian Price and Johann’s guy said, ‘I assume this means you want Johann to resign?’.
“The guy from Ed’s office said, ‘No, of course not,’ but he just didn’t get it. He didn’t get the fact that Johann had been completely undermined.”"0 -
You are such a bitch fitalass.
I'm going to have to click on a Scotsman link now.
Thanks0 -
I didn't read it. I may have - I believe the term would be "sped-read"fitalass said:FPT. "SouthamObserver Posts: 6,785
10:58AM
This is also a huge test of leadership for EdM. Is he brave and wise enough to stand up to the troughing Scottish Labour mafia or will he fudge it? If he does the latter, he may well be writing his own death sentence, but to do the former successfully will take a lot of guts and no little cunning, as well as vision. Brown will probably dictate what happens next. Unlike Ed he has a powerbase in the Labour party."
You have obviously not been following Scottish Labour politics at Holyrood for the last seven years very closely, and you may also have forgotten the fall out from the Falkirk/Grangemouth/Unite scandal too.
Euan Mccolm in The Scotsman - ‘London called shots’ during Johann Lamont tenure
"The camel’s back-breaking straw fell last week when Ed Miliband decided to remove Labour’s Scottish general secretary, Ian Price, without consulting the Scottish leader.
A source close to Lamont said: “A call came through from one of Ed’s people to one of Johann’s people. He passed on the news about Ian Price and Johann’s guy said, ‘I assume this means you want Johann to resign?’.
“The guy from Ed’s office said, ‘No, of course not,’ but he just didn’t get it. He didn’t get the fact that Johann had been completely undermined.”"
Sample para-
[Lamont, a former English teacher who had served as a junior minister in Jack McConnell’s Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition, was quite clear on winning the leadership that she expected all members, including MPs, to respect her authority.]
And an Ad-Link from the same page, a perinnel PB fave (I didn't read Any of this)
http://discover.economist.com/?a=21611074&p=LC&cid1=dis
0 -
300 Gmt Briskin and co analysis coming up!!!!
(I'm not even joking)0 -
Briskin and Co live at 0300 GMT (3 hours till Today programme©)
Our understanding is that Ed M resigned Lamont. Ed is Crap.
Therefore-
1 – Ed (is crap) has a candidate in mind.
2 – He will fail to get this candidate elected.0 -
Or 3 - he didn't think it through or his minion didn'tJBriskin said:Briskin and Co live at 0300 GMT (3 hours till Today programme©)
Our understanding is that Ed M resigned Lamont. Ed is Crap.
Therefore-
1 – Ed (is crap) has a candidate in mind.
2 – He will fail to get this candidate elected.0 -
Catching up on the threads today with regard Jim Murphy, and you really do begin to understand just what a disaster Ed Miliband's Leadership has become for the UK wide Labour party in the run up to the next GE. This is someone who is now beginning to make some of Gordon Brown's Leadership decisions within the last Labour Government look slightly better than the reality implies!!
I keep seeing comments which describe Jim Murphy as a Blairite, a very lazy assumption that seems to be entirely based on the fact that this very astute politician didn't back Ed Miliband for the Labour Leadership, but rather his brother David Miliband who WAS a Blairite! It was under Brown's Leadership that Murphy achieved his most notable political successes, both as Minister for Europe and as Secretary of State for Scotland. He campaigned tirelessly in Scotland in the run up to the last GE, and very successfully delivered the Labour vote and oversaw the return of those two Labour by-election losses back into Labour hands once again.
After Ed Miliband won the Labour Leadership, he then relegated Jim Murphy to what had to be one of the toughest gigs in the Labour Shadow Cabinet, DEFENCE. And you know what, Murphy yet again proved just what an astute and capable politician he was by making life very difficult for his opponents in what should have been a very weak area for the Labour party. I know, I followed his time in this brief with great interest.
And what did Ed Miliband then do with this extremely talented and effective Scottish politician, well he didn't even bother to give him any kind of useful high profile role as Scottish Labour politician in the run up to the Holyrood elections in light of his previous success at the last GE. Ed Miliband then went onto demote in Murphy in his last Shadow Cabinet reshuffle after the Falkirk/Unite bust up..... And in years to come when the dust has well and truly finally settled over the Falkirk/Labour/Unite/Grangemouth scandal/bust up, it won't be Ed Miliband, Len McCluskey, Tom Watson or Johann Lamont who will finally shed some real light into the affair. No, we are going to have to hope that Jim Murphy, the politician who spotted and alerted Ed Miliband to the dangers of this scandal to his beloved Labour party will eventually pen his memoirs.
Any decent Labour Leader who is serious about winning a GE has to be able to reach out to the Scottish public. Both Blair and Brown managed to achieve this, even though they were very different political animals, and they therefore connected to different sections of the Scottish electorate. But between them, they really did deliver a powerful Scottish Labour bloc vote over the last two decades, and even managed to wipe out the Tory party up here in the process during this period. Miliband on the other hand, is fast turning out to be the Labour's worst nightmare as a party Leader in Scotland in my life time, and that is quite an achievement.0 -
Sorry, Tim B, was on a fag break* - but, yes.Tim_B said:
Or 3 - he didn't think it through or his minion didn'tJBriskin said:Briskin and Co live at 0300 GMT (3 hours till Today programme©)
Our understanding is that Ed M resigned Lamont. Ed is Crap.
Therefore-
1 – Ed (is crap) has a candidate in mind.
2 – He will fail to get this candidate elected.
*old meaning
0 -
Fitalass- word count 515
PB Scots never die!!!!
Circa 150 mins till Today - Evan not even on any more - I don't know why I'm so worried...0 -
Fitalass he does seem to be approaching Obama like levels of incompetence and tone deafness0
-
So not cigarettes then? :-)JBriskin said:
Sorry, Tim B, was on a fag break* - but, yes.Tim_B said:
Or 3 - he didn't think it through or his minion didn'tJBriskin said:Briskin and Co live at 0300 GMT (3 hours till Today programme©)
Our understanding is that Ed M resigned Lamont. Ed is Crap.
Therefore-
1 – Ed (is crap) has a candidate in mind.
2 – He will fail to get this candidate elected.
*old meaning0 -
It takes more than a multi-million pound American football in london fixed for the mythical lambert and butlers to appearTim_B said:
So not cigarettes then? :-)JBriskin said:
Sorry, Tim B, was on a fag break* - but, yes.Tim_B said:
Or 3 - he didn't think it through or his minion didn'tJBriskin said:Briskin and Co live at 0300 GMT (3 hours till Today programme©)
Our understanding is that Ed M resigned Lamont. Ed is Crap.
Therefore-
1 – Ed (is crap) has a candidate in mind.
2 – He will fail to get this candidate elected.
*old meaning
0 -
RE: Jim Murphyfitalass said:Catching up on the threads today with regard Jim Murphy, and you really do begin to understand just what a disaster Ed Miliband's Leadership has become for the UK wide Labour party in the run up to the next GE. This is someone who is now beginning to make some of Gordon Brown's Leadership decisions within the last Labour Government look slightly better than the reality implies!!
I keep seeing comments which describe Jim Murphy as a Blairite, a very lazy assumption that seems to be entirely based on the fact that this very astute politician didn't back Ed Miliband for the Labour Leadership, but rather his brother David Miliband who WAS a Blairite! It was under Brown's Leadership that Murphy achieved his most notable political successes, both as Minister for Europe and as Secretary of State for Scotland. He campaigned tirelessly in Scotland in the run up to the last GE, and very successfully delivered the Labour vote and oversaw the return of those two Labour by-election losses back into Labour hands once again.
After Ed Miliband won the Labour Leadership, he then relegated Jim Murphy to what had to be one of the toughest gigs in the Labour Shadow Cabinet, DEFENCE. And you know what, Murphy yet again proved just what an astute and capable politician he was by making life very difficult for his opponents in what should have been a very weak area for the Labour party. I know, I followed his time in this brief with great interest.
And what did Ed Miliband then do with this extremely talented and effective Scottish politician, well he didn't even bother to give him any kind of useful high profile role as Scottish Labour politician in the run up to the Holyrood elections in light of his previous success at the last GE. Ed Miliband then went onto demote in Murphy in his last Shadow Cabinet reshuffle after the Falkirk/Unite bust up..... And in years to come when the dust has well and truly finally settled over the Falkirk/Labour/Unite/Grangemouth scandal/bust up, it won't be Ed Miliband, Len McCluskey, Tom Watson or Johann Lamont who will finally shed some real light into the affair. No, we are going to have to hope that Jim Murphy, the politician who spotted and alerted Ed Miliband to the dangers of this scandal to his beloved Labour party will eventually pen his memoirs.
LAST PARA DELETED SO MY REPLY CAN GO THROUGH
Briskin and co* were discussing this the other day. She stated he would be good. I said a bit of a weegie accent. Then I remembered that even though he was an MP he could still be Scot Lab leader under the rules. Imagine our surprise when he was favourite in one of the papers. He has got a bit of a weegie acccent.
I hope your query has been dealt with satisfactorily.
*Me and my Gf
0 -
My local team lost that game but I'm not a fan. My team plays at Wembley November 9JBriskin said:
It takes more than a multi-million pound American football in london fixed for the mythical lambert and butlers to appearTim_B said:
So not cigarettes then? :-)JBriskin said:
Sorry, Tim B, was on a fag break* - but, yes.Tim_B said:
Or 3 - he didn't think it through or his minion didn'tJBriskin said:Briskin and Co live at 0300 GMT (3 hours till Today programme©)
Our understanding is that Ed M resigned Lamont. Ed is Crap.
Therefore-
1 – Ed (is crap) has a candidate in mind.
2 – He will fail to get this candidate elected.
*old meaning
Hint - it's America's Team0 -
I can't fully decode that - but if you're an American football fan that is fine by me.Tim_B said:
My local team lost that game but I'm not a fan. My team plays at Wembley November 9JBriskin said:
It takes more than a multi-million pound American football in london fixed for the mythical lambert and butlers to appearTim_B said:
So not cigarettes then? :-)JBriskin said:
Sorry, Tim B, was on a fag break* - but, yes.Tim_B said:
Or 3 - he didn't think it through or his minion didn'tJBriskin said:Briskin and Co live at 0300 GMT (3 hours till Today programme©)
Our understanding is that Ed M resigned Lamont. Ed is Crap.
Therefore-
1 – Ed (is crap) has a candidate in mind.
2 – He will fail to get this candidate elected.
*old meaning
PS - sorry for fixing the match today.
0 -
[Hint - it's America's Team]
That's all well and good - but as I've made clear to all who are paying attention on this thread and the last - I've got MI6 on my back so google's off limits.
IE - I'm unlikely to have a clue what the fuck you are on about.0 -
I live in Atlanta and the falcons lost today. The Dallas Cowboys will be in Wembley on November 9.JBriskin said:[Hint - it's America's Team]
That's all well and good - but as I've made clear to all who are paying attention on this thread and the last - I've got MI6 on my back so google's off limits.
IE - I'm unlikely to have a clue what the fuck you are on about.
0 -
Indeed. I have only now really been catching up with PB after a busy weekend, but I did follow the news of Lamont's resignation on twitter on Friday. That Euan Mccolm article in the Scotsman I linked to earlier really did strike a chord with me when I read it earlier today, and all the more so because I also raised two of the key points he mentioned in his article when chatting to an SNP supporter about the resignation yesterday. I remember when she first brought up the issue of freebies vs investment in public services after being elected, I even thought we might have a left wing Labour Leader in Scotland who finally gets it and we might finally see an end to this unsustainable campaign freebie bidding war.
"Lamont recognised that the SNP had won two consecutive Scottish Parliament elections with policies – such as the council tax freeze and free prescriptions – that brought with them a considerable cost to public services.
Her call, in September 2012, for a debate on universal benefits was further evidence that Lamont was willing to tackle big issues. But she was so politically weak at the time that she simply didn’t have the authority to lead such a debate. The SNP caricatured her as a politician dedicated to seizing from the people that which was rightfully theirs.
A friend of Lamont says: “Johann was dead right to say we should have been debating that stuff. Parties couldn’t just go into election after election trying to outbid each other with freebies. It’s not sustainable."
Lamont was so clearly fired up and passionate when she first got the job as Scottish Labour Leader, but you really could see that passion drain out of her over the last year during the Indy Referendum.
"Friends of Lamont say that as long as a year ago, she began making indiscreet remarks about wanting to leave the leadership. One Labour source said: “You would be at an event and her heart wasn’t in it and she’d say as much. She just looked exhausted by the whole experience.”"Tim_B said:Fitalass he does seem to be approaching Obama like levels of incompetence and tone deafness
0 -
Ahhhh - Sorry if I appear rude - imagine the local time here...Tim_B said:
I live in Atlanta and the falcons lost today. The Dallas Cowboys will be in Wembley on November 9.JBriskin said:[Hint - it's America's Team]
That's all well and good - but as I've made clear to all who are paying attention on this thread and the last - I've got MI6 on my back so google's off limits.
IE - I'm unlikely to have a clue what the fuck you are on about.
2 London games? I am genuinely surprised.
0 -
3 this season and 4 next season. The NFL wants to eventually have a London based teamJBriskin said:
Ahhhh - Sorry if I appear rude - imagine the local time here...Tim_B said:
I live in Atlanta and the falcons lost today. The Dallas Cowboys will be in Wembley on November 9.JBriskin said:[Hint - it's America's Team]
That's all well and good - but as I've made clear to all who are paying attention on this thread and the last - I've got MI6 on my back so google's off limits.
IE - I'm unlikely to have a clue what the fuck you are on about.
2 London games? I am genuinely surprised.0 -
Why are you folks awake at 4 am?0
-
That's pretty cool. We really should have a "soccer" 43 (or 44 or whatever it's called) over where you are.Tim_B said:
3 this season and 4 next season. The NFL wants to eventually have a London based teamJBriskin said:
Ahhhh - Sorry if I appear rude - imagine the local time here...Tim_B said:
I live in Atlanta and the falcons lost today. The Dallas Cowboys will be in Wembley on November 9.JBriskin said:[Hint - it's America's Team]
That's all well and good - but as I've made clear to all who are paying attention on this thread and the last - I've got MI6 on my back so google's off limits.
IE - I'm unlikely to have a clue what the fuck you are on about.
2 London games? I am genuinely surprised.
0 -
Fitalass - Tim B was referencing Ed M. You chosen lots and lots of words about Lamont.fitalass said:SNIP
Tim_B said:Fitalass he does seem to be approaching Obama like levels of incompetence and tone deafness
The Briskin and co mantra-
WE WILL ONLY FIX ONE SPORTING EVENT PER WEEK
WE WILL ONLY FIX ONE SPORTING EVENT PER WEEK
WE WILL ONLY FIX ONE SPORTING EVENT PER WEEK
0 -
The first game in London started at 9 . 30 this morning. The last game finished about 30 minutes ago. Even as a kid growing up in Yorkshire I disliked both playing and watching soccer. I love American football though. It is such a complex gameJBriskin said:
That's pretty cool. We really should have a "soccer" 43 (or 44 or whatever it's called) over where you are.Tim_B said:
3 this season and 4 next season. The NFL wants to eventually have a London based teamJBriskin said:
Ahhhh - Sorry if I appear rude - imagine the local time here...Tim_B said:
I live in Atlanta and the falcons lost today. The Dallas Cowboys will be in Wembley on November 9.JBriskin said:[Hint - it's America's Team]
That's all well and good - but as I've made clear to all who are paying attention on this thread and the last - I've got MI6 on my back so google's off limits.
IE - I'm unlikely to have a clue what the fuck you are on about.
2 London games? I am genuinely surprised.0 -
[The first game in London started at 9 . 30 this morning. The last game finished about 30 minutes ago.]
Silly Yanks.
Anyway - as you have stated - it is 4am ish here. Here's some links for you-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Today_(BBC_Radio_4)
And-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_World_Service
With the presumably ever true, and ever classic-
[The World Service was funded by grant-in-aid through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the British Government[5]]
0 -
I listen to the BBC world service every day. It keeps me in touch with what used to be home. It has become a rolling news operation and used to have much more diverse programmingJBriskin said:[The first game in London started at 9 . 30 this morning. The last game finished about 30 minutes ago.]
Silly Yanks.
Anyway - as you have stated - it is 4am ish here. Here's some links for you-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Today_(BBC_Radio_4)
And-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_World_Service
With the presumably ever true, and ever classic-
[The World Service was funded by grant-in-aid through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the British Government[5]]0 -
And I've been to Texas!!! The commercial radio, of the time I was there, played a lot of Sum 41.Tim_B said:
I listen to the BBC world service every day. It keeps me in touch with what used to be home. It has become a rolling news operation and used to have much more diverse programmingJBriskin said:[The first game in London started at 9 . 30 this morning. The last game finished about 30 minutes ago.]
Silly Yanks.
Anyway - as you have stated - it is 4am ish here. Here's some links for you-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Today_(BBC_Radio_4)
And-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_World_Service
With the presumably ever true, and ever classic-
[The World Service was funded by grant-in-aid through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the British Government[5]]
Linky coming up!!!
0 -
-
0
-
I had the chance of moving to Dallas some years back. My wife nixed it because she knew we would end up with Dallas Cowboys season ticketsJBriskin said:
And I've been to Texas!!! The commercial radio, of the time I was there, played a lot of Sum 41.Tim_B said:
I listen to the BBC world service every day. It keeps me in touch with what used to be home. It has become a rolling news operation and used to have much more diverse programmingJBriskin said:[The first game in London started at 9 . 30 this morning. The last game finished about 30 minutes ago.]
Silly Yanks.
Anyway - as you have stated - it is 4am ish here. Here's some links for you-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Today_(BBC_Radio_4)
And-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_World_Service
With the presumably ever true, and ever classic-
[The World Service was funded by grant-in-aid through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the British Government[5]]
Linky coming up!!!0 -
Not much I can say to that Tim B - I'm currently listening to Sum 41 on Youtube.Tim_B said:
I had the chance of moving to Dallas some years back. My wife nixed it because she knew we would end up with Dallas Cowboys season ticketsJBriskin said:
And I've been to Texas!!! The commercial radio, of the time I was there, played a lot of Sum 41.Tim_B said:
I listen to the BBC world service every day. It keeps me in touch with what used to be home. It has become a rolling news operation and used to have much more diverse programmingJBriskin said:[The first game in London started at 9 . 30 this morning. The last game finished about 30 minutes ago.]
Silly Yanks.
Anyway - as you have stated - it is 4am ish here. Here's some links for you-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Today_(BBC_Radio_4)
And-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_World_Service
With the presumably ever true, and ever classic-
[The World Service was funded by grant-in-aid through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the British Government[5]]
Linky coming up!!!
Suffice to say for the lurkers and MalcyG that I live quite close to Pittodrie.
0 -
To remind MalkyG...
I bet he doesn't get through this thread though!!!!!!0 -
Isn't that Aberdeen?JBriskin said:
Not much I can say to that Tim B - I'm currently listening to Sum 41 on Youtube.Tim_B said:
I had the chance of moving to Dallas some years back. My wife nixed it because she knew we would end up with Dallas Cowboys season ticketsJBriskin said:
And I've been to Texas!!! The commercial radio, of the time I was there, played a lot of Sum 41.Tim_B said:
I listen to the BBC world service every day. It keeps me in touch with what used to be home. It has become a rolling news operation and used to have much more diverse programmingJBriskin said:[The first game in London started at 9 . 30 this morning. The last game finished about 30 minutes ago.]
Silly Yanks.
Anyway - as you have stated - it is 4am ish here. Here's some links for you-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Today_(BBC_Radio_4)
And-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_World_Service
With the presumably ever true, and ever classic-
[The World Service was funded by grant-in-aid through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the British Government[5]]
Linky coming up!!!
Suffice to say for the lurkers and MalcyG that I live quite close to Pittodrie.0
