politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Who got closest to LAB’s winning margin of 18.36% in South

Scrapheap_as_was said:

I'm going to Troll so apologies in advance but I want this off my chest.

It is not unprecedented through European political history and current European politics for a new party to become popular by combining Nationalism, blaming most things going wrong in the country as a result of actions taken by organisations or peoples overseas and.or as a result of particular minorities within the host country itself.

That is perhaps why UKIP is the most disliked party whilst also having a very significant and motivated group of supporters too. It works and has always worked but it's certainly nothing new in the history of politics.

Now feel free to assault the wet pro-european tory stance I favour!!

isam said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

isam said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

I'm going to Troll so apologies in advance but I want this off my chest.

It is not unprecedented through European political history and current European politics for a new party to become popular by combining Nationalism, blaming most things going wrong in the country as a result of actions taken by organisations or peoples overseas and.or as a result of particular minorities within the host country itself.

That is perhaps why UKIP is the most disliked party whilst also having a very significant and motivated group of supporters too. It works and has always worked but it's certainly nothing new in the history of politics.

Now feel free to assault the wet pro-european tory stance I favour!!

Doesn't sound so much like a wet tory troll as someone from the hard left who means it!

I'm not going to boast/concede my PB herd or Blue credentials but if by that you mean I'd sooner vote Labour than UKIP then I suppose that might make me 'hard left' from some people's perspective.

It just sounds like something Diane Abbott would say... you vote for who you like I don't care!

Scrapheap_as_was said:

I'm going to Troll so apologies in advance but I want this off my chest.

It is not unprecedented through European political history and current European politics for a new party to become popular by combining Nationalism, blaming most things going wrong in the country as a result of actions taken by organisations or peoples overseas and.or as a result of particular minorities within the host country itself.

That is perhaps why UKIP is the most disliked party whilst also having a very significant and motivated group of supporters too. It works and has always worked but it's certainly nothing new in the history of politics.

Now feel free to assault the wet pro-european tory stance I favour!!

Scrapheap_as_was said:

anotherDave said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

I'm going to Troll so apologies in advance but I want this off my chest.

It is not unprecedented through European political history and current European politics for a new party to become popular by combining Nationalism, blaming most things going wrong in the country as a result of actions taken by organisations or peoples overseas and.or as a result of particular minorities within the host country itself.

That is perhaps why UKIP is the most disliked party whilst also having a very significant and motivated group of supporters too. It works and has always worked but it's certainly nothing new in the history of politics.

Now feel free to assault the wet pro-european tory stance I favour!!

Demonizing your political opponents is nothing new either.

Indeed but what there is wrong in what I've said?

anotherDave said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

anotherDave said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

I'm going to Troll so apologies in advance but I want this off my chest.

It is not unprecedented through European political history and current European politics for a new party to become popular by combining Nationalism, blaming most things going wrong in the country as a result of actions taken by organisations or peoples overseas and.or as a result of particular minorities within the host country itself.

That is perhaps why UKIP is the most disliked party whilst also having a very significant and motivated group of supporters too. It works and has always worked but it's certainly nothing new in the history of politics.

Now feel free to assault the wet pro-european tory stance I favour!!

Demonizing your political opponents is nothing new either.

Indeed but what there is wrong in what I've said?

UKIP are nazis?

AndyJS said:

"It is strange to think that only a few weeks ago, the Tories were confident about keeping hold of Rochester & Strood.

But to the great surprise of No. 10, it turns out that voters in Rochester are not very interested in joining the Tory fightback. Even Cabinet members are returning from Rochester with the sense that the battle is already lost."

http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-week/leading-article/9355882/how-to-fight-ukip/

Fat_Steve said:

The winner certainly isn't me. I forecast a narrow ukip win, based on a gut feeling that none-of-the-above feeling would translate into support for ukip. Maybe it would have in more normal by election. Didn't anticipate that turnout would be quite so low.

another_richard said:

Regarding where UKIP support is coming from its worth considering the loss of economic and political power of the C1C2s.

Throughout the 20th century the C1C2s were the main beneficiaries of increasing affluence and increasing economic equality.

Likewise they became the demographic which decided elections and were consequently pandered to by politicians. The triumph of the C1C2s reached its most prominent expression with all those party leaders which arose from their ranks - Heath and Wilson, Thatcher and Callaghan, Major and Kinnock.

But since the millenium the C1C2s have been losing ground both economically and politically.

Globalisation has caused the former egg shaped economic society to be increasingly egg timer shaped - a shift in wealth from those in the middle to those at either end of the scale.

Meanwhile politics has become increasingly a 'closed shop' where access through privilege becomes ever more important - the PPEocrachy. This new generation of politicians have had very different personal experiences and see the world through very different eyes to the proceeding generation.

AndyJS said:

Ninoinoz said:

david_herdson said:

Fat_Steve said:

The winner certainly isn't me. I forecast a narrow ukip win, based on a gut feeling that none-of-the-above feeling would translate into support for ukip. Maybe it would have in more normal by election. Didn't anticipate that turnout would be quite so low.

The sixty-odd votes that enabled Labour to win on the first round were critical. Had it gone to a second, Labour's winning margin would have been a good deal smaller though still comfortable; I'd guess something like 12-13%.

I presume this is why there was no recount, despite Labour were only marginally over the 50%.

There should have been a recount. Labour were just 19 votes over 50% apparently.

MarkHopkins said:

AndyJS said:

Ninoinoz said:

david_herdson said:

Fat_Steve said:

The winner certainly isn't me. I forecast a narrow ukip win, based on a gut feeling that none-of-the-above feeling would translate into support for ukip. Maybe it would have in more normal by election. Didn't anticipate that turnout would be quite so low.

The sixty-odd votes that enabled Labour to win on the first round were critical. Had it gone to a second, Labour's winning margin would have been a good deal smaller though still comfortable; I'd guess something like 12-13%.

I presume this is why there was no recount, despite Labour were only marginally over the 50%.

There should have been a recount. Labour were just 19 votes over 50% apparently.

But UKIP would have needed that result to be wrong AND every second preference vote to win. It wasn't worth the recount.

AndyJS said:

MarkHopkins said:

AndyJS said:

Ninoinoz said:

david_herdson said:

Fat_Steve said:

The winner certainly isn't me. I forecast a narrow ukip win, based on a gut feeling that none-of-the-above feeling would translate into support for ukip. Maybe it would have in more normal by election. Didn't anticipate that turnout would be quite so low.

The sixty-odd votes that enabled Labour to win on the first round were critical. Had it gone to a second, Labour's winning margin would have been a good deal smaller though still comfortable; I'd guess something like 12-13%.

I presume this is why there was no recount, despite Labour were only marginally over the 50%.

There should have been a recount. Labour were just 19 votes over 50% apparently.

But UKIP would have needed that result to be wrong AND every second preference vote to win. It wasn't worth the recount.

If the result is that close to triggering a second round, a recount should be automatic regardless of how likely or unlikely a particular party is to win or lose. Party considerations shouldn't come into it.

OblitusSumMe said:

OblitusSumMe said:

Is there any point in checking the thread? I'm sure that the seer of Delancey Street was the winner.

I was 10.2% out, so behind Pong who was only 8.36% off the mark.

I was also behind Shadsy, who missed by 9.05%. DavidL guessed 12.76% so was only 5.6% away from the result.

rottenborough said:

Afternoon all,

Just a thought but current polling could be completely changed by May 2015 if the economic situation deteriorates rapidly. Today's finance pages are full of deflation talk, Japan's QE experiment, an Asian currency war, Martin Sorell's warnings about geo-political economic situation. It's grim stuff.

I'm thinking this is likely to benefit Tories.

OblitusSumMe said:

OblitusSumMe said:

OblitusSumMe said:

Is there any point in checking the thread? I'm sure that the seer of Delancey Street was the winner.

I was 10.2% out, so behind Pong who was only 8.36% off the mark.

I was also behind Shadsy, who missed by 9.05%. DavidL guessed 12.76% so was only 5.6% away from the result.

Nabavi was 0.04% the wrong side of DavidL, and SimonStClare was 0.01% the wrong side of me. Blofelds_Cat was 9.01% too low on the Labour winning margin. bigjohnowls was too mdoest about Labour's chances by 6.45%. Shiney2 by 8.36%

Morris_Dancer said:

Good afternoon, everyone.

FPT: Mr. Freggles, why is a devolved Parliament sound for Scotland but silly for England? I don't care that there are 50 million of us.

Regionalisation is bullshit that cannot deliver fairness. The reasoning is thus:
Scotland's either about to get lots more power, or it isn't. If it isn't, it'll break away.

If that happens, I'd agree the case for an English Parliament will likely end (contingent on what happens with Wales).

If Scotland does get much more power then justice for England demands we have the same powers. Leaving aside your strange desire to needlessly carve England up, the power cannot be delivered regionally unless you want varying taxation rates within England. Can you imagine how complicated and divisive it would be to have varying income tax and VAT rates between (for example) Yorkshire and Lincolnshire it would be?

It would institutionalise division and foster bitterness. Poorer parts would complain that London gets more spending per head. Londoners would complain that they effectively export money to poorer parts and get complaints rather than gratitude. Both would have valid points but now they'd have regionalised bullshit parliaments which would enable narrow-minded demagogues exacerbating tensions by blaming 'the other' side.

England has no divine right to exist and creating a political structure that would be inherently divisive is madness. Have you not seen that devolution almost destroyed the UK this very year, and may yet do so?

I do not want to fritter England away on a foolish, ill-considered, and short-sighted programme to balkanise a kingdom over a thousand years old to suit the petty political ambitions of the empty-headed pygmies wallowing in Westminster.

logical_song said:

AndyJS said:

MarkHopkins said:

AndyJS said:

Ninoinoz said:

david_herdson said:

Fat_Steve said:

The winner certainly isn't me. I forecast a narrow ukip win, based on a gut feeling that none-of-the-above feeling would translate into support for ukip. Maybe it would have in more normal by election. Didn't anticipate that turnout would be quite so low.

The sixty-odd votes that enabled Labour to win on the first round were critical. Had it gone to a second, Labour's winning margin would have been a good deal smaller though still comfortable; I'd guess something like 12-13%.

I presume this is why there was no recount, despite Labour were only marginally over the 50%.

There should have been a recount. Labour were just 19 votes over 50% apparently.

But UKIP would have needed that result to be wrong AND every second preference vote to win. It wasn't worth the recount.

If the result is that close to triggering a second round, a recount should be automatic regardless of how likely or unlikely a particular party is to win or lose. Party considerations shouldn't come into it.

It's the candidate or agent that has to request a recount:
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/151795/Electoral-Administration-Bulletin-26.pdf

"Once the LRO has counted all of the first preferences,
or votes in an election with only two candidates, and
adjudicated any doubtful ballot papers, the provisional
local totals should be shared informally with the
candidates, agents and designated counting agents
present. It is at this stage that recounts can be
requested by candidates, (sub) agents and the
designated counting agents. Requests for recounts
must be considered, but may be refused if, in the LRO’s
opinion, the request is unreasonable."

[Pos] Poster             (Margin of Inaccuracy)
[1]   kle4               (+0.96)
[2]   Millsy             (+1.64)
[3]   Quincel            (-4.00)
[4]   DavidL             (-5.60)
[5]   RichardNabavi      (-5.64)
[6]   MarkSenior         (-5.74)
[7]   BigJohnOwls        (-6.45)
[8]   JosiasJessop       (-7.25)
[9]   SirNorfolkPassmore (-8.03)
[10]  Barnesian          (-8.24)
[11=] Pong               (+8.36)
[11=] Shiney2            (-8.36)
[13]  Slade              (-8.82)
[14]  Blofelds_Cat       (-9.01)
[15]  SkyBluePastie      (-9.61)
[16]  State_Go_Away      (-9.85)
[17]  OblitusSumMe       (-10.20)
[18]  SimonStClare       (-10.21)
...
[??]  John_Rentoul       (-34.36)
...
[N/A] SeanT              (Did Not Enter)

OblitusSumMe said:

[Pos] Poster             (Margin of Inaccuracy)
[1]   kle4               (+0.96)
....
[17]  OblitusSumMe       (-10.20)

kle4 said:

Wow, did I actually get a prediction pretty much correct? The last time I came within a bare hundred votes or so of getting one right, someone else was still closer.

Given I was out by a long way on my IndyRef prediction, I don't think Tories need to be worried about my longstanding Lab majority prediction (The latest Scots polls have me worried on that one as well), though with any luck my prediction of a max of 5 MPs for UKIP will still pan out.

MarkHopkins said:

OblitusSumMe said:

[Pos] Poster             (Margin of Inaccuracy)
[1]   kle4               (+0.96)
....
[17]  OblitusSumMe       (-10.20)

Do you know how many entries in total?

AndyJS said:

another_richard said:

Regarding where UKIP support is coming from its worth considering the loss of economic and political power of the C1C2s.

Throughout the 20th century the C1C2s were the main beneficiaries of increasing affluence and increasing economic equality.

Likewise they became the demographic which decided elections and were consequently pandered to by politicians. The triumph of the C1C2s reached its most prominent expression with all those party leaders which arose from their ranks - Heath and Wilson, Thatcher and Callaghan, Major and Kinnock.

But since the millenium the C1C2s have been losing ground both economically and politically.

Globalisation has caused the former egg shaped economic society to be increasingly egg timer shaped - a shift in wealth from those in the middle to those at either end of the scale.

Meanwhile politics has become increasingly a 'closed shop' where access through privilege becomes ever more important - the PPEocrachy. This new generation of politicians have had very different personal experiences and see the world through very different eyes to the proceeding generation.

In other words society has gone backwards in recent years.

Ninoinoz said:

OblitusSumMe said:

[Pos] Poster             (Margin of Inaccuracy)
[1]   kle4               (+0.96)
[2]   Millsy             (+1.64)
[3]   Quincel            (-4.00)
[4]   DavidL             (-5.60)
[5]   RichardNabavi      (-5.64)
[6]   MarkSenior         (-5.74)
[7]   BigJohnOwls        (-6.45)
[8]   JosiasJessop       (-7.25)
[9]   SirNorfolkPassmore (-8.03)
[10]  Barnesian          (-8.24)
[11=] Pong               (+8.36)
[11=] Shiney2            (-8.36)
[13]  Slade              (-8.82)
[14]  Blofelds_Cat       (-9.01)
[15]  SkyBluePastie      (-9.61)
[16]  State_Go_Away      (-9.85)
[17]  OblitusSumMe       (-10.20)
[18]  SimonStClare       (-10.21)
...
[??]  John_Rentoul       (-34.36)
...
[N/A] SeanT              (Did Not Enter)

I demand a recount!

But seriously, you've missed SirNorfolkPassmore (Lab 10.33%) and Ninoinoz (Lab 12.51%).

AndyJS said:

logical_song said:

AndyJS said:

MarkHopkins said:

AndyJS said:

Ninoinoz said:

david_herdson said:

Fat_Steve said:

The winner certainly isn't me. I forecast a narrow ukip win, based on a gut feeling that none-of-the-above feeling would translate into support for ukip. Maybe it would have in more normal by election. Didn't anticipate that turnout would be quite so low.

The sixty-odd votes that enabled Labour to win on the first round were critical. Had it gone to a second, Labour's winning margin would have been a good deal smaller though still comfortable; I'd guess something like 12-13%.

I presume this is why there was no recount, despite Labour were only marginally over the 50%.

There should have been a recount. Labour were just 19 votes over 50% apparently.

But UKIP would have needed that result to be wrong AND every second preference vote to win. It wasn't worth the recount.

If the result is that close to triggering a second round, a recount should be automatic regardless of how likely or unlikely a particular party is to win or lose. Party considerations shouldn't come into it.

It's the candidate or agent that has to request a recount:
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/151795/Electoral-Administration-Bulletin-26.pdf

"Once the LRO has counted all of the first preferences,
or votes in an election with only two candidates, and
adjudicated any doubtful ballot papers, the provisional
local totals should be shared informally with the
candidates, agents and designated counting agents
present. It is at this stage that recounts can be
requested by candidates, (sub) agents and the
designated counting agents. Requests for recounts
must be considered, but may be refused if, in the LRO’s
opinion, the request is unreasonable."

My understanding was that the returning officer can ask for a recount even if none of the candidates or agents want to have one. Maybe that's for parliamentary elections only. JohnLoony said the same thing yesterday.

Morris_Dancer said:

Congrats, Mr. kle4.

I think I may be the furthest wrong (over 40%, I think).