politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If the Betfair exchange is anything to go by it will be a g

RodCrosby said:

Speedy said:

Something for the previous topic but I was too busy to post.

I have noticed that the Tories are leveling their score throughout the country.
In 2012 it was typical to see a 35% difference between the South and Scotland or 25% with the North, now that has halved even as the Tory share nationally is the same.

That suggests to me that it is both easier for the Tories to get many more seats that UNS suggests and a greater risk of scoring severely fewer seats than UNS suggests at the same time (a majority or less seats than 1997), as the Tory vote is now spread thin, while in the past it was concentrated in the South.

The next GE will be very fascinating, in past elections the outcome was determined in 100 marginals seats, in May it could be 300 seats or more.

It's hard to believe the dispersion of the vote or the operation of the electoral system would change so radically.

Hugh said:

YouGov

Lab 337
Con 269
Lib 16

Ed Miliband Prime Minister, Majority 24

NickPalmer said:

PS Sorry, Tim, just noticed you said you loved it - might have been a bit more tactful if I'd seen that.

AndyJS said:

No surprise - some people on Newsnight have been offended by the naming of the 16 year old murderer yesterday.

Speedy said:

It's official, Theresa May has lost her mind:

Mike Smithson ‏@MSmithsonPB 5m5 minutes ago
This looks fun. 6 months to GE15 and Tory leadership wars pic.twitter.com/8sP8z7qOMa


Or she's preparing for a possible leadership race should Cameron lose a no confidence vote after Rochester.

GeoffM said:

Tim_B said:

NickPalmer said:

Tim_B said:

Speaking of Iowa. Love this ad

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9Y24MFOfFU

What a disgusting advert. If she was running against Count Dracula I'd vote the vampire ticket.

Aw c'mon Nick - she grew up castrating hogs so she knows how to cut pork - great line.

It's a great ad. I've seen compilations of the best ads of the cycle and this one is stand-out excellent.

RodCrosby said:

Speedy said:

RodCrosby said:

Speedy said:

Something for the previous topic but I was too busy to post.

I have noticed that the Tories are leveling their score throughout the country.
In 2012 it was typical to see a 35% difference between the South and Scotland or 25% with the North, now that has halved even as the Tory share nationally is the same.

That suggests to me that it is both easier for the Tories to get many more seats that UNS suggests and a greater risk of scoring severely fewer seats than UNS suggests at the same time (a majority or less seats than 1997), as the Tory vote is now spread thin, while in the past it was concentrated in the South.

The next GE will be very fascinating, in past elections the outcome was determined in 100 marginals seats, in May it could be 300 seats or more.

It's hard to believe the dispersion of the vote or the operation of the electoral system would change so radically.

Well the country is getting balkanized politically, once past strongholds are now falling to insurgent parties.

In a handful of places, so far.

There has been a process of divergence and concentration of the vote going on for 70 years, producing the "Labour North" and "Tory South", resulting in a halving in the number of marginal seats (one of the components, incidentally, of the increased chance of NOM.) I see no sign of that reversing.

AndyJS said:

The Democrats are currently 36 to keep control of the Senate with Betfair.

Does anyone on PB think they might do it?

AndyJS said:

The Democrats are currently 36 to keep control of the Senate with Betfair.

Does anyone on PB think they might do it?

Richard_Nabavi said:

RobD said:

Hugh said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Rupert Murdoch's 21st Century Fox reported profits of $999m (£624m) in the third quarter, buoyed by strong earnings in its film and cable television units. The company also said revenue rose to $8.42bn, a 17% increase from the same period last year.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29903671

There are a few things certain in this world and one of them is that old Rupert always has the last laugh.

His criminal employees hacking the phones of dead children was a right hoot.

I get the impression you aren't keen on Murdoch or his empire?

Labour supporters have rather gone off Mr Murdoch, since he stopped supporting Labour. I suppose it's understandable, if a touch ungrateful for all his help over the years.

Flightpath said:

If the Republicans had a decent presidential candidate (preferably 2 or 3 to choose from) in the offing, then these mid terms might be important.
As it is they are not electing a president, in particular they will bot be re-electing Obama, they are not changing the govt of the country and the Republicans will as usual tear themselves apart in a battle of political purity v realism.
If she stays fit and well then the battle is for Hillary to lose. Sadly.

Speedy said:

The_Last_Boy_Scout said:

The Times splash is ostensibly somewhat bizarre. It appears to suggest that Theresa has begun a war with Javid over mobile phone masts. Not the story I suspect many were expecting

I know it's bizarre, Theresa May thinking that mobile phones are a threat to national security sounds bonkers, what will she do ban them from Britain?
Any reaction on the Times front page from other PB'rs?

RobD said:

manofkent2014 said:

And in others news in an event more certain the the Pope's catholicism :

EU auditors refuse to sign off more than £100billion of its own spending

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/11209248/EU-auditors-refuse-to-sign-off-more-than-100billion-of-its-own-spending.html

When are they every going to sign off the EUs accounts?

Speedy said:

Flightpath said:

If the Republicans had a decent presidential candidate (preferably 2 or 3 to choose from) in the offing, then these mid terms might be important.
As it is they are not electing a president, in particular they will bot be re-electing Obama, they are not changing the govt of the country and the Republicans will as usual tear themselves apart in a battle of political purity v realism.
If she stays fit and well then the battle is for Hillary to lose. Sadly.

Hillary will win in 2016 no matter what, but she will lose in 2020 due to the economy imploding again and people being bored with her character and her party.

Richard_Nabavi said:

AndyJS said:

The Democrats are currently 36 to keep control of the Senate with Betfair.

Does anyone on PB think they might do it?

Caution - that is NOT a market on whether they keep controlk of the Senate, it's a market about whether they end up with a majority of seats excluding independents who caucus with them (currently two).

So, no, they won't do it. It's a mug's bet.

GeoffM said:

Tim_B said:

GeoffM said:

Tim_B said:

NickPalmer said:

Tim_B said:

Speaking of Iowa. Love this ad

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9Y24MFOfFU

What a disgusting advert. If she was running against Count Dracula I'd vote the vampire ticket.

Aw c'mon Nick - she grew up castrating hogs so she knows how to cut pork - great line.

It's a great ad. I've seen compilations of the best ads of the cycle and this one is stand-out excellent.

You're lucky - I've had to sit through them all, one at a time. If there's a runoff I'll have 2 more months of it.

Don't forget your homburg!!! :-)

Yes it must be terrible to put up with these wall-to-wall. I can't remember where I saw the compilation. Over at Hotair maybe? Anyway, I got 10 minutes of the best ones; you got 6 months of the worst. My genuine sympathy!

Homburg already set at a jaunty angle. Carnation firmly in lapel.
All right, Mr. DeMille, I'm ready for my close-up

Speedy said:

On the 2014 fight impacting 2016:

http://online.wsj.com/articles/midterm-elections-2014-rand-paul-is-go-to-republican-for-2014-candidates-1415107374?tesla=y

"Kentucky Senator’s Groundwork Helped Him Vault From Tea-Party Star to Serious Presidential Contender in 2016"

Speedy said:

Tim_B said:

Speedy said:

On the 2014 fight impacting 2016:

http://online.wsj.com/articles/midterm-elections-2014-rand-paul-is-go-to-republican-for-2014-candidates-1415107374?tesla=y

"Kentucky Senator’s Groundwork Helped Him Vault From Tea-Party Star to Serious Presidential Contender in 2016"

He also speaks sense on what the Republicans need to do to broaden their appeal. He's gone from zero to hero fast.

Too fast, I say.
He needs to make a serious pitch to California, it's in the middle of an existential crisis and is looking for a savior with a water plan.
If he makes a serious proposal to save California from becoming a desert that we will become President alright, using the same pre-1992 strategy that gave Republicans the white house.

Richard_Nabavi said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Speedy said:

The_Last_Boy_Scout said:

The Times splash is ostensibly somewhat bizarre. It appears to suggest that Theresa has begun a war with Javid over mobile phone masts. Not the story I suspect many were expecting

I know it's bizarre, Theresa May thinking that mobile phones are a threat to national security sounds bonkers, what will she do ban them from Britain?
Any reaction on the Times front page from other PB'rs?

Journalistic froth, obviously. No member of the Conservative Party is going to take the slightest interest in mobile phone masts one way or the other, so the idea that this is some kind of leadership bid is out with the fairies.

I've read the piece.

I've decided Theresa May is either bonkers on manoeuvres.

She's actually written a letter about it To the PM and other cabinet ministers.

However, Mrs May, who was criticised this week by Norman Baker on his resignation as a home office minister for being “uncollegiate”, has warned the prime minister and other senior cabinet members that the change risked undermining national security.

Her letter said that two of the proposed options, including national roaming, “could have a detrimental impact on law enforcement, security and intelligence agency access to communications data and lawful intercept”.

She also raises objections to another option, allowing companies such as Tesco to offer customers packages that use all four of the main networks.

Mrs May calls for further studies to make sure that the changes do not stop police from accessing “information that is crucial to keeping us safe”. She argues that their ability to listen to calls and read emails is “vital to protecting the public from crime and terrorism”.

Surely this is a classic case of the obvious explanation being the right one - that she is genuinely concerned, on the advice of the spooks, that there is some problem.

I've no idea whether she's right, but there's no conceivable ulterior motive for raising the issue.

Richard_Nabavi said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Speedy said:

The_Last_Boy_Scout said:

The Times splash is ostensibly somewhat bizarre. It appears to suggest that Theresa has begun a war with Javid over mobile phone masts. Not the story I suspect many were expecting

I know it's bizarre, Theresa May thinking that mobile phones are a threat to national security sounds bonkers, what will she do ban them from Britain?
Any reaction on the Times front page from other PB'rs?

Journalistic froth, obviously. No member of the Conservative Party is going to take the slightest interest in mobile phone masts one way or the other, so the idea that this is some kind of leadership bid is out with the fairies.

I've read the piece.

I've decided Theresa May is either bonkers on manoeuvres.

She's actually written a letter about it To the PM and other cabinet ministers.

However, Mrs May, who was criticised this week by Norman Baker on his resignation as a home office minister for being “uncollegiate”, has warned the prime minister and other senior cabinet members that the change risked undermining national security.

Her letter said that two of the proposed options, including national roaming, “could have a detrimental impact on law enforcement, security and intelligence agency access to communications data and lawful intercept”.

She also raises objections to another option, allowing companies such as Tesco to offer customers packages that use all four of the main networks.

Mrs May calls for further studies to make sure that the changes do not stop police from accessing “information that is crucial to keeping us safe”. She argues that their ability to listen to calls and read emails is “vital to protecting the public from crime and terrorism”.

Surely this is a classic case of the obvious explanation being the right one - that she is genuinely concerned, on the advice of the spooks, that there is some problem.

I've no idea whether she's right, but there's no conceivable ulterior motive for raising the issue.

Pong said:

Speedy said:

It's official, Theresa May has lost her mind:

Mike Smithson ‏@MSmithsonPB 5m5 minutes ago
This looks fun. 6 months to GE15 and Tory leadership wars pic.twitter.com/8sP8z7qOMa


Or she's preparing for a possible leadership race should Cameron lose a no confidence vote after Rochester.

If there were a leadership race before the GE, would tory party rules allow boris to stand?

Richard_Nabavi said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Speedy said:

The_Last_Boy_Scout said:

The Times splash is ostensibly somewhat bizarre. It appears to suggest that Theresa has begun a war with Javid over mobile phone masts. Not the story I suspect many were expecting

I know it's bizarre, Theresa May thinking that mobile phones are a threat to national security sounds bonkers, what will she do ban them from Britain?
Any reaction on the Times front page from other PB'rs?

Journalistic froth, obviously. No member of the Conservative Party is going to take the slightest interest in mobile phone masts one way or the other, so the idea that this is some kind of leadership bid is out with the fairies.

I've read the piece.

I've decided Theresa May is either bonkers on manoeuvres.

She's actually written a letter about it To the PM and other cabinet ministers.

However, Mrs May, who was criticised this week by Norman Baker on his resignation as a home office minister for being “uncollegiate”, has warned the prime minister and other senior cabinet members that the change risked undermining national security.

Her letter said that two of the proposed options, including national roaming, “could have a detrimental impact on law enforcement, security and intelligence agency access to communications data and lawful intercept”.

She also raises objections to another option, allowing companies such as Tesco to offer customers packages that use all four of the main networks.

Mrs May calls for further studies to make sure that the changes do not stop police from accessing “information that is crucial to keeping us safe”. She argues that their ability to listen to calls and read emails is “vital to protecting the public from crime and terrorism”.

Surely this is a classic case of the obvious explanation being the right one - that she is genuinely concerned, on the advice of the spooks, that there is some problem.

Neil said:

@TSE

I'll request a Crystal Swing song on your (and pbc's) behalf. Let's hope I dont get chucked out too early.

Smarmeron said:

@Flightpath
Encryption of data is wrong? How very quaint.

Tim_B said:

Speedy said:

Flightpath said:

If the Republicans had a decent presidential candidate (preferably 2 or 3 to choose from) in the offing, then these mid terms might be important.
As it is they are not electing a president, in particular they will bot be re-electing Obama, they are not changing the govt of the country and the Republicans will as usual tear themselves apart in a battle of political purity v realism.
If she stays fit and well then the battle is for Hillary to lose. Sadly.

Hillary will win in 2016 no matter what, but she will lose in 2020 due to the economy imploding again and people being bored with her character and her party.

You might want to tether your cocoanuts on this one for a minute.

She and Bill have been stumping the country relentlessly trying to drum up support for Dems.

IF the night goes badly for the Dems, it might raise some questions as to why she can't move the needle. Just sayin'

AndyJS said:

Just updated my iPad 2 with iOs 8.1 — and it's going about a million times slower. And I had read about the problems with the update a few weeks ago.

Stupidly I thought they might have sorted it out by now, but obviously they don't want to in order to force people to buy new devices.

RobD said:

Tim_B said:

Kentucky 1% in - Grimes 38% McConnell 60%

Aren't they still voting LOL

Smarmeron said:

@Flightpath
Encryption of data is wrong? How very quaint.

Speedy said:

AndyJS said:

Just updated my iPad 2 with iOs 8.1 — and it's going about a million times slower. And I had read about the problems with the update a few weeks ago.

Stupidly I thought they might have sorted it out by now, but obviously they don't want to in order to force people to buy new devices.

Apple is not the company it used to be.

Flightpath said:

Tim_B said:

Speedy said:

Flightpath said:

If the Republicans had a decent presidential candidate (preferably 2 or 3 to choose from) in the offing, then these mid terms might be important.
As it is they are not electing a president, in particular they will bot be re-electing Obama, they are not changing the govt of the country and the Republicans will as usual tear themselves apart in a battle of political purity v realism.
If she stays fit and well then the battle is for Hillary to lose. Sadly.

Hillary will win in 2016 no matter what, but she will lose in 2020 due to the economy imploding again and people being bored with her character and her party.

You might want to tether your cocoanuts on this one for a minute.

She and Bill have been stumping the country relentlessly trying to drum up support for Dems.

IF the night goes badly for the Dems, it might raise some questions as to why she can't move the needle. Just sayin'

The fact that she (and he) are selflessly working for the party to minimise the defeat (if there is one) ie minimise the dead weighr of Obama, is what will get her the nomination.

RobD said:

AndyJS said:

Just updated my iPad 2 with iOs 8.1 — and it's going about a million times slower. And I had read about the problems with the update a few weeks ago.

Stupidly I thought they might have sorted it out by now, but obviously they don't want to in order to force people to buy new devices.

I noticed this when I upgrade my iPhone 4S to the new OS. Luckily I had already ordered a 6 by this point (and I'm very happy with it so far).

AndyJS said:

RobD said:

AndyJS said:

Just updated my iPad 2 with iOs 8.1 — and it's going about a million times slower. And I had read about the problems with the update a few weeks ago.

Stupidly I thought they might have sorted it out by now, but obviously they don't want to in order to force people to buy new devices.

I noticed this when I upgrade my iPhone 4S to the new OS. Luckily I had already ordered a 6 by this point (and I'm very happy with it so far).

I'm a bit puritanical with computing devices. When I buy one I get the best available, but then I expect to be able to carry on using it for at least 5 years. My desktop computer was top of the range, but it's now 10 years old. Still works pretty well.

Smarmeron said:

@Flightpath
If the price of my safety is being spied on at the whim of some bored knob end, then I will take the terrorists option. (they are both fascists, but there are far fewer terrorists)

Richard_Nabavi said:

Smarmeron said:

@Flightpath
If the price of my safety is being spied on at the whim of some bored knob end, then I will take the terrorists option. (they are both fascists, but there are far fewer terrorists)

That's all fine and dandy, but what about those who are less keen than you to be blown up, or to have to face the horror of their wives or children being blown up?

And, get real. Can you really not see the difference between some computer in GCHQ scanning your email headers or phone records, and a terrorist wanting to blow you up?

volcanopete said:

There are 2 important votes running concurrently in Florida and Washington-DC71 Campaign-on cannabis.Even in the red states the tide is turning.Both GOP and blues are turning both ways on the issue as,on the one hand,to one degree or another they are both funded by Big Pharma and Big Alcohol,yet,on the other,the voters are way ahead of the politicians so,unbelievably,the Californian GOP party is behind the full legalisation election of 2016.If California goes legit,the dam breaks for the rest.There's the game-changer politically.
Cannabis politics could determine the next POTUS.

hunchman said:

Interesting rumour about Hilary:

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/11/04/republicans-tipped-to-take-senate-setting-the-stage-for-2016/