David Miliband has been pictured campaigning for Labour in a marginal Tory seat, in a move that will prompt speculation about a future role in the party
David Miliband has been pictured campaigning for Labour in a marginal Tory seat, in a move that will prompt speculation about a future role in the party
Thanks Q. One not mentioned, Islington. I've backed Labour vs Jez there @ almost 3. The market has him as the odds-on fav but I disagree. Despite his profile and long tenure as the sitting member I doubt that his personal vote will be higher than the booming generic Labour vote. Course it might be - he's the Magic Grandpa and has probably had a cup of chamomile and a progressive chinwag with every single resident over the years - but I make Lab favs not him, so 3 was more than good enough for me. Bit shorter now (2.3) but maybe still a touch of value (if you share my view).
Thanks Q. One not mentioned, Islington. I've backed Labour vs Jez there @ almost 3. The market has him as the odds-on fav but I disagree. Despite his profile and long tenure as the sitting member I doubt that his personal vote will be higher than the booming generic Labour vote. Course it might be - he's the Magic Grandpa and has probably had a cup of chamomile and a progressive chinwag with every single resident over the years - but I make Lab favs not him, so 3 was more than good enough for me. Bit shorter now (2.3) but maybe still a touch of value (if you share my view).
Yes, I''m on that too. I also think at the odds Mordaunt are too big in Portsmouth North.
Also, Gretchen Whitmer at 200/1 vs Michelle Obama at 25/1 ...
What's the logic there ?
I can at least see the logic of that (although agree the odds are way too short).
Take a situation where Biden is unable to stand in November. The very obvious replacement at the top of the ballot is Harris - not because she'd be a brilliant candidate but because she's VP (and potentially President if the reason for Biden's inability to stand was death or incapacity).
To displace Harris, the alternative would need an absolutely compelling case at the Democratic Convention (or DNC depending on when it arises). Being someone who might possibly have been a contender in a competed primary, like Whitmer, just isn't anywhere near enough to seal the deal - quite a lot of people can say exactly the same thing. Whereas Michelle Obama stepping forward as a unity candidate at time of national crisis may be.
Does it justify 25-1? No chance, as she's been very clear she's not interested. But there is a (slightly outlandish) story where it happens, whereas there just isn't for Whitmer at this point (even though she might be a contender in 2028).
Does 3.15 on Biden with bf make any sense to anyone - it makes no sense to me. MAGA money on the other side of the bet? Or what am I missing? I've topped up.
The price is inflated by the doubts even now that he'll be the Nominee (1.24 last time I looked). The debates are coming soon - if he does them and performs ok he'll shorten quite a bit, I'd have thought.
'I've never asked anyone to do this...could you give me a moo?'
Former police officer Dan demonstrates his exceptional ability to communicate with animals for @NickFerrariLBC after telling a tale of how he once used a PA system to clear cattle off the M11.
Real keystone cops effort from Surrey police. Also can't quite believe there wasn't a large animal vet available in the whole of Surrey available for some (very) easy money.
By the way, in the ‘Heathener meets X,Y, and Z’ Series to which you are all now becoming accustomed and which annoys some, and helps others to make money ( ) …
I know of two people who are bitterly anti-migration to the UK, likely to vote Reform, but who are themselves migrants in other countries. One migrant is a pilot currently living in Germany. The other migrant is a rather well known MAGAloon on this board.
The irony.
People living in other countries shouldn't have the vote here. The idea that you can decide help decide laws that won't affect you is so obviously wrong it's a wonder it's not obvious to everyone.
The first generation immigrant side of my family is upset with immigration as it is currently done.
In their view, they came here to be British, not to import their culture and demand the place turns into their home country. They came here because it *wasn't* Peru.
I don't have any idea what that's got to do with people abroad voting in UK elections
Interesting header. Bristol central feels like the only remotely competitive one of those seats. Free hit, as you say.
I live in a safe London seat but my vineyard is in Canterbury. The evidence from local rural sign boards is Rosie Duffield should be comfortably cruising to another victory.
Though long term Canterbury is perhaps a bit of an anomaly. Cathedral city, county cricket ground, vineyards, hilly, relatively prosperous, quite a few Lib Dems on the council. I think if it were a. further West, b. a little more prosperous it would be nailed on Lib Dem country.
Note that this is wages, which is only part of the picture. It doesn't show wealth. But according to that it's BELOW the national average. I find that hugely surprising. I assumed Canterbury was very posh, like top 5%. Always interesting to find a big blind spot in your own perceptions.
Around a quarter of the electorate are students, according to wikipedia.
Ah, ok, so that means it might be a mix of very posh and low-income full-time students. So is my "Canterbury is posh" instinct still partially true if you separate town and gown?
Does 3.15 on Biden with bf make any sense to anyone - it makes no sense to me. MAGA money on the other side of the bet? Or what am I missing? I've topped up.
I'm pretty sure it's MAGA crypto money. The Biden price is wrong in two ways.
First, they think Biden is going to be replaced by Michelle Obama at the convention. They think Biden will be replaced because they believe the edited and/or fake videos circulated on right-wing media designed to fool people into thinking he has dementia. Then they think it's Michelle Obama because she's kind of an obsession of right-wing media, remember the Whitey Tape? So any market that names Biden (as opposed to the Dems) will be wrong.
Secondly, Donald Trump has come out in favour of crypto, in exchange for some very large donations. There's a lot of money to be made in being in favour of crypto because when Elizabeth Warren dropped and backed Biden after the complete electoral failure of her brand of technocratic left-populism, she got Biden to promise her control of the main financial regulation jobs. So when had some time left over from fining banks for letting staff send each other Whats App messages during covid and failing to preserve each and every lol and fml in line with his interpretation of an old regulation about inter-office memos, the SEC chairman filed some lawsuits based on the theory that nearly all crypto trading in the US is illegal. If successful this would shut down some large publicly-traded companies like coinbase, so these companies are now now spraying around campaign contributions like their lives depend on it. Trump has made some vague promises about supporting crypto but also some specific ones like pardoning Ross Ulbricht (an early dark market entrepreneur). This has got crypto people of a right-leaning persuasion incredibly excited and produced a move in the betting odds that probably isn't justified by the number of fucks the average Pennsylvania swing voter could give about crypto.
PS Basically all sizable political betting markets are crypto markets nowadays. It's a bit weird how little they're discussed here compared to all the long earnest threads we have about the 25p available on Betfair or whatever.
David Miliband has been pictured campaigning for Labour in a marginal Tory seat, in a move that will prompt speculation about a future role in the party
I will be putting in my postal vote as soon as it arrives.
I will be proudly voting Labour this time.
The Council Tax banding isn't very important in all honesty. Yes, we could add a few new bands at the top and make some money for the providers of Council Tax collection and administration software and employ additional Council Tax revenue and collection staff.
That isn't really the point - the whole basis of funding local Govenrment needs to be re-thought, a root and branch review of what's done, why it's done and how it's paid for.
When you have a situation where Child and Adult Social Care is swallowing up to two thirds of the whole budget for some counties, something has gone drastically wrong.
The Conservatives have, to their utter shame, completely failed, despite promises, to address this in their period in Government and we must now hope Labour has to do the dirty work (so to speak).
The whole range of issues needs addressing - residential care, specialist care, dementia care, domiciliary care, SEN - the whole thing is a mess and needs a root and branch review and rethink.
This is right on the money.
And true of every area of governance from which the Tories have gradually opted-out. Made even harder to unpick by the structural private sector debt Gordon Brown's wizard wheezes introduced during his tenure.
Does 3.15 on Biden with bf make any sense to anyone - it makes no sense to me. MAGA money on the other side of the bet? Or what am I missing? I've topped up.
The price is inflated by the doubts even now that he'll be the Nominee (1.24 last time I looked). The debates are coming soon - if he does them and performs ok he'll shorten quite a bit, I'd have thought.
MAGAs are quite stubborn and open to alternative realities. If Betfair let them, they would probably still lay 1.24 after his nomination has been confirmed just in case it is all an AI deep fake run by a pizza entrepreneur.
Does 3.15 on Biden with bf make any sense to anyone - it makes no sense to me. MAGA money on the other side of the bet? Or what am I missing? I've topped up.
The price is inflated by the doubts even now that he'll be the Nominee (1.24 last time I looked). The debates are coming soon - if he does them and performs ok he'll shorten quite a bit, I'd have thought.
The market is hypersensitive to any rumours about Biden, and has been since the start.
Morning all. On the subject of Labour defences, these are the places I think Labour will underperform vs national and then take a look and see if you feel they'll underachieve enough to lose. Slough, Birmingham generally (particularly Ladywood, Yardley), parts of London where strong Independants are running, Leicester, Rochdale, Oldham, Blackburn. They probably hold everything or nearly everything but that's where they'll underperform imo.
Some of the Bradford seats will have a Hamas factor.
Might stop us winning Keighley. That, and the closure of the council recycling centre in Ilkley meaning that the well-healed residents have to come over the moor to dump their rubbish. Could be a surprise Tory hold?
Good to hear that the residents are well-healed. The NHS is clearly performing well.
It's Monday morning - my brain is still slumbering!
Does 3.15 on Biden with bf make any sense to anyone - it makes no sense to me. MAGA money on the other side of the bet? Or what am I missing? I've topped up.
I'm pretty sure it's MAGA crypto money. The Biden price is wrong in two ways.
First, they think Biden is going to be replaced by Michelle Obama at the convention. They think Biden will be replaced because they believe the edited and/or fake videos circulated on right-wing media designed to fool people into thinking he has dementia. Then they think it's Michelle Obama because she's kind of an obsession of right-wing media, remember the Whitey Tape? So any market that names Biden (as opposed to the Dems) will be wrong.
Secondly, Donald Trump has come out in favour of crypto, in exchange for some very large donations. There's a lot of money to be made in being in favour of crypto because when Elizabeth Warren dropped and backed Biden after the complete electoral failure of her brand of technocratic left-populism, she got Biden to promise her control of the main financial regulation jobs. So when had some time left over from fining banks for letting staff send each other Whats App messages during covid and failing to preserve each and every lol and fml in line with his interpretation of an old regulation about inter-office memos, he filed some lawsuits based on the theory that nearly all crypto trading in the US is illegal. If successful this would shut down some large publicly-traded companies like coinbase, so these companies are now now spraying around campaign contributions like their lives depend on it. Trump has made some vague promises about supporting crypto but also some specific ones like pardoning Ross Ulbricht (an early dark market entrepreneur). This has got crypto people of a right-leaning persuasion incredibly excited and produced a move in the betting odds that probably isn't justified by the number of fucks the average Pennsylvania swing voter could give about crypto.
Basically all sizable political betting markets are crypto markets nowadays. It's a bit weird how little they're discussed here compared to all the long earnest threads we have about the 25p available on Betfair or whatever.
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 4m Swing since last election: Con->Lab 16% So any seat with Con majority over Lab of up to 32% is vulnerable on uniform swing
Interesting header. Bristol central feels like the only remotely competitive one of those seats. Free hit, as you say.
I live in a safe London seat but my vineyard is in Canterbury. The evidence from local rural sign boards is Rosie Duffield should be comfortably cruising to another victory.
Though long term Canterbury is perhaps a bit of an anomaly. Cathedral city, county cricket ground, vineyards, hilly, relatively prosperous, quite a few Lib Dems on the council. I think if it were a. further West, b. a little more prosperous it would be nailed on Lib Dem country.
Lib Dems were ahead of Labour in 2010, but have dropped back quite a long way since then.
I have friends at the Whitstable end of the constituency who'll be voting LD this time, based on the current Labour MP's vocal transphobia. The same reason is also likely to motivate a lot of the student vote to move elsewhere - not going to be a major factor for this election as it'll be after term ends, but could be important in the future.
@Quincel Do you have an updated view on Honiton and Sidmouth?
I know the constituency well and with Reform standing I'll be surprised if this doesn't go LibDem.
If the Tories really do poll around 20% nationally and the LDs 12-14% then I think they'll take it. Exmouth and Exeter East I am now very torn. The markets seem to have really taken my view about the LDs replacing Claire Wright, but the MRPs haven't. I've backed Labour at 10/1 and hope they don't split the vote one way or another.
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 4m Swing since last election: Con->Lab 16% So any seat with Con majority over Lab of up to 32% is vulnerable on uniform swing
Does 3.15 on Biden with bf make any sense to anyone - it makes no sense to me. MAGA money on the other side of the bet? Or what am I missing? I've topped up.
I'm pretty sure it's MAGA crypto money. The Biden price is wrong in two ways.
First, they think Biden is going to be replaced by Michelle Obama at the convention. They think Biden will be replaced because they believe the edited and/or fake videos circulated on right-wing media designed to fool people into thinking he has dementia. Then they think it's Michelle Obama because she's kind of an obsession of right-wing media, remember the Whitey Tape? So any market that names Biden (as opposed to the Dems) will be wrong.
Secondly, Donald Trump has come out in favour of crypto, in exchange for some very large donations. There's a lot of money to be made in being in favour of crypto because when Elizabeth Warren dropped and backed Biden after the complete electoral failure of her brand of technocratic left-populism, she got Biden to promise her control of the main financial regulation jobs. So when had some time left over from fining banks for letting staff send each other Whats App messages during covid and failing to preserve each and every lol and fml in line with his interpretation of an old regulation about inter-office memos, the SEC chairman filed some lawsuits based on the theory that nearly all crypto trading in the US is illegal. If successful this would shut down some large publicly-traded companies like coinbase, so these companies are now now spraying around campaign contributions like their lives depend on it. Trump has made some vague promises about supporting crypto but also some specific ones like pardoning Ross Ulbricht (an early dark market entrepreneur). This has got crypto people of a right-leaning persuasion incredibly excited and produced a move in the betting odds that probably isn't justified by the number of fucks the average Pennsylvania swing voter could give about crypto.
PS Basically all sizable political betting markets are crypto markets nowadays. It's a bit weird how little they're discussed here compared to all the long earnest threads we have about the 25p available on Betfair or whatever.
Could you just pop the bit in bold into one syllable words comprehensible to dim persons like me? am I the only one who doesn't get this?
Also, Gretchen Whitmer at 200/1 vs Michelle Obama at 25/1 ...
What's the logic there ?
I can at least see the logic of that (although agree the odds are way too short).
Take a situation where Biden is unable to stand in November. The very obvious replacement at the top of the ballot is Harris - not because she'd be a brilliant candidate but because she's VP (and potentially President if the reason for Biden's inability to stand was death or incapacity).
To displace Harris, the alternative would need an absolutely compelling case at the Democratic Convention (or DNC depending on when it arises). Being someone who might possibly have been a contender in a competed primary, like Whitmer, just isn't anywhere near enough to seal the deal - quite a lot of people can say exactly the same thing. Whereas Michelle Obama stepping forward as a unity candidate at time of national crisis may be.
Does it justify 25-1? No chance, as she's been very clear she's not interested. But there is a (slightly outlandish) story where it happens, whereas there just isn't for Whitmer at this point (even though she might be a contender in 2028).
Yes, too short at 25. I've laid back having backed her at 120 a while ago. She's still my best result (although anyone bar Trump is great for me).
Scenario: Biden can't run and something drastic is needed to prevent the utter catastrophe of Trump2. She is deemed to be "it" and is persuaded to do it.
Fair price for this? Very difficult to say because it's outside normal parameters and requires knowledge of people's health and deeply private mindsets.
25 too short, 250 too long, is about all I'd be confident of saying at this point.
Also, Gretchen Whitmer at 200/1 vs Michelle Obama at 25/1 ...
What's the logic there ?
I can at least see the logic of that (although agree the odds are way too short).
Take a situation where Biden is unable to stand in November. The very obvious replacement at the top of the ballot is Harris - not because she'd be a brilliant candidate but because she's VP (and potentially President if the reason for Biden's inability to stand was death or incapacity).
To displace Harris, the alternative would need an absolutely compelling case at the Democratic Convention (or DNC depending on when it arises). Being someone who might possibly have been a contender in a competed primary, like Whitmer, just isn't anywhere near enough to seal the deal - quite a lot of people can say exactly the same thing. Whereas Michelle Obama stepping forward as a unity candidate at time of national crisis may be.
Does it justify 25-1? No chance, as she's been very clear she's not interested. But there is a (slightly outlandish) story where it happens, whereas there just isn't for Whitmer at this point (even though she might be a contender in 2028).
If Biden were to step down, Harris would be overwhelming presumptive favourite to be the nominee.
Other than that, no one has a clue how any alternative might come about (except that it wouldn't be Clinton), so anyone with a remotely credible chance is possibly worth a couple of quid at 100/1 plus. Otherwise, not.
@Quincel Do you have an updated view on Honiton and Sidmouth?
I know the constituency well and with Reform standing I'll be surprised if this doesn't go LibDem.
If the Tories really do poll around 20% nationally and the LDs 12-14% then I think they'll take it. Exmouth and Exeter East I am now very torn. The markets seem to have really taken my view about the LDs replacing Claire Wright, but the MRPs haven't. I've backed Labour at 10/1 and hope they don't split the vote one way or another.
MRPs can't cope with specialised local circumstances like this. The markets are probably a better guide here.
Thanks Q. One not mentioned, Islington. I've backed Labour vs Jez there @ almost 3. The market has him as the odds-on fav but I disagree. Despite his profile and long tenure as the sitting member I doubt that his personal vote will be higher than the booming generic Labour vote. Course it might be - he's the Magic Grandpa and has probably had a cup of chamomile and a progressive chinwag with every single resident over the years - but I make Lab favs not him, so 3 was more than good enough for me. Bit shorter now (2.3) but maybe still a touch of value (if you share my view).
Yes, I''m on that too. I also think at the odds Mordaunt are too big in Portsmouth North.
And 1/3 on the Tories holding Sevenoaks is surely value
Does 3.15 on Biden with bf make any sense to anyone - it makes no sense to me. MAGA money on the other side of the bet? Or what am I missing? I've topped up.
I'm pretty sure it's MAGA crypto money. The Biden price is wrong in two ways.
First, they think Biden is going to be replaced by Michelle Obama at the convention. They think Biden will be replaced because they believe the edited and/or fake videos circulated on right-wing media designed to fool people into thinking he has dementia. Then they think it's Michelle Obama because she's kind of an obsession of right-wing media, remember the Whitey Tape? So any market that names Biden (as opposed to the Dems) will be wrong.
Secondly, Donald Trump has come out in favour of crypto, in exchange for some very large donations. There's a lot of money to be made in being in favour of crypto because when Elizabeth Warren dropped and backed Biden after the complete electoral failure of her brand of technocratic left-populism, she got Biden to promise her control of the main financial regulation jobs. So when had some time left over from fining banks for letting staff send each other Whats App messages during covid and failing to preserve each and every lol and fml in line with his interpretation of an old regulation about inter-office memos, the SEC chairman filed some lawsuits based on the theory that nearly all crypto trading in the US is illegal. If successful this would shut down some large publicly-traded companies like coinbase, so these companies are now now spraying around campaign contributions like their lives depend on it. Trump has made some vague promises about supporting crypto but also some specific ones like pardoning Ross Ulbricht (an early dark market entrepreneur). This has got crypto people of a right-leaning persuasion incredibly excited and produced a move in the betting odds that probably isn't justified by the number of fucks the average Pennsylvania swing voter could give about crypto.
PS Basically all sizable political betting markets are crypto markets nowadays. It's a bit weird how little they're discussed here compared to all the long earnest threads we have about the 25p available on Betfair or whatever.
That's an interesting take - but last time I checked, nearly £20m had been matched on the Betfair presidential market.
@Quincel Do you have an updated view on Honiton and Sidmouth?
I know the constituency well and with Reform standing I'll be surprised if this doesn't go LibDem.
If the Tories really do poll around 20% nationally and the LDs 12-14% then I think they'll take it. Exmouth and Exeter East I am now very torn. The markets seem to have really taken my view about the LDs replacing Claire Wright, but the MRPs haven't. I've backed Labour at 10/1 and hope they don't split the vote one way or another.
MRPs can't cope with specialised local circumstances like this. The markets are probably a better guide here.
From your lips to God's ears. I had the seat marked as a possible LD gain and easy one for the bookies to misprice before the election was ever called. When the odds were published I hit the LD price over and over from 40/1 to about 10/1. Suffice to say if the LDs do win then you'll be able to hear my cheers from the declaration hall - even though I'll be watching at home in London.
EDIT: I do hope that the LD price continuing to fall down to 9/4 indicates local activists who know what's going on see them as the main challenger. Time will tell.
Sam Freedman and knock knees Hodges both reporting this morning on increased feedback from Labour canvassers of an increased willingness to say 'voting Reform' which suggests to me Labour also starting to leak to them, otherwise it would be 'increased ConRef switching' I think the counter attack on Reform is coming from both sides
I will be putting in my postal vote as soon as it arrives.
I will be proudly voting Labour this time.
The Council Tax banding isn't very important in all honesty. Yes, we could add a few new bands at the top and make some money for the providers of Council Tax collection and administration software and employ additional Council Tax revenue and collection staff.
That isn't really the point - the whole basis of funding local Govenrment needs to be re-thought, a root and branch review of what's done, why it's done and how it's paid for.
When you have a situation where Child and Adult Social Care is swallowing up to two thirds of the whole budget for some counties, something has gone drastically wrong.
The Conservatives have, to their utter shame, completely failed, despite promises, to address this in their period in Government and we must now hope Labour has to do the dirty work (so to speak).
The whole range of issues needs addressing - residential care, specialist care, dementia care, domiciliary care, SEN - the whole thing is a mess and needs a root and branch review and rethink.
This is right on the money.
And true of every area of governance from which the Tories have gradually opted-out. Made even harder to unpick by the structural private sector debt Gordon Brown's wizard wheezes introduced during his tenure.
Labour has shunted it into the long grass but the solution they appear to be crawling toward - relieving local authorities of the financial burden and creating a national care service - is surely in the right direction
Does 3.15 on Biden with bf make any sense to anyone - it makes no sense to me. MAGA money on the other side of the bet? Or what am I missing? I've topped up.
I'm pretty sure it's MAGA crypto money. The Biden price is wrong in two ways.
First, they think Biden is going to be replaced by Michelle Obama at the convention. They think Biden will be replaced because they believe the edited and/or fake videos circulated on right-wing media designed to fool people into thinking he has dementia. Then they think it's Michelle Obama because she's kind of an obsession of right-wing media, remember the Whitey Tape? So any market that names Biden (as opposed to the Dems) will be wrong.
Secondly, Donald Trump has come out in favour of crypto, in exchange for some very large donations. There's a lot of money to be made in being in favour of crypto because when Elizabeth Warren dropped and backed Biden after the complete electoral failure of her brand of technocratic left-populism, she got Biden to promise her control of the main financial regulation jobs. So when had some time left over from fining banks for letting staff send each other Whats App messages during covid and failing to preserve each and every lol and fml in line with his interpretation of an old regulation about inter-office memos, the SEC chairman filed some lawsuits based on the theory that nearly all crypto trading in the US is illegal. If successful this would shut down some large publicly-traded companies like coinbase, so these companies are now now spraying around campaign contributions like their lives depend on it. Trump has made some vague promises about supporting crypto but also some specific ones like pardoning Ross Ulbricht (an early dark market entrepreneur). This has got crypto people of a right-leaning persuasion incredibly excited and produced a move in the betting odds that probably isn't justified by the number of fucks the average Pennsylvania swing voter could give about crypto.
PS Basically all sizable political betting markets are crypto markets nowadays. It's a bit weird how little they're discussed here compared to all the long earnest threads we have about the 25p available on Betfair or whatever.
That's an interesting take - but last time I checked, nearly £20m had been matched on the Betfair presidential market.
That's what I'm talking about, Polymarket has done $174m on just one market.
Interesting header. Bristol central feels like the only remotely competitive one of those seats. Free hit, as you say.
I live in a safe London seat but my vineyard is in Canterbury. The evidence from local rural sign boards is Rosie Duffield should be comfortably cruising to another victory.
Though long term Canterbury is perhaps a bit of an anomaly. Cathedral city, county cricket ground, vineyards, hilly, relatively prosperous, quite a few Lib Dems on the council. I think if it were a. further West, b. a little more prosperous it would be nailed on Lib Dem country.
Note that this is wages, which is only part of the picture. It doesn't show wealth. But according to that it's BELOW the national average. I find that hugely surprising. I assumed Canterbury was very posh, like top 5%. Always interesting to find a big blind spot in your own perceptions.
East Kent is actually relatively poor - the (former) Kent coalfields qualified as a deprived area, at least until relatively recently. But Canterbury has been moving in the opposite direction, with a relatively educated population - as picked up by the original YouGov MRP.
Also, Gretchen Whitmer at 200/1 vs Michelle Obama at 25/1 ...
What's the logic there ?
I can at least see the logic of that (although agree the odds are way too short).
Take a situation where Biden is unable to stand in November. The very obvious replacement at the top of the ballot is Harris - not because she'd be a brilliant candidate but because she's VP (and potentially President if the reason for Biden's inability to stand was death or incapacity).
To displace Harris, the alternative would need an absolutely compelling case at the Democratic Convention (or DNC depending on when it arises). Being someone who might possibly have been a contender in a competed primary, like Whitmer, just isn't anywhere near enough to seal the deal - quite a lot of people can say exactly the same thing. Whereas Michelle Obama stepping forward as a unity candidate at time of national crisis may be.
Does it justify 25-1? No chance, as she's been very clear she's not interested. But there is a (slightly outlandish) story where it happens, whereas there just isn't for Whitmer at this point (even though she might be a contender in 2028).
Yes, too short at 25. I've laid back having backed her at 120 a while ago.
Scenario: Biden can't run and something drastic is needed to prevent the utter catastrophe of Trump2. She is deemed to be "it" and is persuaded to do it.
Fair price for this? Very difficult to say because it's outside normal parameters and requires knowledge of people's health and deeply private mindsets.
25 too short, 250 too long, is about all I'd be confident of saying at this point.
From what little I know about Obama, she was never a political being. She resisted her husband's entry into politics. I don't know whether she's come around to it personally, but without more information I'm suspicious of the idea that she'd be up for it. Also, there are plenty of senior Dems who would feel that they are definitely better placed. There would certainly be some tug of war over the nomination in such a scenario.
So: Is there a vacancy? No. What are the chances of a vacancy arising? = V%
Is Obama interested in being candidate? = C%
If she was interested, would she beat the competition? = W%
So the odds for the nomination are V*C*W%
Plugging in some completely made up numbers 10% * 25% * 33% = 120/1
I suspect the numbers I've just made up are all too high, but I really don't know. I wouldn't be surprised if someone with better knowledge put the result as well below 120/1.
1st like Labour, but not as much as current polling tells you
I know what you mean, but we've all been expecting swingback for ages, and it hasn't happened yet and there are- at most- 17 days to go.
(And for the 1 in 6 or so who vote by post, voting day is approximately now.)
Yep and those people are likely to be older voters.
I do, however, need to point out we have seen some swing back - note BigG’s change of vote
True, though BigG is unusual, in the ways most of us here are.
Partly in following the ebb and flow so closely. But also in having a partisan loyalty that, when push comes to shove, takes an awful lot to overcome.
(Really hope I've phrased that in a way that doesn't cause offence.)
Just a shame we had to read months of his rubbish when it always would come down to doing whatever his wife told him to do, with exactly the same trajectory and outcome as in 2019.
But I agree it's a straw in the wind and the betting value is surely in the Tory holds right now.
By the way, in the ‘Heathener meets X,Y, and Z’ Series to which you are all now becoming accustomed and which annoys some, and helps others to make money ( ) …
I know of two people who are bitterly anti-migration to the UK, likely to vote Reform, but who are themselves migrants in other countries. One migrant is a pilot currently living in Germany. The other migrant is a rather well known MAGAloon on this board.
The irony.
People living in other countries shouldn't have the vote here. The idea that you can decide help decide laws that won't affect you is so obviously wrong it's a wonder it's not obvious to everyone.
The first generation immigrant side of my family is upset with immigration as it is currently done.
In their view, they came here to be British, not to import their culture and demand the place turns into their home country. They came here because it *wasn't* Peru.
Do you like Marmalade Sandwiches?
(Puts marmalade sandwich under hat, puts on wellies, picks up duffle coat, and leaves.)
On topic, Leicester East is surely a possible Labour risk due to both Webbe and Vaz standing as independents. I don't know enough about it to offer a view on where the value lies in that race, though.
Also, Gretchen Whitmer at 200/1 vs Michelle Obama at 25/1 ...
What's the logic there ?
I can at least see the logic of that (although agree the odds are way too short).
Take a situation where Biden is unable to stand in November. The very obvious replacement at the top of the ballot is Harris - not because she'd be a brilliant candidate but because she's VP (and potentially President if the reason for Biden's inability to stand was death or incapacity).
To displace Harris, the alternative would need an absolutely compelling case at the Democratic Convention (or DNC depending on when it arises). Being someone who might possibly have been a contender in a competed primary, like Whitmer, just isn't anywhere near enough to seal the deal - quite a lot of people can say exactly the same thing. Whereas Michelle Obama stepping forward as a unity candidate at time of national crisis may be.
Does it justify 25-1? No chance, as she's been very clear she's not interested. But there is a (slightly outlandish) story where it happens, whereas there just isn't for Whitmer at this point (even though she might be a contender in 2028).
Yes, too short at 25. I've laid back having backed her at 120 a while ago. She's still my best result (although anyone bar Trump is great for me).
Scenario: Biden can't run and something drastic is needed to prevent the utter catastrophe of Trump2. She is deemed to be "it" and is persuaded to do it.
Fair price for this? Very difficult to say because it's outside normal parameters and requires knowledge of people's health and deeply private mindsets.
25 too short, 250 too long, is about all I'd be confident of saying at this point.
The tricky thing about it is that it could be inside information. Externally "somebody knows something" and "a couple of well-heeled punters have lost their minds" will look the same until suddenly they don't.
On topic, Leicester East is surely a possible Labour risk due to both Webbe and Vaz standing as independents. I don't know enough about it to offer a view on where the value lies in that race, though.
Yes, a deeply weird race which is in the Part Two article this afternoon.
By the way, in the ‘Heathener meets X,Y, and Z’ Series to which you are all now becoming accustomed and which annoys some, and helps others to make money ( ) …
I know of two people who are bitterly anti-migration to the UK, likely to vote Reform, but who are themselves migrants in other countries. One migrant is a pilot currently living in Germany. The other migrant is a rather well known MAGAloon on this board.
The irony.
People living in other countries shouldn't have the vote here. The idea that you can decide help decide laws that won't affect you is so obviously wrong it's a wonder it's not obvious to everyone.
The first generation immigrant side of my family is upset with immigration as it is currently done.
In their view, they came here to be British, not to import their culture and demand the place turns into their home country. They came here because it *wasn't* Peru.
Do you like Marmalade Sandwiches?
(Puts marmalade sandwich under hat, puts on wellies, picks up duffle coat, and leaves.)
Also, Gretchen Whitmer at 200/1 vs Michelle Obama at 25/1 ...
What's the logic there ?
I can at least see the logic of that (although agree the odds are way too short).
Take a situation where Biden is unable to stand in November. The very obvious replacement at the top of the ballot is Harris - not because she'd be a brilliant candidate but because she's VP (and potentially President if the reason for Biden's inability to stand was death or incapacity).
To displace Harris, the alternative would need an absolutely compelling case at the Democratic Convention (or DNC depending on when it arises). Being someone who might possibly have been a contender in a competed primary, like Whitmer, just isn't anywhere near enough to seal the deal - quite a lot of people can say exactly the same thing. Whereas Michelle Obama stepping forward as a unity candidate at time of national crisis may be.
Does it justify 25-1? No chance, as she's been very clear she's not interested. But there is a (slightly outlandish) story where it happens, whereas there just isn't for Whitmer at this point (even though she might be a contender in 2028).
Yes, too short at 25. I've laid back having backed her at 120 a while ago. She's still my best result (although anyone bar Trump is great for me).
Scenario: Biden can't run and something drastic is needed to prevent the utter catastrophe of Trump2. She is deemed to be "it" and is persuaded to do it.
Fair price for this? Very difficult to say because it's outside normal parameters and requires knowledge of people's health and deeply private mindsets.
25 too short, 250 too long, is about all I'd be confident of saying at this point.
The tricky thing about it is that it could be inside information. Externally "somebody knows something" and "a couple of well-heeled punters have lost their minds" will look the same until suddenly they don't.
Maybe, but Michelle Obama has been stupidly short odds for the nomination every cycle since 2016. It could be inside information, but it looks a lot like the same dumb money from the last 8 years.
Does 3.15 on Biden with bf make any sense to anyone - it makes no sense to me. MAGA money on the other side of the bet? Or what am I missing? I've topped up.
I'm pretty sure it's MAGA crypto money. The Biden price is wrong in two ways.
First, they think Biden is going to be replaced by Michelle Obama at the convention. They think Biden will be replaced because they believe the edited and/or fake videos circulated on right-wing media designed to fool people into thinking he has dementia. Then they think it's Michelle Obama because she's kind of an obsession of right-wing media, remember the Whitey Tape? So any market that names Biden (as opposed to the Dems) will be wrong.
Secondly, Donald Trump has come out in favour of crypto, in exchange for some very large donations. There's a lot of money to be made in being in favour of crypto because when Elizabeth Warren dropped and backed Biden after the complete electoral failure of her brand of technocratic left-populism, she got Biden to promise her control of the main financial regulation jobs. So when had some time left over from fining banks for letting staff send each other Whats App messages during covid and failing to preserve each and every lol and fml in line with his interpretation of an old regulation about inter-office memos, the SEC chairman filed some lawsuits based on the theory that nearly all crypto trading in the US is illegal. If successful this would shut down some large publicly-traded companies like coinbase, so these companies are now now spraying around campaign contributions like their lives depend on it. Trump has made some vague promises about supporting crypto but also some specific ones like pardoning Ross Ulbricht (an early dark market entrepreneur). This has got crypto people of a right-leaning persuasion incredibly excited and produced a move in the betting odds that probably isn't justified by the number of fucks the average Pennsylvania swing voter could give about crypto.
PS Basically all sizable political betting markets are crypto markets nowadays. It's a bit weird how little they're discussed here compared to all the long earnest threads we have about the 25p available on Betfair or whatever.
That's an interesting take - but last time I checked, nearly £20m had been matched on the Betfair presidential market.
That's what I'm talking about, Polymarket has done $174m on just one market.
On the biggest market - and isn't that also just a reflection of the size of the US economy versus the UK ? Looking at their odds, they imply a c.100% chance of M Obama being elected if she's the nominee. Which is a view.
Whenever somebody says MAGA I just read it as somebody really up for a good time in Magaluf
Stupid post. Nobody has a good time in Magaluf.
I don't, but where I live everyone else does, barring the occasional death falling off a balcony, drowning by not knowing you are in the pool, months long stay in hospital following mysterious infections (one currently)/ingesting unknown substances. Welcome to working class northern England. We need a new Orwell/Priestley to write it up.
Does 3.15 on Biden with bf make any sense to anyone - it makes no sense to me. MAGA money on the other side of the bet? Or what am I missing? I've topped up.
I'm pretty sure it's MAGA crypto money. The Biden price is wrong in two ways.
First, they think Biden is going to be replaced by Michelle Obama at the convention. They think Biden will be replaced because they believe the edited and/or fake videos circulated on right-wing media designed to fool people into thinking he has dementia. Then they think it's Michelle Obama because she's kind of an obsession of right-wing media, remember the Whitey Tape? So any market that names Biden (as opposed to the Dems) will be wrong.
Secondly, Donald Trump has come out in favour of crypto, in exchange for some very large donations. There's a lot of money to be made in being in favour of crypto because when Elizabeth Warren dropped and backed Biden after the complete electoral failure of her brand of technocratic left-populism, she got Biden to promise her control of the main financial regulation jobs. So when had some time left over from fining banks for letting staff send each other Whats App messages during covid and failing to preserve each and every lol and fml in line with his interpretation of an old regulation about inter-office memos, the SEC chairman filed some lawsuits based on the theory that nearly all crypto trading in the US is illegal. If successful this would shut down some large publicly-traded companies like coinbase, so these companies are now now spraying around campaign contributions like their lives depend on it. Trump has made some vague promises about supporting crypto but also some specific ones like pardoning Ross Ulbricht (an early dark market entrepreneur). This has got crypto people of a right-leaning persuasion incredibly excited and produced a move in the betting odds that probably isn't justified by the number of fucks the average Pennsylvania swing voter could give about crypto.
PS Basically all sizable political betting markets are crypto markets nowadays. It's a bit weird how little they're discussed here compared to all the long earnest threads we have about the 25p available on Betfair or whatever.
That's an interesting take - but last time I checked, nearly £20m had been matched on the Betfair presidential market.
That's what I'm talking about, Polymarket has done $174m on just one market.
On the biggest market - and isn't that also just a reflection of the size of the US economy versus the UK ? Looking at their odds, they imply a c.100% chance of M Obama being elected if she's the nominee. Which is a view.
Betfair isn't too far from that either - 20 for the NOM, 26 for the WH.
On topic, Leicester East is surely a possible Labour risk due to both Webbe and Vaz standing as independents. I don't know enough about it to offer a view on where the value lies in that race, though.
It's certainly the most likely Con gain from Lab. The only other two possibilities imo would be Harrow West and Brent North, although both are very unlikely.
Also, Gretchen Whitmer at 200/1 vs Michelle Obama at 25/1 ...
What's the logic there ?
I can at least see the logic of that (although agree the odds are way too short).
Take a situation where Biden is unable to stand in November. The very obvious replacement at the top of the ballot is Harris - not because she'd be a brilliant candidate but because she's VP (and potentially President if the reason for Biden's inability to stand was death or incapacity).
To displace Harris, the alternative would need an absolutely compelling case at the Democratic Convention (or DNC depending on when it arises). Being someone who might possibly have been a contender in a competed primary, like Whitmer, just isn't anywhere near enough to seal the deal - quite a lot of people can say exactly the same thing. Whereas Michelle Obama stepping forward as a unity candidate at time of national crisis may be.
Does it justify 25-1? No chance, as she's been very clear she's not interested. But there is a (slightly outlandish) story where it happens, whereas there just isn't for Whitmer at this point (even though she might be a contender in 2028).
Yes, too short at 25. I've laid back having backed her at 120 a while ago. She's still my best result (although anyone bar Trump is great for me).
Scenario: Biden can't run and something drastic is needed to prevent the utter catastrophe of Trump2. She is deemed to be "it" and is persuaded to do it.
Fair price for this? Very difficult to say because it's outside normal parameters and requires knowledge of people's health and deeply private mindsets.
25 too short, 250 too long, is about all I'd be confident of saying at this point.
The tricky thing about it is that it could be inside information. Externally "somebody knows something" and "a couple of well-heeled punters have lost their minds" will look the same until suddenly they don't.
Maybe, but Michelle Obama has been stupidly short odds for the nomination every cycle since 2016. It could be inside information, but it looks a lot like the same dumb money from the last 8 years.
Does 3.15 on Biden with bf make any sense to anyone - it makes no sense to me. MAGA money on the other side of the bet? Or what am I missing? I've topped up.
I'm pretty sure it's MAGA crypto money. The Biden price is wrong in two ways.
First, they think Biden is going to be replaced by Michelle Obama at the convention. They think Biden will be replaced because they believe the edited and/or fake videos circulated on right-wing media designed to fool people into thinking he has dementia. Then they think it's Michelle Obama because she's kind of an obsession of right-wing media, remember the Whitey Tape? So any market that names Biden (as opposed to the Dems) will be wrong.
Secondly, Donald Trump has come out in favour of crypto, in exchange for some very large donations. There's a lot of money to be made in being in favour of crypto because when Elizabeth Warren dropped and backed Biden after the complete electoral failure of her brand of technocratic left-populism, she got Biden to promise her control of the main financial regulation jobs. So when had some time left over from fining banks for letting staff send each other Whats App messages during covid and failing to preserve each and every lol and fml in line with his interpretation of an old regulation about inter-office memos, the SEC chairman filed some lawsuits based on the theory that nearly all crypto trading in the US is illegal. If successful this would shut down some large publicly-traded companies like coinbase, so these companies are now now spraying around campaign contributions like their lives depend on it. Trump has made some vague promises about supporting crypto but also some specific ones like pardoning Ross Ulbricht (an early dark market entrepreneur). This has got crypto people of a right-leaning persuasion incredibly excited and produced a move in the betting odds that probably isn't justified by the number of fucks the average Pennsylvania swing voter could give about crypto.
PS Basically all sizable political betting markets are crypto markets nowadays. It's a bit weird how little they're discussed here compared to all the long earnest threads we have about the 25p available on Betfair or whatever.
That's an interesting take - but last time I checked, nearly £20m had been matched on the Betfair presidential market.
That's what I'm talking about, Polymarket has done $174m on just one market.
On the biggest market - and isn't that also just a reflection of the size of the US economy versus the UK ? Looking at their odds, they imply a c.100% chance of M Obama being elected if she's the nominee. Which is a view.
Betfair isn't too far from that either - 20 for the NOM, 26 for the WH.
The latter market is a great opportunity to lay for free, if you're already short one of the two major candidates.
One take home is that despite changes in methodology (and inquests when it goes wrong) the Tory vote share is almost always higher than the polls. I think it will be so again. I just cannot believe that the Reform polling will turn into votes, and in the sanctity of the polling booth many who said never again, may well give it one last go (again).
I think this is why most on here are expecting a bigish Labour majority, but discounting the ludicrous (seeming) talk of super majorities.
But we will find out fairly soon. Is Reform the new Alliance from the 80's?
That's a bad example from which to argue that the Tory vote will be higher than in the polls.
By the way, in the ‘Heathener meets X,Y, and Z’ Series to which you are all now becoming accustomed and which annoys some, and helps others to make money ( ) …
I know of two people who are bitterly anti-migration to the UK, likely to vote Reform, but who are themselves migrants in other countries. One migrant is a pilot currently living in Germany. The other migrant is a rather well known MAGAloon on this board.
The irony.
People living in other countries shouldn't have the vote here. The idea that you can decide help decide laws that won't affect you is so obviously wrong it's a wonder it's not obvious to everyone.
The first generation immigrant side of my family is upset with immigration as it is currently done.
In their view, they came here to be British, not to import their culture and demand the place turns into their home country. They came here because it *wasn't* Peru.
Nothing wrong with importing other cultures as regards things like food, music, dress, language (in addition to English), leisure activities, sports affinities etc. In fact that's a good thing imo. You can have all that and at the same time be integrated in the important things - being full participation in the workplace and society generally, plus respect for the laws of the land.
That’s largely what they mean - they really dislike the “Death To The West, except the benefits” types.
As they see it, they came to a liberal European country deliberately. If you want fascism (religious, left, right), you should fuck off to somewhere selling that.
In Leicester East the LD Candidate is Zuffar Haq. He is a local councillor, very well known, a local Muslim and a passionate supporter of the NHS. With a split vote he is worth a flutter at 100-1. He is fighting a vigorous campaign.
1st like Labour, but not as much as current polling tells you
I know what you mean, but we've all been expecting swingback for ages, and it hasn't happened yet and there are- at most- 17 days to go.
(And for the 1 in 6 or so who vote by post, voting day is approximately now.)
Yep and those people are likely to be older voters.
I do, however, need to point out we have seen some swing back - note BigG’s change of vote
True, though BigG is unusual, in the ways most of us here are.
Partly in following the ebb and flow so closely. But also in having a partisan loyalty that, when push comes to shove, takes an awful lot to overcome.
(Really hope I've phrased that in a way that doesn't cause offence.)
Just a shame we had to read months of his rubbish when it always would come down to doing whatever his wife told him to do, with exactly the same trajectory and outcome as in 2019.
But I agree it's a straw in the wind and the betting value is surely in the Tory holds right now.
The whole "I had a conversation with my wife" thing is entirely him hiding behind her skirts to justify his reversion to the rut. It's his way of taking offence at any criticism by pretending that they're somehow attacking his wife. He's hair-trigger touchy these days. He's accused two different people of personal attacks in recent days when they were simply disagreeing with him or probing something he was saying that didn't sound right. But that's what happens when you adopt a position you yourself have spent months attacking. You're bound to be touchy.
Still, plenty of time for him to change his mind again and vote for Plaid Cymru and the future glory of an independent Wales. Cymru am byth!
Also, Gretchen Whitmer at 200/1 vs Michelle Obama at 25/1 ...
What's the logic there ?
I can at least see the logic of that (although agree the odds are way too short).
Take a situation where Biden is unable to stand in November. The very obvious replacement at the top of the ballot is Harris - not because she'd be a brilliant candidate but because she's VP (and potentially President if the reason for Biden's inability to stand was death or incapacity).
To displace Harris, the alternative would need an absolutely compelling case at the Democratic Convention (or DNC depending on when it arises). Being someone who might possibly have been a contender in a competed primary, like Whitmer, just isn't anywhere near enough to seal the deal - quite a lot of people can say exactly the same thing. Whereas Michelle Obama stepping forward as a unity candidate at time of national crisis may be.
Does it justify 25-1? No chance, as she's been very clear she's not interested. But there is a (slightly outlandish) story where it happens, whereas there just isn't for Whitmer at this point (even though she might be a contender in 2028).
Yes, too short at 25. I've laid back having backed her at 120 a while ago.
Scenario: Biden can't run and something drastic is needed to prevent the utter catastrophe of Trump2. She is deemed to be "it" and is persuaded to do it.
Fair price for this? Very difficult to say because it's outside normal parameters and requires knowledge of people's health and deeply private mindsets.
25 too short, 250 too long, is about all I'd be confident of saying at this point.
From what little I know about Obama, she was never a political being. She resisted her husband's entry into politics. I don't know whether she's come around to it personally, but without more information I'm suspicious of the idea that she'd be up for it.
Also, there are plenty of senior Dems who would feel that they are definitely better placed. There would certainly be some tug of war over the nomination in such a scenario.
...
I'd dispute the "never a political being" comment. She wasn't into party politics, but was active in the civil rights movement, and worked in the voluntary sector and city government in Chicago before her husband went into politics (when there was far more money available to her in the private sector - she's got a doctorate in law from Harvard). She was wary about Barack Obama going into elected office due to the attention it would bring, but was not apolitical or uninterested - far from it.
I'd also argue, if Biden was unavailable and in the unlikely event Michelle Obama was interested, a lot of the alternative runners would fall away very fast. Senators and state governors would be all very well in a primary season, going round getting themselves known. But Michelle Obama is instantly recognisable and extremely well liked by Democrats, so incredibly hard to get past in an emergency late candidate selection - you just don't have time to build a profile. In that scenario, I think it'd very quickly come down to her or Harris.
By the way, in the ‘Heathener meets X,Y, and Z’ Series to which you are all now becoming accustomed and which annoys some, and helps others to make money ( ) …
I know of two people who are bitterly anti-migration to the UK, likely to vote Reform, but who are themselves migrants in other countries. One migrant is a pilot currently living in Germany. The other migrant is a rather well known MAGAloon on this board.
The irony.
People living in other countries shouldn't have the vote here. The idea that you can decide help decide laws that won't affect you is so obviously wrong it's a wonder it's not obvious to everyone.
The first generation immigrant side of my family is upset with immigration as it is currently done.
In their view, they came here to be British, not to import their culture and demand the place turns into their home country. They came here because it *wasn't* Peru.
Nothing wrong with importing other cultures as regards things like food, music, dress, language (in addition to English), leisure activities, sports affinities etc. In fact that's a good thing imo. You can have all that and at the same time be integrated in the important things - being full participation in the workplace and society generally, plus respect for the laws of the land.
That’s largely what they mean - they really dislike the “Death To The West, except the benefits” types.
As they see it, they came to a liberal European country deliberately. If you want fascism (religious, left, right), you should fuck off to somewhere selling that.
One take home is that despite changes in methodology (and inquests when it goes wrong) the Tory vote share is almost always higher than the polls. I think it will be so again. I just cannot believe that the Reform polling will turn into votes, and in the sanctity of the polling booth many who said never again, may well give it one last go (again).
I think this is why most on here are expecting a bigish Labour majority, but discounting the ludicrous (seeming) talk of super majorities.
But we will find out fairly soon. Is Reform the new Alliance from the 80's?
That's a bad example from which to argue that the Tory vote will be higher than in the polls.
Does 3.15 on Biden with bf make any sense to anyone - it makes no sense to me. MAGA money on the other side of the bet? Or what am I missing? I've topped up.
I'm pretty sure it's MAGA crypto money. The Biden price is wrong in two ways.
First, they think Biden is going to be replaced by Michelle Obama at the convention. They think Biden will be replaced because they believe the edited and/or fake videos circulated on right-wing media designed to fool people into thinking he has dementia. Then they think it's Michelle Obama because she's kind of an obsession of right-wing media, remember the Whitey Tape? So any market that names Biden (as opposed to the Dems) will be wrong.
Secondly, Donald Trump has come out in favour of crypto, in exchange for some very large donations. There's a lot of money to be made in being in favour of crypto because when Elizabeth Warren dropped and backed Biden after the complete electoral failure of her brand of technocratic left-populism, she got Biden to promise her control of the main financial regulation jobs. So when had some time left over from fining banks for letting staff send each other Whats App messages during covid and failing to preserve each and every lol and fml in line with his interpretation of an old regulation about inter-office memos, the SEC chairman filed some lawsuits based on the theory that nearly all crypto trading in the US is illegal. If successful this would shut down some large publicly-traded companies like coinbase, so these companies are now now spraying around campaign contributions like their lives depend on it. Trump has made some vague promises about supporting crypto but also some specific ones like pardoning Ross Ulbricht (an early dark market entrepreneur). This has got crypto people of a right-leaning persuasion incredibly excited and produced a move in the betting odds that probably isn't justified by the number of fucks the average Pennsylvania swing voter could give about crypto.
PS Basically all sizable political betting markets are crypto markets nowadays. It's a bit weird how little they're discussed here compared to all the long earnest threads we have about the 25p available on Betfair or whatever.
That's an interesting take - but last time I checked, nearly £20m had been matched on the Betfair presidential market.
That's what I'm talking about, Polymarket has done $174m on just one market.
The volume figures are not directly comparable, at least under my understanding which may be incorrect. If £2 trades on Betfair at 100, it will count as £4 for volume (just double the number, whatever). On Polymarket it will count as £200 (it's as if a binary with a notional value of £200 traded).
As for crypto, I'm still waiting for (most of) my MtGox payout after more than a decade. I think nah to that.
Also, Gretchen Whitmer at 200/1 vs Michelle Obama at 25/1 ...
What's the logic there ?
I can at least see the logic of that (although agree the odds are way too short).
Take a situation where Biden is unable to stand in November. The very obvious replacement at the top of the ballot is Harris - not because she'd be a brilliant candidate but because she's VP (and potentially President if the reason for Biden's inability to stand was death or incapacity).
To displace Harris, the alternative would need an absolutely compelling case at the Democratic Convention (or DNC depending on when it arises). Being someone who might possibly have been a contender in a competed primary, like Whitmer, just isn't anywhere near enough to seal the deal - quite a lot of people can say exactly the same thing. Whereas Michelle Obama stepping forward as a unity candidate at time of national crisis may be.
Does it justify 25-1? No chance, as she's been very clear she's not interested. But there is a (slightly outlandish) story where it happens, whereas there just isn't for Whitmer at this point (even though she might be a contender in 2028).
Yes, too short at 25. I've laid back having backed her at 120 a while ago.
Scenario: Biden can't run and something drastic is needed to prevent the utter catastrophe of Trump2. She is deemed to be "it" and is persuaded to do it.
Fair price for this? Very difficult to say because it's outside normal parameters and requires knowledge of people's health and deeply private mindsets.
25 too short, 250 too long, is about all I'd be confident of saying at this point.
From what little I know about Obama, she was never a political being. She resisted her husband's entry into politics. I don't know whether she's come around to it personally, but without more information I'm suspicious of the idea that she'd be up for it. Also, there are plenty of senior Dems who would feel that they are definitely better placed. There would certainly be some tug of war over the nomination in such a scenario.
So: Is there a vacancy? No. What are the chances of a vacancy arising? = V%
Is Obama interested in being candidate? = C%
If she was interested, would she beat the competition? = W%
So the odds for the nomination are V*C*W%
Plugging in some completely made up numbers 10% * 25% * 33% = 120/1
I suspect the numbers I've just made up are all too high, but I really don't know. I wouldn't be surprised if someone with better knowledge put the result as well below 120/1.
Yes you could atomize it like that but I think this is more one for the sweeping intuitive approach. Fyi below is the post from Jan 22 where I made the case for her at 100/1.
In Leicester East the LD Candidate is Zuffar Haq. He is a local councillor, very well known, a local Muslim and a passionate supporter of the NHS. With a split vote he is worth a flutter at 100-1. He is fighting a vigorous campaign.
I'm always very suspicious when a candidate is tipped at 100-1 with candidates named and an election just days away. If that was coming through on the ground, that kind of insane value would be snapped up by campaigners involved in the seat (including opponents) and would swiftly disappear.
Fine when it's about who will be President or PM in a few years - it's all theories and there is lots of time for surprises. But not when doors are being knocked on and there actually is data that some people at least have.
On topic, my feeling is that Labour should be closer to 1/3 in Dewsbury & Batley. The constituency is majority (51%) Muslim, Independents nearly swept the board at the locals in May (looking back I didn't calculate the numbers but Labour dropped, I reckon, 20+% in the relevant wards), I'm not sure that the Gaza related animus will not scale to a GE, and the contender is pretty clear.
I reckon Gaza could easily account for a handful of failed defences - which may or may not include Rochdale - and D&B is right up there.
Also, Gretchen Whitmer at 200/1 vs Michelle Obama at 25/1 ...
What's the logic there ?
I can at least see the logic of that (although agree the odds are way too short).
Take a situation where Biden is unable to stand in November. The very obvious replacement at the top of the ballot is Harris - not because she'd be a brilliant candidate but because she's VP (and potentially President if the reason for Biden's inability to stand was death or incapacity).
To displace Harris, the alternative would need an absolutely compelling case at the Democratic Convention (or DNC depending on when it arises). Being someone who might possibly have been a contender in a competed primary, like Whitmer, just isn't anywhere near enough to seal the deal - quite a lot of people can say exactly the same thing. Whereas Michelle Obama stepping forward as a unity candidate at time of national crisis may be.
Does it justify 25-1? No chance, as she's been very clear she's not interested. But there is a (slightly outlandish) story where it happens, whereas there just isn't for Whitmer at this point (even though she might be a contender in 2028).
Yes, too short at 25. I've laid back having backed her at 120 a while ago.
Scenario: Biden can't run and something drastic is needed to prevent the utter catastrophe of Trump2. She is deemed to be "it" and is persuaded to do it.
Fair price for this? Very difficult to say because it's outside normal parameters and requires knowledge of people's health and deeply private mindsets.
25 too short, 250 too long, is about all I'd be confident of saying at this point.
From what little I know about Obama, she was never a political being. She resisted her husband's entry into politics. I don't know whether she's come around to it personally, but without more information I'm suspicious of the idea that she'd be up for it.
Also, there are plenty of senior Dems who would feel that they are definitely better placed. There would certainly be some tug of war over the nomination in such a scenario.
...
I'd dispute the "never a political being" comment. She wasn't into party politics, but was active in the civil rights movement, and worked in the voluntary sector and city government in Chicago before her husband went into politics (when there was far more money available to her in the private sector - she's got a doctorate in law from Harvard). She was wary about Barack Obama going into elected office due to the attention it would bring, but was not apolitical or uninterested - far from it.
I'd also argue, if Biden was unavailable and in the unlikely event Michelle Obama was interested, a lot of the alternative runners would fall away very fast. Senators and state governors would be all very well in a primary season, going round getting themselves known. But Michelle Obama is instantly recognisable and extremely well liked by Democrats, so incredibly hard to get past in an emergency late candidate selection - you just don't have time to build a profile. In that scenario, I think it'd very quickly come down to her or Harris.
Oh, that's a really vital correction, thank you. I of course meant not a party political being. She was certainly into politics as a wider concept, just as you said. Thanks for that.
You're right that she has a profile, but Harris is a vital point to raise. If it was just Harris and Obama I wouldn't give Obama a one in three chance. The fact that there might be other people interested who do have decent profiles only lowers Obama's chances further. Obama would represent a huge gamble on a party-politically unknown quantity. She's known, but can she actually do the job? Maybe, but I don't think anybody knows because she's never done it. Being next to the limelight is different to being its focus. She might be great, or she might come apart. Would the Dems risk it when you've got a known quantity available?
Does 3.15 on Biden with bf make any sense to anyone - it makes no sense to me. MAGA money on the other side of the bet? Or what am I missing? I've topped up.
I'm pretty sure it's MAGA crypto money. The Biden price is wrong in two ways.
First, they think Biden is going to be replaced by Michelle Obama at the convention. They think Biden will be replaced because they believe the edited and/or fake videos circulated on right-wing media designed to fool people into thinking he has dementia. Then they think it's Michelle Obama because she's kind of an obsession of right-wing media, remember the Whitey Tape? So any market that names Biden (as opposed to the Dems) will be wrong.
Secondly, Donald Trump has come out in favour of crypto, in exchange for some very large donations. There's a lot of money to be made in being in favour of crypto because when Elizabeth Warren dropped and backed Biden after the complete electoral failure of her brand of technocratic left-populism, she got Biden to promise her control of the main financial regulation jobs. So when had some time left over from fining banks for letting staff send each other Whats App messages during covid and failing to preserve each and every lol and fml in line with his interpretation of an old regulation about inter-office memos, the SEC chairman filed some lawsuits based on the theory that nearly all crypto trading in the US is illegal. If successful this would shut down some large publicly-traded companies like coinbase, so these companies are now now spraying around campaign contributions like their lives depend on it. Trump has made some vague promises about supporting crypto but also some specific ones like pardoning Ross Ulbricht (an early dark market entrepreneur). This has got crypto people of a right-leaning persuasion incredibly excited and produced a move in the betting odds that probably isn't justified by the number of fucks the average Pennsylvania swing voter could give about crypto.
PS Basically all sizable political betting markets are crypto markets nowadays. It's a bit weird how little they're discussed here compared to all the long earnest threads we have about the 25p available on Betfair or whatever.
A problem for UK based punters with crypto betting in size is that it falls into investment and CGT liabilities and mandatory reporting, whenever money is changed between real and crypto currencies.
1st like Labour, but not as much as current polling tells you
I know what you mean, but we've all been expecting swingback for ages, and it hasn't happened yet and there are- at most- 17 days to go.
(And for the 1 in 6 or so who vote by post, voting day is approximately now.)
Yep and those people are likely to be older voters.
I do, however, need to point out we have seen some swing back - note BigG’s change of vote
True, though BigG is unusual, in the ways most of us here are.
Partly in following the ebb and flow so closely. But also in having a partisan loyalty that, when push comes to shove, takes an awful lot to overcome.
(Really hope I've phrased that in a way that doesn't cause offence.)
Just a shame we had to read months of his rubbish when it always would come down to doing whatever his wife told him to do, with exactly the same trajectory and outcome as in 2019.
But I agree it's a straw in the wind and the betting value is surely in the Tory holds right now.
The whole "I had a conversation with my wife" thing is entirely him hiding behind her skirts to justify his reversion to the rut. It's his way of taking offence at any criticism by pretending that they're somehow attacking his wife. He's hair-trigger touchy these days. He's accused two different people of personal attacks in recent days when they were simply disagreeing with him or probing something he was saying that didn't sound right. But that's what happens when you adopt a position you yourself have spent months attacking. You're bound to be touchy.
Still, plenty of time for him to change his mind again and vote for Plaid Cymru and the future glory of an independent Wales. Cymru am byth!
Time to leave Big_G alone, I think.
I was happy to gently take the piss when he announced his 'shock' decision, but it's really unfair to continue attacking a single PBer for what isn't a particularly outlandish decision. He understandably touchy if everyone continues piling on.
In Leicester East the LD Candidate is Zuffar Haq. He is a local councillor, very well known, a local Muslim and a passionate supporter of the NHS. With a split vote he is worth a flutter at 100-1. He is fighting a vigorous campaign.
I'm always very suspicious when a candidate is tipped at 100-1 with candidates named and an election just days away. If that was coming through on the ground, that kind of insane value would be snapped up by campaigners involved in the seat (including opponents) and would swiftly disappear.
Fine when it's about who will be President or PM in a few years - it's all theories and there is lots of time for surprises. But not when doors are being knocked on and there actually is data that some people at least have.
They got 5.7% last time and lost deposits in 17 and 15, there is no means by which they surpass Labour and the indies and Con this time. 100/1 is spot on I'd say.
(1)In this Act “Leader of the Opposition” means, in relation to either House of Parliament, that Member of that House who is for the time being the Leader in that House of the party in opposition to Her Majesty’s Government having the greatest numerical strength in the House of Commons; and “Chief Opposition Whip” means, in relation to either House of Parliament, the person for the time being nominated as such by the Leader of the Opposition in that House; and “Assistant Opposition Whip”, in relation to the House of Commons, means a person for the time being nominated as such, and to be paid as such, by the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons.
(2)If any doubt arises as to which is or was at any material time the party in opposition to Her Majesty’s Government having the greatest numerical strength in the House of Commons, or as to who is or was at any material time the leader in that House of such a party, the question shall be decided for the purposes of this Act by the Speaker of the House of Commons, and his decision, certified in writing under his hand, shall be final and conclusive.
(3)If any doubt arises as to who is or was at any material time the Leader in the House of Lords of the said party, the question shall be decided for the purposes of this Act by the Speaker of the House of Lords, and his decision, certified in writing under his hand, shall be final and conclusive.
On thread. Apart from Bristol Central (as tipped by Pip) and Corbyn's seat (covered in the discussion below), the other Labour seat that I would pick as being really in the balance is Birmingham Ladywood, where Shabana Mahmood is defending against Yakoob the Independent candidate.
Yakoob got 12% of the vote running on a Gaza ticket in the West Midlands Mayoral election and 20% in Birmingham, a vote almost entirely gathered from the Muslim electorate. The Muslim population in Birmingham Ladywood amounts to a higher share of the electorate than in any other seat in the West Midlands, that is why Yakoob has chosen that seat. Clearly Yakoob beat Parker in that constituency in the West Midlands election. And he must be running an extremely strong local ground game there to add to his strong social media presence, because I saw his ground game at first hand in the mayoral election - it was extremely strong and yet far harder to deliver because it was not concentrated in one constituency alone.
So I think Shabana Mahmood has her work cut out, which is a shame because I rate her. Hopefully her constituents do so to - 79% of the vote in 2019 was pretty impressive. Perhaps she'll prevail in the context of a general election as opposed to a mayoral election which might be regarded as the opportunity for a protest vote.
The current best odds in the constituency are Labour 1/10 on, Yakoob 6/1. When there is a joker in the pack with a proven ability to shake things up, no defending candidate should be very heavily odds on, so I think Yakoob offers very good value at 6/1. Having said that I won't be taking my own advice, no way am I going to try and make money backing a dodgy misogynist lawyer of that ilk.
I'll vote Labour if Starmer promises that bastards who try to steal campervans are poisoned with radiation so they die slowly and painfully from various cancers, and all their family sold unto slavery and prostitution. Gonna cost me a fortune as they messed with the obd socket and fuse box. If I go through the insurance, my premium will be a billion pounds next year. Dorset police were quick off the mark to wash their hands of it. Probably got some cows that need running over.
Question: To form a Government you can form a coalition, but can you do that for official opposition? This has not been relevant before, but say the Tories lead the LDs by a seat or two can the LDs form a coalition with the Alliance (their sister party) and then be the official opposition? Could the Tories counter with the DUP (who are not a sister party)? And does this happen already really re Lab and Coop, or Conservative or LD which have separate parties north and south of the border?
Specifically if the Tories are on say 70 seats and the LDs on 68 seats and the Alliance on 3 seats who is the official opposition?
The relevant Commons standing order says, "For the purposes of this order ‘the second largest opposition party’ shall be that party, of those not represented in Her Majesty’s Government, which has the second largest number of Members elected to the House as members of that party." But, I think, yes, Parliamentary parties can declare themselves to be a single party. Alliance members of the Lords take the LibDem whip already, so Alliance buddying up with the LibDems seems very doable, but Alliance at very most are going to win 3 seats, so you need the Tories and LDs to be very close for this to matter.
All Coop MPs are also Labour MPs, so it's not comparable.
The Conservative and LD parties north of the border are not separate. They are part of the larger, national party.
Reflecting on @Malmesbury's love of marmalade sandwiches, and Scotland vs Germany, a word reoccurs that I have not heard for some time.
"marmelise".
As in "Scotland were marmelised by Germany in the football match."
Does anyone know of the origins of this?
It was everywhere when I was in short trousers. The best I have is a blend of "marmalade" and "pulverise".
OED says it's slang, esp. Liverpool. To thrash, crush, defeat decisively. Earliest entru is Liverpool Daily Post discussion of murder in 1950.
It seems to nbe used quite a bit in soccer. eg Liverpool Echo 1957.
We alwis 'ad someone keepin' nix for the scuffers or case some big fellas tried to naller the ball. They useter marmalise us, 'ad us scurred uv are lifes.
Also, Gretchen Whitmer at 200/1 vs Michelle Obama at 25/1 ...
What's the logic there ?
I can at least see the logic of that (although agree the odds are way too short).
Take a situation where Biden is unable to stand in November. The very obvious replacement at the top of the ballot is Harris - not because she'd be a brilliant candidate but because she's VP (and potentially President if the reason for Biden's inability to stand was death or incapacity).
To displace Harris, the alternative would need an absolutely compelling case at the Democratic Convention (or DNC depending on when it arises). Being someone who might possibly have been a contender in a competed primary, like Whitmer, just isn't anywhere near enough to seal the deal - quite a lot of people can say exactly the same thing. Whereas Michelle Obama stepping forward as a unity candidate at time of national crisis may be.
Does it justify 25-1? No chance, as she's been very clear she's not interested. But there is a (slightly outlandish) story where it happens, whereas there just isn't for Whitmer at this point (even though she might be a contender in 2028).
Yes, too short at 25. I've laid back having backed her at 120 a while ago.
Scenario: Biden can't run and something drastic is needed to prevent the utter catastrophe of Trump2. She is deemed to be "it" and is persuaded to do it.
Fair price for this? Very difficult to say because it's outside normal parameters and requires knowledge of people's health and deeply private mindsets.
25 too short, 250 too long, is about all I'd be confident of saying at this point.
From what little I know about Obama, she was never a political being. She resisted her husband's entry into politics. I don't know whether she's come around to it personally, but without more information I'm suspicious of the idea that she'd be up for it. Also, there are plenty of senior Dems who would feel that they are definitely better placed. There would certainly be some tug of war over the nomination in such a scenario.
So: Is there a vacancy? No. What are the chances of a vacancy arising? = V%
Is Obama interested in being candidate? = C%
If she was interested, would she beat the competition? = W%
So the odds for the nomination are V*C*W%
Plugging in some completely made up numbers 10% * 25% * 33% = 120/1
I suspect the numbers I've just made up are all too high, but I really don't know. I wouldn't be surprised if someone with better knowledge put the result as well below 120/1.
Yes you could atomize it like that but I think this is more one for the sweeping intuitive approach. Fyi below is the post from Jan 22 where I made the case for her at 100/1.
Hmmm. Fun post but not a serious analysis. US politics isn't Star Wars. Which isn't to say that the intuitive approach isn't valueless: it can sometimes work to de-focus your mind from the spreadsheet approach and list to the music of the universe instead. But that kind of approach leads too easily into the politics of predestination and of events being shaped around character arcs. That's not how the world works. Intuition relies on allowing true ideas to find their own shape unconstrained by forcing narratives onto them. Trying to map reality onto a film you've seen is just a different kind of constraint, and not a reliable one.
Reflecting on @Malmesbury's love of marmalade sandwiches, and Scotland vs Germany, a word reoccurs that I have not heard for some time.
"marmelise".
As in "Scotland were marmelised by Germany in the football match."
Does anyone know of the origins of this?
It was everywhere when I was in short trousers. The best I have is a blend of "marmalade" and "pulverise".
Liverpool/Irish slang, later popularised by Kenn Dodd, apparently.
..It’s long-established Liverpool-Irish slang, said to be from marmalade plus pulverise. Its earliest known appearance in print is in Lern Yerself Scouse: How to Talk Proper in Liverpool by Frank Shaw, Fritz Spiegl and Stan Kelly: “I’ll marmalise yer. / will chastise you severely.” On rare occasions it has appeared in more exalted company:
"It was the time of what was called “the slag heap affair” a complicated allegation that one of Wilson’s aides had surreptitiously acquired disused colliery land and was selling it off at an exorbitant profit. Tory backbenchers were trying desperately to involve the prime minister in what was, at worst, a minor error of judgment, and Mintoff was given a detailed account of the depths to which they would stoop during Question Time at a quarter past three. “How will you deal with it?” the honoured guest enquired. Wilson paused before he gave his carefully considered answer. “In the words of Ken Dodd, our great national comedian, I shall marmalise ’em.” And he did." Roy Hattersley, writing in the Sunday Times, 5 Dec. 1993. ...
Also, Gretchen Whitmer at 200/1 vs Michelle Obama at 25/1 ...
What's the logic there ?
I can at least see the logic of that (although agree the odds are way too short).
Take a situation where Biden is unable to stand in November. The very obvious replacement at the top of the ballot is Harris - not because she'd be a brilliant candidate but because she's VP (and potentially President if the reason for Biden's inability to stand was death or incapacity).
To displace Harris, the alternative would need an absolutely compelling case at the Democratic Convention (or DNC depending on when it arises). Being someone who might possibly have been a contender in a competed primary, like Whitmer, just isn't anywhere near enough to seal the deal - quite a lot of people can say exactly the same thing. Whereas Michelle Obama stepping forward as a unity candidate at time of national crisis may be.
Does it justify 25-1? No chance, as she's been very clear she's not interested. But there is a (slightly outlandish) story where it happens, whereas there just isn't for Whitmer at this point (even though she might be a contender in 2028).
Yes, too short at 25. I've laid back having backed her at 120 a while ago. She's still my best result (although anyone bar Trump is great for me).
Scenario: Biden can't run and something drastic is needed to prevent the utter catastrophe of Trump2. She is deemed to be "it" and is persuaded to do it.
Fair price for this? Very difficult to say because it's outside normal parameters and requires knowledge of people's health and deeply private mindsets.
25 too short, 250 too long, is about all I'd be confident of saying at this point.
The tricky thing about it is that it could be inside information. Externally "somebody knows something" and "a couple of well-heeled punters have lost their minds" will look the same until suddenly they don't.
Maybe, but Michelle Obama has been stupidly short odds for the nomination every cycle since 2016. It could be inside information, but it looks a lot like the same dumb money from the last 8 years.
But she wasn't stupidly short 2 years ago. She was 3 digits.
It's only since the Trump2 threat has got deadly serious (due to a combination of Biden's physical frailty, the GOP's craven cowardice, and what the swing state polls are saying) that she's come in to this 20 sort of price.
Agree it's far too short now - but it was too long before. People were mugs not doing it.
Also, Gretchen Whitmer at 200/1 vs Michelle Obama at 25/1 ...
What's the logic there ?
I can at least see the logic of that (although agree the odds are way too short).
Take a situation where Biden is unable to stand in November. The very obvious replacement at the top of the ballot is Harris - not because she'd be a brilliant candidate but because she's VP (and potentially President if the reason for Biden's inability to stand was death or incapacity).
To displace Harris, the alternative would need an absolutely compelling case at the Democratic Convention (or DNC depending on when it arises). Being someone who might possibly have been a contender in a competed primary, like Whitmer, just isn't anywhere near enough to seal the deal - quite a lot of people can say exactly the same thing. Whereas Michelle Obama stepping forward as a unity candidate at time of national crisis may be.
Does it justify 25-1? No chance, as she's been very clear she's not interested. But there is a (slightly outlandish) story where it happens, whereas there just isn't for Whitmer at this point (even though she might be a contender in 2028).
Yes, too short at 25. I've laid back having backed her at 120 a while ago.
Scenario: Biden can't run and something drastic is needed to prevent the utter catastrophe of Trump2. She is deemed to be "it" and is persuaded to do it.
Fair price for this? Very difficult to say because it's outside normal parameters and requires knowledge of people's health and deeply private mindsets.
25 too short, 250 too long, is about all I'd be confident of saying at this point.
From what little I know about Obama, she was never a political being. She resisted her husband's entry into politics. I don't know whether she's come around to it personally, but without more information I'm suspicious of the idea that she'd be up for it.
Also, there are plenty of senior Dems who would feel that they are definitely better placed. There would certainly be some tug of war over the nomination in such a scenario.
...
I'd dispute the "never a political being" comment. She wasn't into party politics, but was active in the civil rights movement, and worked in the voluntary sector and city government in Chicago before her husband went into politics (when there was far more money available to her in the private sector - she's got a doctorate in law from Harvard). She was wary about Barack Obama going into elected office due to the attention it would bring, but was not apolitical or uninterested - far from it.
I'd also argue, if Biden was unavailable and in the unlikely event Michelle Obama was interested, a lot of the alternative runners would fall away very fast. Senators and state governors would be all very well in a primary season, going round getting themselves known. But Michelle Obama is instantly recognisable and extremely well liked by Democrats, so incredibly hard to get past in an emergency late candidate selection - you just don't have time to build a profile. In that scenario, I think it'd very quickly come down to her or Harris.
Oh, that's a really vital correction, thank you. I of course meant not a party political being. She was certainly into politics as a wider concept, just as you said. Thanks for that.
You're right that she has a profile, but Harris is a vital point to raise. If it was just Harris and Obama I wouldn't give Obama a one in three chance. The fact that there might be other people interested who do have decent profiles only lowers Obama's chances further. Obama would represent a huge gamble on a party-politically unknown quantity. She's known, but can she actually do the job? Maybe, but I don't think anybody knows because she's never done it. Being next to the limelight is different to being its focus. She might be great, or she might come apart. Would the Dems risk it when you've got a known quantity available?
She simply isn't interested except in the minds of MAGAs. There is no way she puts her name forward unless the MAGAs have invented a new mind meld technique.
On thread. Apart from Bristol Central (as tipped by Pip) and Corbyn's seat (covered in the discussion below), the other Labour seat that I would pick as being really in the balance is Birmingham Ladywood, where Shabana Mahmood is defending against Yakoob the Independent candidate.
Yakoob got 12% of the vote running on a Gaza ticket in the West Midlands Mayoral election and 20% in Birmingham, a vote almost entirely gathered from the Muslim electorate. The Muslim population in Birmingham Ladywood amounts to a higher share of the electorate than in any other seat in the West Midlands, that is why Yakoob has chosen that seat. Clearly Yakoob beat Parker in that constituency in the West Midlands election. And he must be running an extremely strong local ground game there to add to his strong social media presence, because I saw his ground game at first hand in the mayoral election - it was extremely strong and yet far harder to deliver because it was not concentrated in one constituency alone.
So I think Shabana Mahmood has her work cut out, which is a shame because I rate her. Hopefully her constituents do so to - 79% of the vote in 2019 was pretty impressive. Perhaps she'll prevail in the context of a general election as opposed to a mayoral election which might be regarded as the opportunity for a protest vote.
The current best odds in the constituency are Labour 1/10 on, Yakoob 6/1. When there is a joker in the pack with a proven ability to shake things up, no defending candidate should be very heavily odds on, so I think Yakoob offers very good value at 6/1. Having said that I won't be taking my own advice, no way am I going to try and make money backing a dodgy misogynist lawyer of that ilk.
It's this factor and the fact he is campaigning alongside him with mutual support and Labour's travails in Birmingham that makes the 10/1 on Jody McIntyre in Yardley value against Jess P. She should hold but it will be much closer I think than 10/1 suggests
On topic, my feeling is that Labour should be closer to 1/3 in Dewsbury & Batley. The constituency is majority (51%) Muslim, Independents nearly swept the board at the locals in May (looking back I didn't calculate the numbers but Labour dropped, I reckon, 20+% in the relevant wards), I'm not sure that the Gaza related animus will not scale to a GE, and the contender is pretty clear.
I reckon Gaza could easily account for a handful of failed defences - which may or may not include Rochdale - and D&B is right up there.
Does 3.15 on Biden with bf make any sense to anyone - it makes no sense to me. MAGA money on the other side of the bet? Or what am I missing? I've topped up.
I'm pretty sure it's MAGA crypto money. The Biden price is wrong in two ways.
First, they think Biden is going to be replaced by Michelle Obama at the convention. They think Biden will be replaced because they believe the edited and/or fake videos circulated on right-wing media designed to fool people into thinking he has dementia. Then they think it's Michelle Obama because she's kind of an obsession of right-wing media, remember the Whitey Tape? So any market that names Biden (as opposed to the Dems) will be wrong.
Secondly, Donald Trump has come out in favour of crypto, in exchange for some very large donations. There's a lot of money to be made in being in favour of crypto because when Elizabeth Warren dropped and backed Biden after the complete electoral failure of her brand of technocratic left-populism, she got Biden to promise her control of the main financial regulation jobs. So when had some time left over from fining banks for letting staff send each other Whats App messages during covid and failing to preserve each and every lol and fml in line with his interpretation of an old regulation about inter-office memos, the SEC chairman filed some lawsuits based on the theory that nearly all crypto trading in the US is illegal. If successful this would shut down some large publicly-traded companies like coinbase, so these companies are now now spraying around campaign contributions like their lives depend on it. Trump has made some vague promises about supporting crypto but also some specific ones like pardoning Ross Ulbricht (an early dark market entrepreneur). This has got crypto people of a right-leaning persuasion incredibly excited and produced a move in the betting odds that probably isn't justified by the number of fucks the average Pennsylvania swing voter could give about crypto.
PS Basically all sizable political betting markets are crypto markets nowadays. It's a bit weird how little they're discussed here compared to all the long earnest threads we have about the 25p available on Betfair or whatever.
That's an interesting take - but last time I checked, nearly £20m had been matched on the Betfair presidential market.
That's what I'm talking about, Polymarket has done $174m on just one market.
On the biggest market - and isn't that also just a reflection of the size of the US economy versus the UK ? Looking at their odds, they imply a c.100% chance of M Obama being elected if she's the nominee. Which is a view.
Betfair isn't too far from that either - 20 for the NOM, 26 for the WH.
The latter market is a great opportunity to lay for free, if you're already short one of the two major candidates.
Well between you and me I have now laid more than my stake back.
But my big lays for free (ie up to my Trump exposure) are all GOP roasters like Tucker Carlson. I've laid Kennedy to flat also. That's not happening.
Question: To form a Government you can form a coalition, but can you do that for official opposition? This has not been relevant before, but say the Tories lead the LDs by a seat or two can the LDs form a coalition with the Alliance (their sister party) and then be the official opposition? Could the Tories counter with the DUP (who are not a sister party)? And does this happen already really re Lab and Coop, or Conservative or LD which have separate parties north and south of the border?
Specifically if the Tories are on say 70 seats and the LDs on 68 seats and the Alliance on 3 seats who is the official opposition?
The relevant Commons standing order says, "For the purposes of this order ‘the second largest opposition party’ shall be that party, of those not represented in Her Majesty’s Government, which has the second largest number of Members elected to the House as members of that party." But, I think, yes, Parliamentary parties can declare themselves to be a single party. Alliance members of the Lords take the LibDem whip already, so Alliance buddying up with the LibDems seems very doable, but Alliance at very most are going to win 3 seats, so you need the Tories and LDs to be very close for this to matter.
All Coop MPs are also Labour MPs, so it's not comparable.
The Conservative and LD parties north of the border are not separate. They are part of the larger, national party.
In Leicester East the LD Candidate is Zuffar Haq. He is a local councillor, very well known, a local Muslim and a passionate supporter of the NHS. With a split vote he is worth a flutter at 100-1. He is fighting a vigorous campaign.
I'm always very suspicious when a candidate is tipped at 100-1 with candidates named and an election just days away. If that was coming through on the ground, that kind of insane value would be snapped up by campaigners involved in the seat (including opponents) and would swiftly disappear.
Fine when it's about who will be President or PM in a few years - it's all theories and there is lots of time for surprises. But not when doors are being knocked on and there actually is data that some people at least have.
They got 5.7% last time and lost deposits in 17 and 15, there is no means by which they surpass Labour and the indies and Con this time. 100/1 is spot on I'd say.
Fair point, but the 100-1 is ludicrous. In the Evington Ward of this constituency he topped the poll last year with 1891 votes seeing off 2 Conservative candidates. The 2 former labour MPs standing as independents must split the vote as Keith Vaz still has a lot of local supporters. If I had been advising the bookies I would have priced him at about 8-1. So there must be value at 100-1.
On topic, my feeling is that Labour should be closer to 1/3 in Dewsbury & Batley. The constituency is majority (51%) Muslim, Independents nearly swept the board at the locals in May (looking back I didn't calculate the numbers but Labour dropped, I reckon, 20+% in the relevant wards), I'm not sure that the Gaza related animus will not scale to a GE, and the contender is pretty clear.
I reckon Gaza could easily account for a handful of failed defences - which may or may not include Rochdale - and D&B is right up there.
Reports from yesterday of Labour sending resources to shore up support in some seats with a large Muslim vote. No specific mention of Dewsbury though.
There are some odd things at play this time. A huge swing to Labour should achieve the same or better than 1997, but as has been suggested its likely that it won't be without a few odd results, greens in Bristol and muslim vote in certain places. Are there the value bets?
Question: To form a Government you can form a coalition, but can you do that for official opposition? This has not been relevant before, but say the Tories lead the LDs by a seat or two can the LDs form a coalition with the Alliance (their sister party) and then be the official opposition? Could the Tories counter with the DUP (who are not a sister party)? And does this happen already really re Lab and Coop, or Conservative or LD which have separate parties north and south of the border?
Specifically if the Tories are on say 70 seats and the LDs on 68 seats and the Alliance on 3 seats who is the official opposition?
The relevant Commons standing order says, "For the purposes of this order ‘the second largest opposition party’ shall be that party, of those not represented in Her Majesty’s Government, which has the second largest number of Members elected to the House as members of that party." But, I think, yes, Parliamentary parties can declare themselves to be a single party. Alliance members of the Lords take the LibDem whip already, so Alliance buddying up with the LibDems seems very doable, but Alliance at very most are going to win 3 seats, so you need the Tories and LDs to be very close for this to matter.
All Coop MPs are also Labour MPs, so it's not comparable.
The Conservative and LD parties north of the border are not separate. They are part of the larger, national party.
In Leicester East the LD Candidate is Zuffar Haq. He is a local councillor, very well known, a local Muslim and a passionate supporter of the NHS. With a split vote he is worth a flutter at 100-1. He is fighting a vigorous campaign.
I'm always very suspicious when a candidate is tipped at 100-1 with candidates named and an election just days away. If that was coming through on the ground, that kind of insane value would be snapped up by campaigners involved in the seat (including opponents) and would swiftly disappear.
Fine when it's about who will be President or PM in a few years - it's all theories and there is lots of time for surprises. But not when doors are being knocked on and there actually is data that some people at least have.
They got 5.7% last time and lost deposits in 17 and 15, there is no means by which they surpass Labour and the indies and Con this time. 100/1 is spot on I'd say.
Fair point, but the 100-1 is ludicrous. In the Evington Ward of this constituency he topped the poll last year with 1891 votes seeing off 2 Conservative candidates. The 2 former labour MPs standing as independents must split the vote as Keith Vaz still has a lot of local supporters. If I had been advising the bookies I would have priced him at about 8-1. So there must be value at 100-1.
I just don't see it. It's too much of a climb. 8/1 is way too short, Con, Lab and the indies cover 90% of the 2019 vote (Reform get another 2.5%) you don't break down that in one go and the 90% will be switching around within themselves not jumping to an entirely different party. The LDs simply won't be heard in that maelstrom. In my opinion of course
Does 3.15 on Biden with bf make any sense to anyone - it makes no sense to me. MAGA money on the other side of the bet? Or what am I missing? I've topped up.
I'm pretty sure it's MAGA crypto money. The Biden price is wrong in two ways.
First, they think Biden is going to be replaced by Michelle Obama at the convention. They think Biden will be replaced because they believe the edited and/or fake videos circulated on right-wing media designed to fool people into thinking he has dementia. Then they think it's Michelle Obama because she's kind of an obsession of right-wing media, remember the Whitey Tape? So any market that names Biden (as opposed to the Dems) will be wrong.
Secondly, Donald Trump has come out in favour of crypto, in exchange for some very large donations. There's a lot of money to be made in being in favour of crypto because when Elizabeth Warren dropped and backed Biden after the complete electoral failure of her brand of technocratic left-populism, she got Biden to promise her control of the main financial regulation jobs. So when had some time left over from fining banks for letting staff send each other Whats App messages during covid and failing to preserve each and every lol and fml in line with his interpretation of an old regulation about inter-office memos, the SEC chairman filed some lawsuits based on the theory that nearly all crypto trading in the US is illegal. If successful this would shut down some large publicly-traded companies like coinbase, so these companies are now now spraying around campaign contributions like their lives depend on it. Trump has made some vague promises about supporting crypto but also some specific ones like pardoning Ross Ulbricht (an early dark market entrepreneur). This has got crypto people of a right-leaning persuasion incredibly excited and produced a move in the betting odds that probably isn't justified by the number of fucks the average Pennsylvania swing voter could give about crypto.
PS Basically all sizable political betting markets are crypto markets nowadays. It's a bit weird how little they're discussed here compared to all the long earnest threads we have about the 25p available on Betfair or whatever.
That's an interesting take - but last time I checked, nearly £20m had been matched on the Betfair presidential market.
That's what I'm talking about, Polymarket has done $174m on just one market.
On the biggest market - and isn't that also just a reflection of the size of the US economy versus the UK ? Looking at their odds, they imply a c.100% chance of M Obama being elected if she's the nominee. Which is a view.
Betfair isn't too far from that either - 20 for the NOM, 26 for the WH.
The latter market is a great opportunity to lay for free, if you're already short one of the two major candidates.
Well between you and me I have now laid more than my stake back.
But my big lays for free (ie up to my Trump exposure) are all GOP roasters like Tucker Carlson. I've laid Kennedy to flat also. That's not happening.
RFK Jnr is reportedly running low on cash now, too. (Possibly of no more perceived use to his GOP backers ?)
Good bit of data vis here - Labour targeting ads at some seats with 20k+ majorities - meanwhile on the Tory side no ads, and after 80/20 got filed in the circular receptacle - no plan.
Totally o/t but I've just spent an a frustrating hour trying to get a 'verified by visa' payment through. Kept coming up that either the password or the confirmatory number was wrong. Eventually, when I finally got through to my bank `I was told that 'customers were having problems with passwords with "@"'s in them', which I'd got instead of an 'a', having been told at some point that it was a Good Idea.
Question: To form a Government you can form a coalition, but can you do that for official opposition? This has not been relevant before, but say the Tories lead the LDs by a seat or two can the LDs form a coalition with the Alliance (their sister party) and then be the official opposition? Could the Tories counter with the DUP (who are not a sister party)? And does this happen already really re Lab and Coop, or Conservative or LD which have separate parties north and south of the border?
Specifically if the Tories are on say 70 seats and the LDs on 68 seats and the Alliance on 3 seats who is the official opposition?
The relevant Commons standing order says, "For the purposes of this order ‘the second largest opposition party’ shall be that party, of those not represented in Her Majesty’s Government, which has the second largest number of Members elected to the House as members of that party." But, I think, yes, Parliamentary parties can declare themselves to be a single party. Alliance members of the Lords take the LibDem whip already, so Alliance buddying up with the LibDems seems very doable, but Alliance at very most are going to win 3 seats, so you need the Tories and LDs to be very close for this to matter.
All Coop MPs are also Labour MPs, so it's not comparable.
The Conservative and LD parties north of the border are not separate. They are part of the larger, national party.
But the Scosn and SLDs *are* separate for electoral law. (But not Slab.)
Comments
Take a situation where Biden is unable to stand in November. The very obvious replacement at the top of the ballot is Harris - not because she'd be a brilliant candidate but because she's VP (and potentially President if the reason for Biden's inability to stand was death or incapacity).
To displace Harris, the alternative would need an absolutely compelling case at the Democratic Convention (or DNC depending on when it arises). Being someone who might possibly have been a contender in a competed primary, like Whitmer, just isn't anywhere near enough to seal the deal - quite a lot of people can say exactly the same thing. Whereas Michelle Obama stepping forward as a unity candidate at time of national crisis may be.
Does it justify 25-1? No chance, as she's been very clear she's not interested. But there is a (slightly outlandish) story where it happens, whereas there just isn't for Whitmer at this point (even though she might be a contender in 2028).
I know the constituency well and with Reform standing I'll be surprised if this doesn't go LibDem.
First, they think Biden is going to be replaced by Michelle Obama at the convention. They think Biden will be replaced because they believe the edited and/or fake videos circulated on right-wing media designed to fool people into thinking he has dementia. Then they think it's Michelle Obama because she's kind of an obsession of right-wing media, remember the Whitey Tape? So any market that names Biden (as opposed to the Dems) will be wrong.
Secondly, Donald Trump has come out in favour of crypto, in exchange for some very large donations. There's a lot of money to be made in being in favour of crypto because when Elizabeth Warren dropped and backed Biden after the complete electoral failure of her brand of technocratic left-populism, she got Biden to promise her control of the main financial regulation jobs. So when had some time left over from fining banks for letting staff send each other Whats App messages during covid and failing to preserve each and every lol and fml in line with his interpretation of an old regulation about inter-office memos, the SEC chairman filed some lawsuits based on the theory that nearly all crypto trading in the US is illegal. If successful this would shut down some large publicly-traded companies like coinbase, so these companies are now now spraying around campaign contributions like their lives depend on it. Trump has made some vague promises about supporting crypto but also some specific ones like pardoning Ross Ulbricht (an early dark market entrepreneur). This has got crypto people of a right-leaning persuasion incredibly excited and produced a move in the betting odds that probably isn't justified by the number of fucks the average Pennsylvania swing voter could give about crypto.
PS Basically all sizable political betting markets are crypto markets nowadays. It's a bit weird how little they're discussed here compared to all the long earnest threads we have about the 25p available on Betfair or whatever.
A man whose cowardice was matched by his complacency and exceeded by his money grubbing.
Ask not what you can do for your constituency, ask what your constituency can do for you
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Miliband#Business_interests
And true of every area of governance from which the Tories have gradually opted-out. Made even harder to unpick by the structural private sector debt Gordon Brown's wizard wheezes introduced during his tenure.
Really enjoyed it
I have friends at the Whitstable end of the constituency who'll be voting LD this time, based on the current Labour MP's vocal transphobia. The same reason is also likely to motivate a lot of the student vote to move elsewhere - not going to be a major factor for this election as it'll be after term ends, but could be important in the future.
Scenario: Biden can't run and something drastic is needed to prevent the utter catastrophe of Trump2. She is deemed to be "it" and is persuaded to do it.
Fair price for this? Very difficult to say because it's outside normal parameters and requires knowledge of people's health and deeply private mindsets.
25 too short, 250 too long, is about all I'd be confident of saying at this point.
Other than that, no one has a clue how any alternative might come about (except that it wouldn't be Clinton), so anyone with a remotely credible chance is possibly worth a couple of quid at 100/1 plus. Otherwise, not.
Harris
Hilary
Kaine
Obama
Kerry
Edwards
Gore
Lieberman
You have to go back to Bill Clinton in 1992 to get a current state governor on the Dem ticket.
And before that Dukakis, Carter and then, I think, FDR.
Its a very senator dominated list.
Photographer Disqualified From AI Image Contest After Winning With Real Photo HT
@tylercowen
https://x.com/JohnRentoul/status/1802383191090569712
EDIT: I do hope that the LD price continuing to fall down to 9/4 indicates local activists who know what's going on see them as the main challenger. Time will tell.
I think the counter attack on Reform is coming from both sides
I don't know whether she's come around to it personally, but without more information I'm suspicious of the idea that she'd be up for it.
Also, there are plenty of senior Dems who would feel that they are definitely better placed. There would certainly be some tug of war over the nomination in such a scenario.
So:
Is there a vacancy? No.
What are the chances of a vacancy arising? = V%
Is Obama interested in being candidate? = C%
If she was interested, would she beat the competition? = W%
So the odds for the nomination are V*C*W%
Plugging in some completely made up numbers 10% * 25% * 33% = 120/1
I suspect the numbers I've just made up are all too high, but I really don't know. I wouldn't be surprised if someone with better knowledge put the result as well below 120/1.
But I agree it's a straw in the wind and the betting value is surely in the Tory holds right now.
(Puts marmalade sandwich under hat, puts on wellies, picks up duffle coat, and leaves.)
Looking at their odds, they imply a c.100% chance of M Obama being elected if she's the nominee. Which is a view.
This story doesn't even make sense, for example.
GOP rep: Hunter Biden conviction ‘creates an opening’ for Michelle Obama
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4718557-andy-ogles-hunter-biden-conviction-michelle-obama/
In 1983 the Tories polled about 3.5% below the averages of the final polls, Labour slightly above and the Alliance about on the nail. The Alliance was famously only about 2 points below Labour in the popular vote.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_1983_United_Kingdom_general_election
Managed to avoid the trouble after England lost.
As they see it, they came to a liberal European country deliberately. If you want fascism (religious, left, right), you should fuck off to somewhere selling that.
https://x.com/Osinttechnical/status/1802625662307422592
He's hair-trigger touchy these days. He's accused two different people of personal attacks in recent days when they were simply disagreeing with him or probing something he was saying that didn't sound right. But that's what happens when you adopt a position you yourself have spent months attacking. You're bound to be touchy.
Still, plenty of time for him to change his mind again and vote for Plaid Cymru and the future glory of an independent Wales. Cymru am byth!
Thank-you for the header, Pip.
Placards are hotting up in Ashfield, I think. I'll take a cycle ride later to have a look.
Not convinced about Mr Anderson's rhetoric:
The People's Army.
The Ashfield Division of the Reform Army turned out in large numbers this morning.
Armed with posters, garden stakes and leaflets they are out on the front line fighting for every vote to get our country back
https://x.com/LeeAndersonMP_/status/1801938567209304471
it sounds a bit ... Chinese.
I'd also argue, if Biden was unavailable and in the unlikely event Michelle Obama was interested, a lot of the alternative runners would fall away very fast. Senators and state governors would be all very well in a primary season, going round getting themselves known. But Michelle Obama is instantly recognisable and extremely well liked by Democrats, so incredibly hard to get past in an emergency late candidate selection - you just don't have time to build a profile. In that scenario, I think it'd very quickly come down to her or Harris.
It set the state of UK politics for the next four decades (and possibly beyond).
As for crypto, I'm still waiting for (most of) my MtGox payout after more than a decade. I think nah to that.
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/3724721#Comment_3724721
Fine when it's about who will be President or PM in a few years - it's all theories and there is lots of time for surprises. But not when doors are being knocked on and there actually is data that some people at least have.
I reckon Gaza could easily account for a handful of failed defences - which may or may not include Rochdale - and D&B is right up there.
You're right that she has a profile, but Harris is a vital point to raise. If it was just Harris and Obama I wouldn't give Obama a one in three chance. The fact that there might be other people interested who do have decent profiles only lowers Obama's chances further. Obama would represent a huge gamble on a party-politically unknown quantity. She's known, but can she actually do the job? Maybe, but I don't think anybody knows because she's never done it. Being next to the limelight is different to being its focus. She might be great, or she might come apart. Would the Dems risk it when you've got a known quantity available?
And hard.
I was happy to gently take the piss when he announced his 'shock' decision, but it's really unfair to continue attacking a single PBer for what isn't a particularly outlandish decision.
He understandably touchy if everyone continues piling on.
Reflecting on @Malmesbury's love of marmalade sandwiches, and Scotland vs Germany, a word reoccurs that I have not heard for some time.
"marmelise".
As in "Scotland were marmelised by Germany in the football match."
Does anyone know of the origins of this?
It was everywhere when I was in short trousers. The best I have is a blend of "marmalade" and "pulverise".
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1975/27/section/2
(1)In this Act “Leader of the Opposition” means, in relation to either House of Parliament, that Member of that House who is for the time being the Leader in that House of the party in opposition to Her Majesty’s Government having the greatest numerical strength in the House of Commons; and “Chief Opposition Whip” means, in relation to either House of Parliament, the person for the time being nominated as such by the Leader of the Opposition in that House; and “Assistant Opposition Whip”, in relation to the House of Commons, means a person for the time being nominated as such, and to be paid as such, by the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons.
(2)If any doubt arises as to which is or was at any material time the party in opposition to Her Majesty’s Government having the greatest numerical strength in the House of Commons, or as to who is or was at any material time the leader in that House of such a party, the question shall be decided for the purposes of this Act by the Speaker of the House of Commons, and his decision, certified in writing under his hand, shall be final and conclusive.
(3)If any doubt arises as to who is or was at any material time the Leader in the House of Lords of the said party, the question shall be decided for the purposes of this Act by the Speaker of the House of Lords, and his decision, certified in writing under his hand, shall be final and conclusive.
Yakoob got 12% of the vote running on a Gaza ticket in the West Midlands Mayoral election and 20% in Birmingham, a vote almost entirely gathered from the Muslim electorate. The Muslim population in Birmingham Ladywood amounts to a higher share of the electorate than in any other seat in the West Midlands, that is why Yakoob has chosen that seat. Clearly Yakoob beat Parker in that constituency in the West Midlands election. And he must be running an extremely strong local ground game there to add to his strong social media presence, because I saw his ground game at first hand in the mayoral election - it was extremely strong and yet far harder to deliver because it was not concentrated in one constituency alone.
So I think Shabana Mahmood has her work cut out, which is a shame because I rate her. Hopefully her constituents do so to - 79% of the vote in 2019 was pretty impressive. Perhaps she'll prevail in the context of a general election as opposed to a mayoral election which might be regarded as the opportunity for a protest vote.
The current best odds in the constituency are Labour 1/10 on, Yakoob 6/1. When there is a joker in the pack with a proven ability to shake things up, no defending candidate should be very heavily odds on, so I think Yakoob offers very good value at 6/1. Having said that I won't be taking my own advice, no way am I going to try and make money backing a dodgy misogynist lawyer of that ilk.
Gonna cost me a fortune as they messed with the obd socket and fuse box. If I go through the insurance, my premium will be a billion pounds next year.
Dorset police were quick off the mark to wash their hands of it. Probably got some cows that need running over.
All Coop MPs are also Labour MPs, so it's not comparable.
The Conservative and LD parties north of the border are not separate. They are part of the larger, national party.
It seems to nbe used quite a bit in soccer. eg Liverpool Echo 1957.
We alwis 'ad someone keepin' nix for the scuffers or case some big fellas tried to naller the ball. They useter marmalise us, 'ad us scurred uv are lifes.
But no etymology given!
Which isn't to say that the intuitive approach isn't valueless: it can sometimes work to de-focus your mind from the spreadsheet approach and list to the music of the universe instead. But that kind of approach leads too easily into the politics of predestination and of events being shaped around character arcs. That's not how the world works. Intuition relies on allowing true ideas to find their own shape unconstrained by forcing narratives onto them. Trying to map reality onto a film you've seen is just a different kind of constraint, and not a reliable one.
..It’s long-established Liverpool-Irish slang, said to be from marmalade plus pulverise. Its earliest known appearance in print is in Lern Yerself Scouse: How to Talk Proper in Liverpool by Frank Shaw, Fritz Spiegl and Stan Kelly: “I’ll marmalise yer. / will chastise you severely.” On rare occasions it has appeared in more exalted company:
"It was the time of what was called “the slag heap affair” a complicated allegation that one of Wilson’s aides had surreptitiously acquired disused colliery land and was selling it off at an exorbitant profit. Tory backbenchers were trying desperately to involve the prime minister in what was, at worst, a minor error of judgment, and Mintoff was given a detailed account of the depths to which they would stoop during Question Time at a quarter past three. “How will you deal with it?” the honoured guest enquired. Wilson paused before he gave his carefully considered answer. “In the words of Ken Dodd, our great national comedian, I shall marmalise ’em.” And he did."
Roy Hattersley, writing in the Sunday Times, 5 Dec. 1993.
...
It's only since the Trump2 threat has got deadly serious (due to a combination of Biden's physical frailty, the GOP's craven cowardice, and what the swing state polls are saying) that she's come in to this 20 sort of price.
Agree it's far too short now - but it was too long before. People were mugs not doing it.
Reports from yesterday of Labour sending resources to shore up support in some seats with a large Muslim vote. No specific mention of Dewsbury though.
But my big lays for free (ie up to my Trump exposure) are all GOP roasters like Tucker Carlson. I've laid Kennedy to flat also. That's not happening.
In my opinion of course
(Possibly of no more perceived use to his GOP backers ?)
https://x.com/lara_spirit/status/1802622831299006718
Good bit of data vis here - Labour targeting ads at some seats with 20k+ majorities - meanwhile on the Tory side no ads, and after 80/20 got filed in the circular receptacle - no plan.
Grrr.