politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The SNP is betting favourite to win in just 4 of the 41 LA

Good afternoon, everyone.

I wonder if the Scottish problem for Labour is one that can be solved, but doing so may harm its prospects in England.

We'll see how significant the desire for English votes or an English Parliament is at the election. Whilst personally very interested, I think most people will not consider it, alas, a substantial influence on their voting behaviour. That may well change when Scots are setting their own income tax rates and then voting in English income tax as well.

Broke after the referendum?

Some of us have been happy betting on the SNP at long odds in these constituencies. I'm considering increasing my exposure, given the polls. Waiting for post-Murphy polls will mean giving up on the apparent value that's out there.

You'd imagine Dundee West and Falkirk are near certainties.

Labour are 2/5 favourites in Livingston according to Ladbrokes?

FPT, Mr CD13, I’m most obliged for the link. Only goes to show that science moves on and ruling things is is often not wise.

I do wonder in this context what the average age of the morbidly obese British is. Is it the 70 year olds, who experienced rationing during their developmental years, or the 50 year olds who were born in the 60’s, when food was plentiful?

Radio 4 Today programme interviewer John Humphrys accused his employer of being ‘soft’, ‘complacent’ and ‘institutionally nervous’ about tackling the story or questioning multiculturalism.

And he said BBC employees are unable to understand the concerns of ordinary people because they typically have ‘sheltered’ middle-class lives and are overwhelmingly ‘liberal Oxbridge males’.

The veteran star said too many BBC staff are ‘arrogant’ and thought they ‘knew what was best for the country’.

He added: ‘It was and still is relentlessly middle class. Unfortunately. There was a predominant voice and that was the liberal Oxbridge male.’

He has also said the BBC’s coverage of climate change ‘abandoned the pretence of impartiality long ago.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2873484/Radio-4-s-John-Humphrys-admits-BBC-ignored-mass-immigration-fearing-branded-racist-critics.html

Well blow me down.

Don't worry, some of us Nats are out there betting, but the bookies seem to be running a bit scared. For example I tried to place some bets with William Hill today about how many seats Labour would retain and was restricted to bets of only £5-10 at the 0-15 seats level (not far off what's indicated by current polls). If it's so unlikely why aren't they prepared to take my money?

I think the SNP SPIN market looks excellent value at the moment

surbiton said:

The sums don't add up.

I think what we're really seeing are the effects of a relatively illiquid market. There's too much uncertainty for many to feel confident about the outcomes, so there's relatively little money being staked (either way), creating disparities between various markets and opportunities for those who do actually feel confident (one way or another) to make money. Even if they do bet, however, they're unlikely to stake enough or in sufficient numbers to move the odds massively, so the disparities remain. Markets need money moving through them to become efficient/accurate. I doubt we're seeing enough at the moment.

As a southerner, with almost zero knowlege of local Scottish politics, I'm steering well clear of all these markets. I suspect a lot of people feel the same way.

FOR SOCRATES


This IIRC was the case you blamed the EU for not allowing an indeterminate sentence...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11283748/Very-dangerous-paedophile-released-over-unlawful-sentence.html

Your link was to a Welsh newspaper but the story is the same.. you blamed the EU

The relevant para's are here

"They said that a sentence for public protection was introduced under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which came into force on April 4 2005.

Mr Justice Coulson said that as the offences were committed between October 22 2001 and May 1 2004, there was "no power to impose an IPP".

He said: "That sentence must therefore be quashed."

isam said:

Concerning the UKIP survey that people are trying to make a big deal out of, here is part of the email that ukip members received

"Three academics are helping us. They are Professor Matthew Goodwin (University of Nottingham and author of Revolt on the Right), Professor Harold Clarke at the University of Texas and Professor Paul Whiteley at the University of Essex, who are former
Directors of the prestigious British Election Study. Professor Clarke is distributing the survey. "

Although part of me wonders if its a wind up!

@SquareRoot,

I believe Socrates has already noted his mistake.

The graphic at the top is misleading.

For instance Edinburgh South has Labour with a very narrow lead over the LIB DEMs - which is irrelevant to the SNP's correct odds there.

@ChokinVase

I feel pretty much the same way.

There may be plenty of value in these Scottish Seat but you can only cover so much ground efficiently and I find Scotland too difficult, so I duck it.

surbiton said:

As a Labour supporter, I find these odds very odd. Currently, SNP has 40% + of the support. OK, this might go down and Labour will recover in Glasgow. Even the 20-22 spread has SNP at about 36%, which currently appears too low. Labour would then be about 32%.

So, I am a bit puzzled where the 14 gains come from, if only 4 from Labour. Lib Dems ? THey will win 2 even in a landslide of epic proportions. Orkney and Ross, Skye....

The sums don't add up.

As an SNP ex-Labour supporter living in Central Scotland, I agree the betting numbers just don't add up.

Turning to the May 2015 election in Stirling where I live, currently Ladbrokes have Labour at 4/9, SNP at 13/8 and Tories at 50/1. In 2010 the result was Labour 42%, Conservatives 24%, SNP 17% and LibDem 15%. In the referendum, Stirling was 60% No and 40% Yes. I think the SNP will win Stirling with around 40% support. I do not anticipate any significant Unionist tactical voting, if anything UKIP and the Greens will suck support from the mainstream parties as in the rest of the UK. Bizarrely I think the SNP's biggest threat in Stirling are the Tories - Labour could end up being third !!

rcs1000 said:

@SquareRoot,

I believe Socrates has already noted his mistake.

Indeed so but he asked for the relevant link..

Surprise.... Not!

"British Gas owner warns Labour: Energy bill freeze will have 'unintended consequences'

Sam Laidlaw, the departing chief executive of Centrica, says Ed Miliband's plans to freeze prices could hurt consumers Sam Laidlaw, the outgoing chief executive of Centrica, has warned that there will be “unintended consequences” of Labour’s energy freeze plan as a result of the recent fall in the price of oil.In an exclusive interview with The Telegraph, Mr Laidlaw said he believed that were Labour to come to power next May, its plan to freeze fuel bills for two years could actually hurt consumers."



How's that cost of living crisis going Ed?

Having lumped a load of green taxes on us you get a price freeze as fuel price goes through the floor. OPEC have now indicated they are quite happy to see sub 40Usd a barrel to beat shale and the Russians.

Eds still a dud, a very expensive dud at that

calum said:

surbiton said:

As a Labour supporter, I find these odds very odd. Currently, SNP has 40% + of the support. OK, this might go down and Labour will recover in Glasgow. Even the 20-22 spread has SNP at about 36%, which currently appears too low. Labour would then be about 32%.

So, I am a bit puzzled where the 14 gains come from, if only 4 from Labour. Lib Dems ? THey will win 2 even in a landslide of epic proportions. Orkney and Ross, Skye....

The sums don't add up.

As an SNP ex-Labour supporter living in Central Scotland, I agree the betting numbers just don't add up.

Turning to the May 2015 election in Stirling where I live, currently Ladbrokes have Labour at 4/9, SNP at 13/8 and Tories at 50/1. In 2010 the result was Labour 42%, Conservatives 24%, SNP 17% and LibDem 15%. In the referendum, Stirling was 60% No and 40% Yes. I think the SNP will win Stirling with around 40% support. I do not anticipate any significant Unionist tactical voting, if anything UKIP and the Greens will suck support from the mainstream parties as in the rest of the UK. Bizarrely I think the SNP's biggest threat in Stirling are the Tories - Labour could end up being third !!

As I have posted before , in November 2009 the SNP were in the lead in Scottish Westminster VI polls , a fat lot of good it did them in May 2010

Moses_ said:

Surprise.... Not!
"British Gas owner warns Labour: Energy bill freeze will have 'unintended consequences'

Sam Laidlaw, the departing chief executive of Centrica, says Ed Miliband's plans to freeze prices could hurt consumers Sam Laidlaw, the outgoing chief executive of Centrica, has warned that there will be “unintended consequences” of Labour’s energy freeze plan ...

Having lumped a load of green taxes on us you get a price freeze as fuel price goes through the floor. OPEC have now indicated they are quite happy to see sub 40Usd a barrel to beat shale and the Russians. ...

The low oil price is bad for producers - reducing growth by 0.7 % per $20 reduction. The SNP have to explan how that affects an independent oil producing Scotland.
Those people responding to polls have to explain how they support a party that only a few weeks ago was pushing voters to support what would hve turned out to be economic armgeddon for them.
I am happy for Labour to loose seats but on a betting site I imagine punters have to factor in someone like Murphy pressing them on that.
http://www.economicsuk.com/blog/002067.html#more

For a wider UK - ''according to the Oxford simulations, growth will average 2.6% a year in 2015-16 if oil averages $84 a barrel, but close to 3% if it comes down to $40, which many in the industry are talking about ''

During the referendum the NATs did not press the following - ''The Office for Budget Responsibility noted in its latest assessment, published alongside the autumn statement, that North Sea revenues have dropped by 75% to £2.8bn a year since 2008, on the back of a 50% drop in production and tax changes that allow oil companies to offset more of their capital spending against tax. A lower oil price may knock a few hundred million more off North Sea revenues but that is small beer when set against the benefits.''

''Thank you oil men of Dakota. Cheap oil, cheap food, and cheap money give us all the reasons we need to forecast continued strong UK growth and low inflation.''
''Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish first minister, stands out among political leaders – with the possible exception of the Greens – in praying for the oil price to go back above $100 a barrel.''

MarkSenior said:

calum said:

surbiton said:

As a Labour supporter, I find these odds very odd. Currently, SNP has 40% + of the support. OK, this might go down and Labour will recover in Glasgow. Even the 20-22 spread has SNP at about 36%, which currently appears too low. Labour would then be about 32%.

So, I am a bit puzzled where the 14 gains come from, if only 4 from Labour. Lib Dems ? THey will win 2 even in a landslide of epic proportions. Orkney and Ross, Skye....

The sums don't add up.

As an SNP ex-Labour supporter living in Central Scotland, I agree the betting numbers just don't add up.

Turning to the May 2015 election in Stirling where I live, currently Ladbrokes have Labour at 4/9, SNP at 13/8 and Tories at 50/1. In 2010 the result was Labour 42%, Conservatives 24%, SNP 17% and LibDem 15%. In the referendum, Stirling was 60% No and 40% Yes. I think the SNP will win Stirling with around 40% support. I do not anticipate any significant Unionist tactical voting, if anything UKIP and the Greens will suck support from the mainstream parties as in the rest of the UK. Bizarrely I think the SNP's biggest threat in Stirling are the Tories - Labour could end up being third !!

As I have posted before , in November 2009 the SNP were in the lead in Scottish Westminster VI polls , a fat lot of good it did them in May 2010

1. They were not **20 points** in front.

2. There was not an independence referendum (and 2+ years of campaign) before the 2010 Westminster GE.

We have the Labour and SNP vote in Scotland going
2005 LAB 40% SNP 17%
2007 LAB 32% SNP 33% (constituency)
2010 LAB 42% SNP 20%
2011 LAB 32% SNP 45% (constituency)
These are massive fluctuations. Was it because for GEs the Lab supporters come out but not for ScotParl elections and in reverse for SNP supporters? Presumably there are academic reports into this?

JamesMo said:

MarkSenior said:

calum said:

surbiton said:

As a Labour supporter, I find these odds very odd. Currently, SNP has 40% + of the support. OK, this might go down and Labour will recover in Glasgow. Even the 20-22 spread has SNP at about 36%, which currently appears too low. Labour would then be about 32%.

So, I am a bit puzzled where the 14 gains come from, if only 4 from Labour. Lib Dems ? THey will win 2 even in a landslide of epic proportions. Orkney and Ross, Skye....

The sums don't add up.

As an SNP ex-Labour supporter living in Central Scotland, I agree the betting numbers just don't add up.

Turning to the May 2015 election in Stirling where I live, currently Ladbrokes have Labour at 4/9, SNP at 13/8 and Tories at 50/1. In 2010 the result was Labour 42%, Conservatives 24%, SNP 17% and LibDem 15%. In the referendum, Stirling was 60% No and 40% Yes. I think the SNP will win Stirling with around 40% support. I do not anticipate any significant Unionist tactical voting, if anything UKIP and the Greens will suck support from the mainstream parties as in the rest of the UK. Bizarrely I think the SNP's biggest threat in Stirling are the Tories - Labour could end up being third !!

As I have posted before , in November 2009 the SNP were in the lead in Scottish Westminster VI polls , a fat lot of good it did them in May 2010

1. They were not **20 points** in front.

2. There was not an independence referendum (and 2+ years of campaign) before the 2010 Westminster GE.

No they were 2 points ahead and ended up 20 plus points behind . There was also a poll in May 2009 which had SNP 16 points ahead of Labour 43 to 27 .

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MikeL said:

surbiton said:

As a Labour supporter, I find these odds very odd. Currently, SNP has 40% + of the support. OK, this might go down and Labour will recover in Glasgow. Even the 20-22 spread has SNP at about 36%, which currently appears too low. Labour would then be about 32%.

So, I am a bit puzzled where the 14 gains come from, if only 4 from Labour. Lib Dems ? THey will win 2 even in a landslide of epic proportions. Orkney and Ross, Skye....

The sums don't add up.

Because the strong likelihood is that Lab will recover (and I say that as a Con supporter - unlike 99% of people on here I don't just "predict" what I personally want to happen).
....

Scotland has changed dramatically post referendum and SNP support will not diminish as previously. There is no other game in town and whilst economic circumstances may well have an impact longer term the SNP will seriously damage SLAB in May 2015 and probably in the Holyrood election in 2016. There is simply no time for the elation the Scots feel for the SNP even in No areas to diminish other than possibly the borders. UK politics has changed forever and Jim Murphy will create his own Scots Labour and Westminster labour will be powerless to stop it

Scotland as part of the UK will benefit from low oil prices instead of being sliced apart by them. So you are right - Scotland has changed dramatically post referendum.
If Murphy does not hammer that then I hope the Tories do.

The feature that does hold up is that unilateralists see no point to Labour but they like the SNP.
Its easy to see the way the SNP are swinging. Will right wing idealist independents stick? Will Labour's tradtional support bite the hand that feeds them?
Oil kick started independence. Its running out its losing value. Apart from extreme leftwing fruitcakes and loons, who is going to accept that there is a real future for Scotland outside the UK?

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MarkSenior said:

JamesMo said:

MarkSenior said:

calum said:

surbiton said:

As a Labour supporter, I find these odds very odd. Currently, SNP has 40% + of the support. OK, this might go down and Labour will recover in Glasgow. Even the 20-22 spread has SNP at about 36%, which currently appears too low. Labour would then be about 32%.

So, I am a bit puzzled where the 14 gains come from, if only 4 from Labour. Lib Dems ? THey will win 2 even in a landslide of epic proportions. Orkney and Ross, Skye....

The sums don't add up.

As an SNP ex-Labour supporter living in Central Scotland, I agree the betting numbers just don't add up.

Turning to the May 2015 election in Stirling where I live, currently Ladbrokes have Labour at 4/9, SNP at 13/8 and Tories at 50/1. In 2010 the result was Labour 42%, Conservatives 24%, SNP 17% and LibDem 15%. In the referendum, Stirling was 60% No and 40% Yes. I think the SNP will win Stirling with around 40% support. I do not anticipate any significant Unionist tactical voting, if anything UKIP and the Greens will suck support from the mainstream parties as in the rest of the UK. Bizarrely I think the SNP's biggest threat in Stirling are the Tories - Labour could end up being third !!

As I have posted before , in November 2009 the SNP were in the lead in Scottish Westminster VI polls , a fat lot of good it did them in May 2010

1. They were not **20 points** in front.

2. There was not an independence referendum (and 2+ years of campaign) before the 2010 Westminster GE.

No they were 2 points ahead and ended up 20 plus points behind . There was also a poll in May 2009 which had SNP 16 points ahead of Labour 43 to 27 .

Any references to previous performances in Scotland are absolutely irrelevant as the referendum campaign and vote has changed Scotland fundamentally. The SNP will win many more seats in 2015 and nothing will alter that in such a short time scale. My wife is a Scot and proud to be a Scot but also to be British but we would both vote SNP in 2015 if we still lived in Scotland and this as voters who have never supported the SNP

I agree for 2015: largely because Scotland remains mired in everyone vs the Conservatives.

From 2020, it will be nationalists vs unionists, and it will be even more unpleasant.

This is rather like the Holyrood 2007 election where it was clear that the SNP were going to make a major advance, perhaps even win, but unclear how that would be reflected in terms of the constituency seats (which are FPTP).

As it turned out, the SNP won a number of their obvious target seats but not others. They also won some constituency seats with larger swings than expected, and larger than in those target seats where they failed.

I hate FPTP for a number of reasons, not least because if the SNP are only just ahead of Labour in the popular vote, Labour will be well ahead of the SNP in terms of seats.

Best advice I can give those tempted is to review the Holyrood 2007 results, allow so far as you can manage for differential boundaries (not easy), and factor in the significantly poorer outlook for the Lib Dems.

Note: This is sufficiently difficult that my only bets currently on specific seats with bookies are on Gordon and the Western Isles at MUCH better odds than now available in both cases.

Just in case anyone cares, I've run some data on the impact on 2015 GDP based on oil prices remaining at $70 (they're actually $64 or something) against $110. The UK impact is likely to be slightly more than in this data as I was using 2013 oil production data to calculate net imports, but is nevertheless interesting:

	Oil	Gas	Total
France	0.9%	0.2%	1.1%
Germany	1.0%	0.4%	1.3%
Italy	0.9%	0.5%	1.4%
Spain	1.3%	0.3%	1.6%
UK	0.4%	0.2%	0.6%

China	1.0%	0.1%	1.1%

Japan	1.4%	0.4%	1.7%

USA	0.8%	0.0%	0.8%

Canada	-1.3%	0.0%	-1.3%
Aus	0.6%	0.0%	0.6%

rcs1000 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

MarkSenior said:

JamesMo said:

MarkSenior said:

calum said:

surbiton said:

As a Labour supporter, I find these odds very odd. Currently, SNP has 40% + of the support. OK, this might go down and Labour will recover in Glasgow. Even the 20-22 spread has SNP at about 36%, which currently appears too low. Labour would then be about 32%.

So, I am a bit puzzled where the 14 gains come from, if only 4 from Labour. Lib Dems ? THey will win 2 even in a landslide of epic proportions. Orkney and Ross, Skye....

The sums don't add up.

As an SNP ex-Labour supporter living in Central Scotland, I agree the betting numbers just don't add up.

Turning to the May 2015 election in Stirling where I live, currently Ladbrokes have Labour at 4/9, SNP at 13/8 and Tories at 50/1. In 2010 the result was Labour 42%, Conservatives 24%, SNP 17% and LibDem 15%. In the referendum, Stirling was 60% No and 40% Yes. I think the SNP will win Stirling with around 40% support. I do not anticipate any significant Unionist tactical voting, if anything UKIP and the Greens will suck support from the mainstream parties as in the rest of the UK. Bizarrely I think the SNP's biggest threat in Stirling are the Tories - Labour could end up being third !!

As I have posted before , in November 2009 the SNP were in the lead in Scottish Westminster VI polls , a fat lot of good it did them in May 2010

1. They were not **20 points** in front.

2. There was not an independence referendum (and 2+ years of campaign) before the 2010 Westminster GE.

No they were 2 points ahead and ended up 20 plus points behind . There was also a poll in May 2009 which had SNP 16 points ahead of Labour 43 to 27 .

Any references to previous performances in Scotland are absolutely irrelevant as the referendum campaign and vote has changed Scotland fundamentally. The SNP will win many more seats in 2015 and nothing will alter that in such a short time scale. My wife is a Scot and proud to be a Scot but also to be British but we would both vote SNP in 2015 if we still lived in Scotland and this as voters who have never supported the SNP

I agree for 2015: largely because Scotland remains mired in everyone vs the Conservatives.

From 2020, it will be nationalists vs unionists, and it will be even more unpleasant.

Agreed but by that time I would expect the Nationalists to have a much weaker economic proposal and the Unionists case be strengthened always providing the UK stays in the EU

rcs1000 said:

Just in case anyone cares, I've run some data on the impact on 2015 GDP based on oil prices remaining at $70 (they're actually $64 or something) based on $110. The UK impact is likely to be slightly more than in this data as I was using 2013 oil production data to calculate net imports, but is nevertheless interesting:

	Oil	Gas	Total
France	0.9%	0.2%	1.1%
Germany	1.0%	0.4%	1.3%
Italy	0.9%	0.5%	1.4%
Spain	1.3%	0.3%	1.6%
UK	0.4%	0.2%	0.6%

China	1.0%	0.1%	1.1%

Japan	1.4%	0.4%	1.7%

USA	0.8%	0.0%	0.8%

Canada	-1.3%	0.0%	-1.3%
Aus	0.6%	0.0%	0.6%

A useful bit of economic growth in our major markets there!

GeoffM said:

HYUFD said:

Classic Dominic Cummings on Cameron in today's ST Atticus, he 'wouldn't look up from Country Life if he was told every state school fell into the sea - that's how interested he is in them.'
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/comment/

A new twist on an old insult which is always nice to see, and yes, very typical Cummings.

The best insults, though, are ones which have at least a hint of truth in them. Without it, this lacks any bite.

Have you worked closely with Cameron then?

TCPoliticalBetting said:

I have just caught up with Sunday Politics Show and the BBC's idea of an impartial show is to have two hacks from the Guardian (Nick and Polly) and 1 from the FT. How does a paper with a tiny print sale such as the Guardian justify two Labour supporting hacks giving the UK the "benefit" of their opinions?

I thought it was odd that they had two Guardianistas on today (though I don't mind Watt as at least he's a correspondent).

It'd be interesting to see a VI poll of people who watch that show - and other politics shows. My guess is UKIP wouldn't be doing quite so well.

Paul_Mid_Beds said:

I have a feeling that come election day, this SNP surge will go much the same way as the Cleggasm did in 2010. The majorities are just too large to overcome most of them in one go.

The momentum is all with the SNP who will make some sensational gains even in the No voting areas

Yes!!!!! 2-1 again. Whoopee!!! Liverpool the new spurs....

Hobbit was ok too...

tlg86 said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

I have just caught up with Sunday Politics Show and the BBC's idea of an impartial show is to have two hacks from the Guardian (Nick and Polly) and 1 from the FT. How does a paper with a tiny print sale such as the Guardian justify two Labour supporting hacks giving the UK the "benefit" of their opinions?

I thought it was odd that they had two Guardianistas on today (though I don't mind Watt as at least he's a correspondent).
It'd be interesting to see a VI poll of people who watch that show - and other politics shows. My guess is UKIP wouldn't be doing quite so well.

Labour supporters dominate the hacks on the show. Usually instead of Polly we have Helen Lewis* from the New Statesman. The New Statesman was described by John Pienaar (once offered a job by Miliband) as a "centre left magazine".... There is no centre in the New Statesman it is a socialist haven.

*briefly known as Helen Lewis-Hasteley

rcs1000 said:

Just in case anyone cares, I've run some data on the impact on 2015 GDP based on oil prices remaining at $70 (they're actually $64 or something) against $110...

	Oil	Gas	Total
France	0.9%	0.2%	1.1%
Germany	1.0%	0.4%	1.3%
Italy	0.9%	0.5%	1.4%
Spain	1.3%	0.3%	1.6%
UK	0.4%	0.2%	0.6%

China	1.0%	0.1%	1.1%

Japan	1.4%	0.4%	1.7%

USA	0.8%	0.0%	0.8%

Canada	-1.3%	0.0%	-1.3%
Aus	0.6%	0.0%	0.6%

This is really fascinating stuff, thank you for posting it.

The Japan figure is particularly striking. Maybe Abe will risk hiking that sales tax again after all!! Is the massive positive economic impact of crude price falls largely down to the effect of their massively curtailing nuclear-powered electricity generation post-Fukushima? I suppose, in other words, would there be a massive boost to the Japanese economy if it returned to using nuclear power?

I gather one or two reactors have been restarted, though don't know if this is the start of a wider return to nuclear energy there. If it is, it will be very gradual, I suspect, especially if crude stays relatively cheap...

It's also interesting that the UK figure is relatively low (though still big in absolute terms). I appreciate that we're an exporter as well as importer, so there's a negative aspect to consider, but with gas such a big part of our energy mix compared to some other countries, I figured its fall in price might contribute more significantly.

Out of curiosity, and without going into too many details that I likely won't understand, does your model incorporate dynamic effects on the petroleum industries? For instance, does it take into account possible reductions in the rate of expansion of shale production in the USA with a fall in the crude price? Or is it a more static adjustment?

TCPoliticalBetting said:

tlg86 said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

I have just caught up with Sunday Politics Show and the BBC's idea of an impartial show is to have two hacks from the Guardian (Nick and Polly) and 1 from the FT. How does a paper with a tiny print sale such as the Guardian justify two Labour supporting hacks giving the UK the "benefit" of their opinions?

I thought it was odd that they had two Guardianistas on today (though I don't mind Watt as at least he's a correspondent).
It'd be interesting to see a VI poll of people who watch that show - and other politics shows. My guess is UKIP wouldn't be doing quite so well.

Labour supporters dominate the hacks on the show. Usually instead of Polly we have Helen Lewis* from the New Statesman. The New Statesman was described by John Pienaar (once offered a job by Miliband) as a "centre left magazine".... There is no centre in the New Statesman it is a socialist haven.

*briefly known as Helen Lewis-Hasteley

I preferred it when Rowenna Davis was a regular. Hopefully she'll return after she loses Southampton Itchen.

Flightpath said:

We had a budget in March. One which cut green levies and gave a £7 billion boost to industry. Miliband voted against it.

As well as saying the cut to consumenrs was 'welcome', Cameron ''added that SSE had made clear that a principal factor allowing it to freeze prices was the government's decision to roll back green levies on energy bills, which saved households an average £50 a year.
The company is also axing 500 jobs and scaling back investment in windfarms as part of a cost-cutting plan and will split its wholesale and retail divisions in an effort to simplify its business.'

I can quote the full extract from The Guardian.

Except £50 a year isn't a huge proportion of the bill, which suggests that welcome though the green rollback was it probably didn't solve the fundamental issue the Big 6 say stops a 20 month price freeze. Also, price freezes of 12-18 months are actually quite common, even before the green rollback. Which suggests that the fundamental issue isn't quite as fundamental as they say, and a 20 month freeze is perfectly plausible.

In late 2012 EON offered a two year fixed tariff, that can't have been caused by green levies being cut and they can't have known then what wholesale prices would be any better than they would in May 2015. At this very moment NPower are offering a fixed tariff until Feb 2017, EDF until April 2016, British Gas until Jan 2017, etc etc. And this isn't new after the recent changes, fixed tariffs have been common for years.

The energy companies can't argue that price freezes are impossible whilst simultaneously doing them. The green levies issue was, I would argue, a fairly transparent fig leaf to try and pretend otherwise in this case.

GeoffM It plays on the 'Cameron the Eton toff' stereotype though. Cummings is one of the only Tories who has managed to fall out with both David Davis and David Cameron, both the traditionalists and the modernisers, which perhaps tells you something!

Quincel said:

Flightpath said:

We had a budget in March. One which cut green levies and gave a £7 billion boost to industry. Miliband voted against it.

As well as saying the cut to consumenrs was 'welcome', Cameron ''added that SSE had made clear that a principal factor allowing it to freeze prices was the government's decision to roll back green levies on energy bills, which saved households an average £50 a year.
The company is also axing 500 jobs and scaling back investment in windfarms as part of a cost-cutting plan and will split its wholesale and retail divisions in an effort to simplify its business.'

I can quote the full extract from The Guardian.

Except £50 a year isn't a huge proportion of the bill, which suggests that welcome though the green rollback was it probably didn't solve the fundamental issue the Big 6 say stops a 20 month price freeze. Also, price freezes of 12-18 months are actually quite common, even before the green rollback. Which suggests that the fundamental issue isn't quite as fundamental as they say, and a 20 month freeze is perfectly plausible.

In late 2012 EON offered a two year fixed tariff, that can't have been caused by green levies being cut and they can't have known then what wholesale prices would be any better than they would in May 2015. At this very moment NPower are offering a fixed tariff until Feb 2017, EDF until April 2016, British Gas until Jan 2017, etc etc. And this isn't new after the recent changes, fixed tariffs have been common for years.

The energy companies can't argue that price freezes are impossible whilst simultaneously doing them. The green levies issue was, I would argue, a fairly transparent fig leaf to try and pretend otherwise in this case.

The difference is, though, that companies can effectively hedge an elective price freeze (and can even pre-hedge and then withdraw the offer once their hedge is filled). This allows them to capture the spread between the hedge price and the freeze price (so their only exposure is operating costs exceeding plan) while also securing volume to cover their overheads.

A mandatory price freeze is totally different: I suspect that they would struggle to hedge the complete amount effectively: at a minimum they would get killed on the spreads. More than that, I suspect that various hedge funds would anticipate this and position accordingly: all Ed Miliband would achieve would be to hand a big profit to his friends in the City.

SeanT said:

i want to see the UKIP policy on SPANKING. Also FACE SITTING, CANING, BONDAGE, and SQUIRTING.

Can you elucidate?

I am entirely serious. It would be nice if one serious political party had the cullions to call the New Porn Laws for what they are: utterly ridiculous.

Oh I agree. I would love to see UKIP come out strongly against the new laws.

Unfortunately as much as I am sure there is a small Libertarian clique in UKIP that would be over the moon (I was going to say champing at the bit but that seemed a little obvious as a joke) about such a stand, I suspect that there is truth in the claims that UKIP has a lot of very conservative members and supporters who would not agree with such a principled position.

So I am not holding my breath - either voluntarily or with a ligature - for such a change.

SeanT said:

Precisely right - and (by the way), very eloquent phrased. You should blog.

What a nice thing to say - I'm very touched.

Quincel said:

Flightpath said:

We had a budget in March. One which cut green levies and gave a £7 billion boost to industry. Miliband voted against it.

As well as saying the cut to consumenrs was 'welcome', Cameron ''added that SSE had made clear that a principal factor allowing it to freeze prices was the government's decision to roll back green levies on energy bills, which saved households an average £50 a year.
The company is also axing 500 jobs and scaling back investment in windfarms as part of a cost-cutting plan and will split its wholesale and retail divisions in an effort to simplify its business.'

I can quote the full extract from The Guardian.

Except £50 a year isn't a huge proportion of the bill, which suggests that welcome though the green rollback was it probably didn't solve the fundamental issue the Big 6 say stops a 20 month price freeze. Also, price freezes of 12-18 months are actually quite common, even before the green rollback. Which suggests that the fundamental issue isn't quite as fundamental as they say, and a 20 month freeze is perfectly plausible.

In late 2012 EON offered a two year fixed tariff, that can't have been caused by green levies being cut and they can't have known then what wholesale prices would be any better than they would in May 2015. At this very moment NPower are offering a fixed tariff until Feb 2017, EDF until April 2016, British Gas until Jan 2017, etc etc. And this isn't new after the recent changes, fixed tariffs have been common for years.

The energy companies can't argue that price freezes are impossible whilst simultaneously doing them. The green levies issue was, I would argue, a fairly transparent fig leaf to try and pretend otherwise in this case.

In late 2012 EON increased the prices of its fixed tarrifs. 'Which?' asked ''Is this a sign that it is about to announce a price rise for existing customers?''

There is nothing magic about a fixed tarrif. It depends on the rate (!) and it takes into account future trends. I'm not sure a fixed price makes sense right now.

Charles said:

The difference is, though, that companies can effectively hedge an elective price freeze (and can even pre-hedge and then withdraw the offer once their hedge is filled). This allows them to capture the spread between the hedge price and the freeze price (so their only exposure is operating costs exceeding plan) while also securing volume to cover their overheads.

A mandatory price freeze is totally different: I suspect that they would struggle to hedge the complete amount effectively: at a minimum they would get killed on the spreads. More than that, I suspect that various hedge funds would anticipate this and position accordingly: all Ed Miliband would achieve would be to hand a big profit to his friends in the City.

To an extent I think that's true, but I suspect the fairly constant barrage of fixed price plans on the market mitigates this a fair amount. Since energy companies are already hedging for similar periods to the price freeze quite a bit, the market isn't a million miles from what would be enforced anyway.

I recognise this amounts to arguing that Labour's policy isn't actually much more than business as usual. I wouldn't argue otherwise, I think it's basically just some good (albeit cynical) politics by announcing you will force the Big Bad 6 to do what they already do, so EdM looks on the side of the working man against the corporate giants.

Luckyguy1983 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

I phrased that badly and realised it when I read it back later. Lets just say that their public announcements have not been whole heartedly in support as I and others would like of the changes made by recent governments as far as equalising rights for gays goes. It would be nice to see the party fully support and endorse equal marriage rights (as an example) rather than begrudgingly accept they are here to stay.

For all that I support UKIP on many - if not most - issues, I have been disappointed by their attitude to sexual freedom and equality.

Well personally I think you're wrong, and I think they have it exactly right on that issue. Whether or not gay marriage/the reclassification of marriage is a good thing (I believe on balance it is -but the jury is out), what is certain is that it wasn't a natural evolution from civil partnerships, there was no groundswell of public support; there was no long term campaign by the gay community for marriage equality, and the simultaneous introduction of this legislation on to the statute book in several countries suggests that the policy came from above rather than below, potentially as a step toward the criminalisation of elements of the expression of religious belief.

UKIP were entirely right to be circumspect, and I'm not sure why you would expect the party to reflect your personal hobby horses as opposed to the view of the majority of its membership.

The party does nothing but reflect hobby horses. Just as any party does. Often these have wider support amongst the general public and sometimes they do not. But in the end any party is reflecting the views either of its wider membership or of its leadership. In both cases, unless they have endless votes on every issue, someone senior in the party is making a personal decision about which hobby horses should become party policy.

All I have done is express disappointment that the party has chosen what I consider to be the intellectually and morally inferior position.

And I am afraid your comments about the legislation being driven from above as a precursor to criminalisation of opinion is straying too far into tin foil hat territory for me.

SeanT What about bisexuality, according to the Kinsey scale most of us are somewhere in between pure heterosexuality and pure homosexuality

foxinsoxuk said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Charles said:

HYUFD said:

Classic Dominic Cummings on Cameron in today's ST Atticus, he 'wouldn't look up from Country Life if he was told every state school fell into the sea - that's how interested he is in them.'
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/comment/

I wouldn't look up either.

But mainly because anyone who uses such hyperbole in front of the Prime Minister is clearly non-serious and hence not worthy of the time.

And any Prime Minister reading a magazine at work (or even at home -I can't imagine Maggie flicking through Woman's Weekly rather than the contents of red boxes), is not worthy to be PM. It's about TOILING on behalf of the nation, not farting around New York disclosing Royal phone conversations or losing your daughter in pubs.

I do not think that it was a real anecdote, not least because I can see that my local state school has not fallen into the sea, or even Rushey Mead watermeadows!

Nor do I, but Charles was extending the scenario, so I thought I would.