politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A worrying trend for Ed Miliband’s team: Labour’s 2010 Lib

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Tissue_Price said:

Shadsy: http://politicalbookie.com/2015/01/28/the-two-seats-the-tories-need-to-win/

Keighley @ 5/4 is seat #281 (in ascending odds order), roughly meaning Tories Most Seats
Sherwood @ 11/4 is seat #326, meaning TOM

Now the specific seats don't really matter, but it's interesting that they should be this close in price, given the supposed inevitability of a Hung Parliament.

If you want to back TOM, back the 6.6 on betfair or the 5/1 widely available.

If you want to back Tories Most Seats, make yourself a portfolio of seats in the 11/10 - 11/8 range.

Only 323 required, assuming 5 Sinn Fein MPs

MikeK said:

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/01/28/ukip-taster-manifesto-offers-welcome-return-to-low-tax-small-state-politics‏/

UKIP TASTER MANIFESTO OFFERS WELCOME RETURN TO LOW TAX, SMALL STATE POLITICS

MikeSmithson said:

For the Tories to take Sherwood they need to be 11.4% ahead in England.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Pulpstar said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Tissue_Price said:

Shadsy: http://politicalbookie.com/2015/01/28/the-two-seats-the-tories-need-to-win/

Keighley @ 5/4 is seat #281 (in ascending odds order), roughly meaning Tories Most Seats
Sherwood @ 11/4 is seat #326, meaning TOM

Now the specific seats don't really matter, but it's interesting that they should be this close in price, given the supposed inevitability of a Hung Parliament.

If you want to back TOM, back the 6.6 on betfair or the 5/1 widely available.

If you want to back Tories Most Seats, make yourself a portfolio of seats in the 11/10 - 11/8 range.

Only 323 required, assuming 5 Sinn Fein MPs

NOT FOR THE BETTING MARKETS.

WELL THEY SHOULD BE - AMATEURS!

Pulpstar said:

I'm offering £20 at 3-1 on Conservative in Sherwood

Tissue_Price said:

Pulpstar said:

I'm offering £20 at 3-1 on Conservative in Sherwood

I've just told people not to back that and take 5/1 on TOM instead!

Morris_Dancer said:

Greens to keep 20% of deposits or fewer now down to 2/1 on Betfair, was 8/1 yesterday (wish I'd gotten on at those odds).

logical_song said:

isam said:

logical_song said:

isam said:

logical_song said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

Pulpstar said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

Info for anyone considering betting on UKIP in Portsmouth or Fareham.
http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/local/ukip-rows-see-fareham-parliamentary-candidate-suspended-and-then-quit-1-6543949

I can't work out why the Conservatives are 1-2 in Pompey north, seems far too long to me.

Not answering your question.
FYI there is worse to come out about UKIP.

Portsmouth North is Frank Judd's old seat and contains Paulsgrove a large council estate, I would have thought that Labour were in with a good chance. Labour won in '74, '97 and '05. The Tories won in '79 with the infamous Peter Griffiths and in '10.

Ah Logical Song! What was the bet you offered that I bottled?

Can't you remember, something about the number of UKIP MPs. Dig it out in the archives if you'd like to reconsider.

I doubt it happened to be honest, I think you are are making it up. If I made a claim and you offered better odds than bookies I would have had it

Of course I'm not making it up, how dare you suggest such a thing.
I guess that the odds weren't better than the bookies, that's an excuse for bottling it.

Indigo said:

taffys said:

From what I read in today's papers, the EU is preparing to humiliate Greece's government, and torpedo the absurd notion that austerity can be 'turned away from'

This should be fun.

Tsipras was an idiot, he made the same mistake as Cameron, he told them he wouldn't default. Now they are feeling relaxed since it was the only thing that worried them and are going to take the p155.

isam said:

logical_song said:

isam said:

logical_song said:

isam said:

logical_song said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

Pulpstar said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

Info for anyone considering betting on UKIP in Portsmouth or Fareham.
http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/local/ukip-rows-see-fareham-parliamentary-candidate-suspended-and-then-quit-1-6543949

I can't work out why the Conservatives are 1-2 in Pompey north, seems far too long to me.

Not answering your question.
FYI there is worse to come out about UKIP.

Portsmouth North is Frank Judd's old seat and contains Paulsgrove a large council estate, I would have thought that Labour were in with a good chance. Labour won in '74, '97 and '05. The Tories won in '79 with the infamous Peter Griffiths and in '10.

Ah Logical Song! What was the bet you offered that I bottled?

Can't you remember, something about the number of UKIP MPs. Dig it out in the archives if you'd like to reconsider.

I doubt it happened to be honest, I think you are are making it up. If I made a claim and you offered better odds than bookies I would have had it

Of course I'm not making it up, how dare you suggest such a thing.
I guess that the odds weren't better than the bookies, that's an excuse for bottling it.

Well you suggested I bottled a bet.. but you cant remember what the bet was!

Weird

I don't remember it and probably would have taken you on out of bravado anyway so yes, I think you are making it up

If you offered rubbish odds and I could get better elsewhere, its hardly "bottling" a bet is it?

TheWatcher said:

rcs1000 said:

Just a little Greece update:

An unhealthy dynamic is appearing in the Greek-troika public posturing. It looks like Syriza will cancel the €950m sale of the land on which the former Athens airport stood. This is a particularly odd one, as the development of this land would create jobs (as well bringing in €950m to the government coffers). It's also a sign that Syriza is more in hock to the Chavez side of his party than to the Lula side.

In addition, his demands for a 50% haircut to Greek debts will clearly be completely unacceptable to the IMF. There are ways of lowering interest bills and pushing repayment of capital into the 2040s, which would have the effect of reducing the effective value of Greek debts by c. 50% - but meaningful haircuts would be politically unacceptable across the Eurozone, and would be straight vetoed by the IMF.

Germany, the IMF and the ECB have now all stepped up the rhetoric on the other side of the table, making it clear that (in the case of the IMF and the ECB) there will be no haircut, and that (in the case of Germany) they are not "scared" of Grexit.

With tensions rising, the possibility of a disorderly default and Grexit are rising. If Syriza were to try and call the bluff of the creditors by threatening to suspend interest payments, then I think that rating agencies would immediately declare a technical default, and the ECB would cease to accept Greek bonds as collateral. This would result in the immediate closure of the Greek banking system, due to the withdrawal of Emergency Liquidity Assistance, and (in all probability) the exit of Greece from the Eurozone within 24 hours.

To my mind, backtracking on the privatization of the Athens airport land (and some of the comments regarding the role of tourism) are the most worrying signs- it suggests the leadership is completely oblivious to economic reality. (Whether the Eurozone is right for Greece is somewhat beside the point, when you're opposing selling off unused land for development as it's part of some capitalist plot... well, you're the one who's lost the plot...)

They'd better start printing Drachma, or find someone else who can.

chestnut said:

Labour have achieved a 10%+ swing in six English by elections this parliament. In all but one seat, it was already Labour held. Three in the NW, one in London, one in yorkshire (Barnsley in 2011). The sole win was Corby.

They have achieved a less than 5% swing in four. Eastleigh, Newark, Bradford W, Rochester. Three of those have been since the start of 2013.

Labour have achieved a vote share increase above 1% just once in the seven by elections since the start of 2013. Wythenshawe in the NW - a seat they already held.

blackburn63 said:

saddened said:

blackburn63 said:

audreyanne as this is a betting site your confidence will be rewarded handsomely. Cameron is weak and duplicitous, if he was any good Ed would be sunk by now.

You seriously believe ed isn't sunk? He'll be pleased somebody still thinks he's waving and not drowning.

We saw in 2010 that the labour vote will stand up against Cameron, outside of the tribal tories he is very unpopular.

audreyanne said:

By the way, if my suggestions yesterday are right about 20+ Conservative gains from the yellows then they don't need to be 11.4% ahead of Labour in England …

Don't ignore the fallen LibDem share. It's one of the big game changers this time round.

blackburn63 said:

saddened said:

blackburn63 said:

audreyanne as this is a betting site your confidence will be rewarded handsomely. Cameron is weak and duplicitous, if he was any good Ed would be sunk by now.

You seriously believe ed isn't sunk? He'll be pleased somebody still thinks he's waving and not drowning.

We saw in 2010 that the labour vote will stand up against Cameron, outside of the tribal tories he is very unpopular.

Scott_P said:

After we’ve re-elected David Cameron, the Labour party and broader Left will look to one another in incredulity. “What happened?” they will exclaim. “Why did we lose? How did we lose?”

The answer is on the BBC website. You can see it for yourself. Go the main site, navigate through to the “Newsnight” page, click on last night’s episode, and watch Kirsty Wark’s segment with shadow health secretary Andy Burnham.

It’s not a “car-crash” interview in the classic sense of the word. There's no floundering for words, or panic stricken pauses. But those nine minutes and eight seconds encapsulate, in perfect form, why Labour will lose, and why - in truth - Labour deserves to lose.

TheWatcher said:

There are only a few banknote paper manufacturers, and printers. Someone would know...

Cyclefree said:

Scott_P said:

After we’ve re-elected David Cameron, the Labour party and broader Left will look to one another in incredulity. “What happened?” they will exclaim. “Why did we lose? How did we lose?”

The answer is on the BBC website. You can see it for yourself. Go the main site, navigate through to the “Newsnight” page, click on last night’s episode, and watch Kirsty Wark’s segment with shadow health secretary Andy Burnham.

It’s not a “car-crash” interview in the classic sense of the word. There's no floundering for words, or panic stricken pauses. But those nine minutes and eight seconds encapsulate, in perfect form, why Labour will lose, and why - in truth - Labour deserves to lose.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11374307/David-Cameron-will-be-returned-to-Downing-Street-in-99-days-time.html

Cyclefree said:

How many people watch Newsnight?

Morris_Dancer said:

Miss Cyclefree, a fair point it's hardly must-watch TV. However, amongst its declining audience are many people who write for newspapers and won't be shy pointing out how poor Burnham was.

logical_song said:

SandyRentool said:

audreyanne said:

The cost of coalition: how the LibDems will hand the Conservatives victory 3/3

8 other outside chances to watch:

Aberdeenshire West and Kincardine
Argyll and Bute
Eastbourne
Eastleigh
Edinburgh West
Leeds North West
Thornbury and Yate
Twickenham (shock of the night: Vince Cable to lose?)


My outside tip for THE shock of the night: Vince Cable to lose Twickenham


My apologies to those who had to endure this yesterday afternoon

You might as well add Redcar to that list for good measure.

Don't know about the others, but Eastleigh shouldn't be on the list.

Morris_Dancer said:

Miss Cyclefree, a fair point it's hardly must-watch TV. However, amongst its declining audience are many people who write for newspapers and won't be shy pointing out how poor Burnham was.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Yer what? Is Morris Dancer their historical adviser ?

French rewrite Battle of Waterloo to cast Napoleon as the victor

Re-enactment of 1815 conflict will seek to portray French military leader as a hero

The French are seeking to rewrite history by claiming that Napoleon Bonaparte was a “political virtuoso” who all but won the Battle of Waterloo.

A large-scale re-enactment to mark this year’s bicentenary of the conflict will paint Napoleon as a hero.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11373655/French-rewrite-Battle-of-Waterloo-to-cast-Napoleon-as-the-victor.html

TheScreamingEagles said:

Yer what? Is Morris Dancer their historical adviser ?

French rewrite Battle of Waterloo to cast Napoleon as the victor

Re-enactment of 1815 conflict will seek to portray French military leader as a hero

The French are seeking to rewrite history by claiming that Napoleon Bonaparte was a “political virtuoso” who all but won the Battle of Waterloo.

A large-scale re-enactment to mark this year’s bicentenary of the conflict will paint Napoleon as a hero.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11373655/French-rewrite-Battle-of-Waterloo-to-cast-Napoleon-as-the-victor.html

anotherDave said:

TheWatcher said:

There are only a few banknote paper manufacturers, and printers. Someone would know...

There was a Wolfson Prize for 'how to leave the Euro'.

The winning entry suggested printing money _after_ the decision had been made public.

"Recommendations
 Order the printing of new notes and the minting of new coins as soon as the announcement is made to withdraw from the euro.
 Accept that there will be a period without new notes and coins.
 In this interim phase, rely on non-cash means of payment for the majority of transactions.
 Allow euros to continue to be used where people so wish.
 As bank branches and ATMs are reopened after D-Day, all withdrawals of euros to be treated as a foreign currency transaction and debited from drachma accounts according to the prevailing exchange rate."

p.45
http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/images/WolfsonPrize/wep shortlist essay - roger bootle.pdf

rcs1000 said:

I think it's quite a difficult thing to keep secret!

Firstly, there are relatively few companies capable of printing large quantities of banknotes, De La Rue PLC is probably the biggest. And they don't have hundreds of bank note printing machines lying idle, ready to use.

Secondly, it's actually quite an involved process. You need to get designs made, and you need them to be difficult to forge and easy to recognise.

Thirdly, people talk.

nigel4england said:

audreyanne said:

The cost of coalition: how the LibDems will hand the Conservatives victory. 1/3


I was going to hold off this until after the first week of February’s fieldwork but since Pb.com has gone febrile I’ll stick it up now.

There’s an assumption amongst many that we’re heading for a hung parliament. In part it’s this human tendency to assume that what happened last time is bound to repeat. But it isn’t. Two, and possibly now three, factors are different this time. 1. LibDems 2. UKIP 3. Greens. I’m not going to bore you with details on those: they should be obvious. I’m also going to ignore here 2. And 3. For simple reasons. Firstly the Greens will damage Labour in Lab marginals, and that’s a different issue to the one I’m discussing here. Secondly there’s little evidence that UKIP will marshall forces in LibDem marginals sufficient to damage Tories. They aren’t the kind of seats where UKIP will score well. Instead I’m focusing on the LibDem-Cons marginal.

Let’s suppose for a second that the Cons and Lab poll close to GE2010: 36.1 / 29. I’m going to give them both an extra 1% and say it’s 37/30. That may be generous to Labour, less so to the Conservatives for all sorts of good reasons to do with the next 3 months of campaigning.

Okay, so last time the LibDems polled 23% for 57 seats. This time they will be lucky to get out of single figures in vote share. We all know they’re great at marshaling where they need it, but this will push them only so far. There comes a point where even they can’t resist the tide. Let’s give them too an extra 1% over their European result last year: giving them 8% which is roughly where they’re currently polling. Even that may be optimistic, but we will work with it.

Let’s suppose for a second that UKIP hit 12% after a bit of pressure during the campaign.

Baxterise those figures and you have an outright Conservative majority of 24. The LibDems lose 45 seats, and the Conservatives gain 31 of them. Bingo.

Now we all know it won’t quite work like that. We’ve also seen Lord Ashcroft’s (now stale) polls taken when the Tories were bumping along the bottom. We know the LibDems are good local campaigners. However, against that I think the Conservatives will actually poll above 37%. So here are 33 yellow seats that I think are vulnerable. My current estimate is that the Conservatives will win at least 20 of them (but I think they may take more than that)

If you are placing bets based on that theory then if I were you I would register at a local foodbank.

TheScreamingEagles said:

The Battle of Waterloo should be David Cameron's template for our EU renegotiations.

A Tory Prime Minister leading a vast European Alliance to give the French a damn good thrashing.

Cyclefree said:

Scott_P said:

After we’ve re-elected David Cameron, the Labour party and broader Left will look to one another in incredulity. “What happened?” they will exclaim. “Why did we lose? How did we lose?”

The answer is on the BBC website. You can see it for yourself. Go the main site, navigate through to the “Newsnight” page, click on last night’s episode, and watch Kirsty Wark’s segment with shadow health secretary Andy Burnham.

It’s not a “car-crash” interview in the classic sense of the word. There's no floundering for words, or panic stricken pauses. But those nine minutes and eight seconds encapsulate, in perfect form, why Labour will lose, and why - in truth - Labour deserves to lose.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11374307/David-Cameron-will-be-returned-to-Downing-Street-in-99-days-time.html

Morris_Dancer said:

Perhaps, Miss Cyclefree, but it does give an attack line to the blues, and means Labour has to try and explain what it means instead of telling us how the Conservatives will hire private companies to industrialise the eating of babies.