Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

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

1235»

Comments

  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    After Newsnight last night and Andy Burnham with Kay Burley this afternoon it is difficult not to conclude that labour really need a new health secretary with immediate effect if they hope to gain any political points out of the NHS. Also my wife who is not interested in politics commented this afternoon that every time she hears David Cameron he seems to get better and better and that Ed Miliband just gets worse and worse.

    It's too close to the GE now. Burnham's only get out could be 'health reasons', either himself or a family member.
    or the fact he is no good at being in charge of it
  • audreyanneaudreyanne Posts: 1,376
    edited January 2015
    Pulpstar said:

    Argyll and Bute - away with the fairies if you think they;ll win that one starting 6 pts ahead of the SNP there.

    15 pt headstart in Aberdeenshire West & Kincardine, and still the Nats are big favourites.

    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.
    Pulpstar 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.
    Argyll and Bute definitely shouldn't be

    You can get 33-1 on the Conservatives winning in Leeds Northwest. I'm not tempted.
    Did either of you actually read my three posts?! The seats you have selected were in the second outside chances, out beyond the 25 I listed from whence I predicted 20 blue gains. The clue was in the word 'outside' and the fact I posted them separate to the other 25 ;)

    RCS1000 is right: it's pure mathematics. I'd say the 11-20 at 9/2 at Ladbrokes is a very good bet right now. It's much shorter at WillHill, for a reason. And if they do go 11-20 that's pretty much my 20 blue gains sewn up.

    If they stay in single figures it doesn't matter how concentrated their vote is, nor how brilliant their local campaigning, they won't stop the national tide with that. Heck, they only won 20 seats off 18% in 1992.
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    edited January 2015
    isam said:

    Pong said:

    Th NS article on the last thread is fascinating.

    http://may2015.com/featured/may-2015-and-the-art-of-political-betting/

    I remain of the view that bookies will struggle to make money out of political betting / current affairs. It is one of the few market areas where informed, shrewd punters have a substantial edge over the bookies.

    As part of a general (much overdue) bookkeeping exercise, I listed every one of my fixed odds political bets on a spreadsheet last night (not including my substantial betfair positions/trades).

    In total, I've staked £1044 on 52 bets. If all the bets won at the odds that I took, I'd be £12351 in profit. Bear in mind, this is profit, not including the return of the stake. Also, It would be impossible for all of the bets to come in - but for the purpose of this exercise, that doesn't matter. The odds have since lengthened on 2 bets, remained the same on 9 and have shortened on all the others.

    The key point here is - If I were to place those exact same bets now (for the same stakes) at the best odds currently available, my profit would be only £5816. If there were a cashout option on my bets, i'd be able to double my money and walk away.

    That's quite an edge I have on the bookies.

    I'm not willy-waving here. I'm just wondering if there are enough heart-over-head mug-punters, betting enough cash at poor odds for the bookies to offset their losses to the sharps.

    I hope so, but I'm sceptical.

    Mirror Mirror on the wall, who is the shrewdest of them all? ;)
    OK, now that is willy waving :)

    Have you done a similar calculation, sam?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,769
    edited January 2015
    http://www.libdemvoice.org/so-about-that-lib-dem-wipeout-in-2015-then-32552.html

    Some Lib Dem analysis, but Maybe knock off another couple to account for the SNP and Plaid (we can ignore Ukip). defies polling gravity.
    Edit - I see this article was written in 2013
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    Pong said:

    If there were a cashout option on my bets, i'd be able to double my money and walk away.

    No, you wouldn't. Cash out is based on taking the "other side" of the price. If you back something at 4/1 and it shortens to 2/1, you only make about 33% (because you have to back the other side at 4/11).

    If you back something at 25/1, and it shortens to 12/1, you just get your money back on a cash out (because bookies usually bet 1/25 v 12/1).

    Many of these selections have shortened precisely because you backed them. Chances are, they're good bets, but chances also are that the bookies have over-reacted to your money.
    Its why the cashout button is muggy... you are paying the over round twice
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Dair 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 keep talking about Scottish seats going blue. They won't they are going SNP a minimum of 9, possibly all 11. None are going blue.
    She has no knowledge of what is going on in Scotland. The reason the Lib Dems will be slaughtered is precisely because they went into bed with the Tories.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,769

    I'd say the 11-20 at 9/2 at Ladbrokes is a very good bet right now. It's much shorter at WillHill , for a reason. And if they do go 11-20 that's pretty much my 20 blue gains sewn up.

    It's much shorter at WillHill
    for a reason

    :D
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,769
    For those that didn't understand the joke in my last comment, do yourself a favour and never, ever ever bet on politics.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,769
    isam said:

    Pong said:

    If there were a cashout option on my bets, i'd be able to double my money and walk away.

    No, you wouldn't. Cash out is based on taking the "other side" of the price. If you back something at 4/1 and it shortens to 2/1, you only make about 33% (because you have to back the other side at 4/11).

    If you back something at 25/1, and it shortens to 12/1, you just get your money back on a cash out (because bookies usually bet 1/25 v 12/1).

    Many of these selections have shortened precisely because you backed them. Chances are, they're good bets, but chances also are that the bookies have over-reacted to your money.
    Its why the cashout button is muggy... you are paying the over round twice
    I've used it once, at Bet365 on Swansea to get relegated - after checking the Betfair Lay price at the time... but yes in general it is a muggy button.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    isam said:

    Pong said:

    If there were a cashout option on my bets, i'd be able to double my money and walk away.

    No, you wouldn't. Cash out is based on taking the "other side" of the price. If you back something at 4/1 and it shortens to 2/1, you only make about 33% (because you have to back the other side at 4/11).

    If you back something at 25/1, and it shortens to 12/1, you just get your money back on a cash out (because bookies usually bet 1/25 v 12/1).

    Many of these selections have shortened precisely because you backed them. Chances are, they're good bets, but chances also are that the bookies have over-reacted to your money.
    Its why the cashout button is muggy... you are paying the over round twice
    Yes, it's usually better to let bets run. Exchange betting is an exception due to their commission structure - but even then it's rare to see the value flip from one side of the market to the other.
  • audreyanneaudreyanne Posts: 1,376
    Pulpstar said:

    For those that didn't understand the joke in my last comment, do yourself a favour and never, ever ever bet on politics.

    Pulpstar said:

    pshelogical wonderment.

    I'm still in wonderment at your attempt to drag Ofsted into it.
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664

    Lots of speculation here without looking at the polling numbers.

    The last two waves of Ashcroft CON-LD battlegrounds each had average swings to CON of just 2%. Now there was an awful lot of variation between the seats but they don't, as some on here are suggesting, point to big gains. Possibly 7 but maybe 10 max.

    In most of these defences the LDs are far better organised with more skilled ground troops and far better databases.

    Clearly where an incumbent MP like Alan Beith is standing down then it will be a harder. But the Ashcroft polling had the yellows ahead amongst alll those expressing a preference in his seat.

    I don't think I am ever going to understand this. That is historical polling, however specialised and expensive and interesting it was at the time. If I want to know what the weather is going to be like tomorrow where I live, a bespoke micro-climatological forecast for my house and garden conducted by a team of met office experts, if it's more than 24 hours old, is bugger all value compared with just listening to the national forecast.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,364
    Is Burnham out of sorts?

    First he was Warked all over on Newsnight and now he's been Burley'd on Sky.

    Yes, I must get out more, but it's cold.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300

    dr_spyn said:

    Why is #AskGalloway trending?

    Israel v. Hezbollah today?
    George Galloway is being trolled, the #askgalloway questions are worse than Guido's comments section. It is so hard not to laugh.

  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited January 2015
    Pong said:

    isam said:

    Pong said:

    Th NS article on the last thread is fascinating.

    http://may2015.com/featured/may-2015-and-the-art-of-political-betting/

    I remain of the view that bookies will struggle to make money out of political betting / current affairs. It is one of the few market areas where informed, shrewd punters have a substantial edge over the bookies.

    As part of a general (much overdue) bookkeeping exercise, I listed every one of my fixed odds political bets on a spreadsheet last night (not including my substantial betfair positions/trades).

    In total, I've staked £1044 on 52 bets. If all the bets won at the odds that I took, I'd be £12351 in profit. Bear in mind, this is profit, not including the return of the stake. Also, It would be impossible for all of the bets to come in - but for the purpose of this exercise, that doesn't matter. The odds have since lengthened on 2 bets, remained the same on 9 and have shortened on all the others.

    The key point here is - If I were to place those exact same bets now (for the same stakes) at the best odds currently available, my profit would be only £5816. If there were a cashout option on my bets, i'd be able to double my money and walk away.

    That's quite an edge I have on the bookies.

    I'm not willy-waving here. I'm just wondering if there are enough heart-over-head mug-punters, betting enough cash at poor odds for the bookies to offset their losses to the sharps.

    I hope so, but I'm sceptical.

    Mirror Mirror on the wall, who is the shrewdest of them all? ;)
    OK, now that is willy waving :)

    Have you done a similar calculation, sam?
    Haha

    No I haven't... I think the book is looking ok, the only one that's gone against me is the lay of Tories in Rochester at 11/10

    I backed Lab SNP Coalition at 10s and Lab/LD/SNP tripartite at 25s... my first ventures into the world of non UKIP related political betting since I backed David Miliband to replace Gordon at 5/2!

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,769
    I'll spell it out just for the benefit of any lurkers that aren't so sure - If Ladbrokes are longer than Hills on a price, beware - its probably not a good bet.

    Skybet is the Home of Value, and Betfair Sportsbook has had some corkers recently.

    But @Shadsy seldom gets his prices wrong.
  • audreyanneaudreyanne Posts: 1,376
    surbiton said:

    Dair 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 keep talking about Scottish seats going blue. They won't they are going SNP a minimum of 9, possibly all 11. None are going blue.
    She has no knowledge of what is going on in Scotland. The reason the Lib Dems will be slaughtered is precisely because they went into bed with the Tories.
    Again, if you look carefully, actually even if you don't look carefully but instead simply look, you'll see that there are only 2 Scottish seats in the list of 25 possibles. Neither of those two are out of the realms.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    After Newsnight last night and Andy Burnham with Kay Burley this afternoon it is difficult not to conclude that labour really need a new health secretary with immediate effect if they hope to gain any political points out of the NHS. Also my wife who is not interested in politics commented this afternoon that every time she hears David Cameron he seems to get better and better and that Ed Miliband just gets worse and worse.

    It's too close to the GE now. Burnham's only get out could be 'health reasons', either himself or a family member.
    The other option is to put Liz Kendall in the spotlight. She holds a health portfolio, speaks well and thinks on her feet. She had nothing to do with the Brown-Blair NHS, so can not be in the spotlight for past failings.

    She is a star.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,769

    surbiton said:

    Dair 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 keep talking about Scottish seats going blue. They won't they are going SNP a minimum of 9, possibly all 11. None are going blue.
    She has no knowledge of what is going on in Scotland. The reason the Lib Dems will be slaughtered is precisely because they went into bed with the Tories.
    Again, if you look carefully, actually even if you don't look carefully but instead simply look, you'll see that there are only 2 Scottish seats in the list of 25 possibles. Neither of those two are out of the realms.
    Aberdeenshire West isn't, Argyll and Bute most definitely is.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,769
    Weight of cash suggests Thornbury and Yate is safe, not a single bet at 11-4 there for the Conservatives.

    http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/thornbury-and-yate/winning-party
  • audreyanneaudreyanne Posts: 1,376
    edited January 2015
    Pulpstar said:

    surbiton said:

    Dair 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 keep talking about Scottish seats going blue. They won't they are going SNP a minimum of 9, possibly all 11. None are going blue.
    She has no knowledge of what is going on in Scotland. The reason the Lib Dems will be slaughtered is precisely because they went into bed with the Tories.
    Again, if you look carefully, actually even if you don't look carefully but instead simply look, you'll see that there are only 2 Scottish seats in the list of 25 possibles. Neither of those two are out of the realms.
    Aberdeenshire West isn't, Argyll and Bute most definitely is.
    I'm not too sure how I have to put this, perhaps I should stop trying, but neither of those are in the 25 either!! They are the outside list. The two Scottish seats that I placed in the 25 are:

    Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk
    and
    Fife North East.

    This latter is mainly because Ming is standing down, which I think makes it more vulnerable.

    Remember I'm only suggesting 20 out of that list of 25. Here they are again:

    Berwick-upon-Tweed
    Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk
    Brecon and Radnorshire
    Carshalton and Wallington
    Cheadle
    Cheltenham
    Chippenham
    Colchester
    Cornwall North
    Devon North
    Dorset Mid and Poole North
    Fife North East (Ming Campbell standing down, outside chance)
    Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell standing down)
    Kingston and Surbiton
    Lewes
    Portsmouth South (Mike Hancock … )
    Solihull
    Somerton and Frome
    Southport
    St Austell and Newquay
    St Ives
    Sutton and Cheam
    Taunton Deane
    Torbay
    Wells
  • Pulpstar said:

    Weight of cash suggests Thornbury and Yate is safe, not a single bet at 11-4 there for the Conservatives.

    http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/thornbury-and-yate/winning-party

    I believe (and Shadsy confirmed this in a post here a few weeks ago) that the OddsChecker 'Most Popular Bets' charts are a load of garbage and should be ignored.
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    edited January 2015

    Pong said:

    If there were a cashout option on my bets, i'd be able to double my money and walk away.

    No, you wouldn't. Cash out is based on taking the "other side" of the price. If you back something at 4/1 and it shortens to 2/1, you only make about 33% (because you have to back the other side at 4/11).

    If you back something at 25/1, and it shortens to 12/1, you just get your money back on a cash out (because bookies usually bet 1/25 v 12/1).

    Many of these selections have shortened precisely because you backed them. Chances are, they're good bets, but chances also are that the bookies have over-reacted to your money.
    You're a smart guy, tissue - and what you say would be correct, if I were forced to take the current odds offered by the same bookie. My "cashout" calculation is based on the best odds available *anywhere* - often on betfair if they have a market.

    I can't be arsed to recalculate what my actual "cashout" figure would be, if I were to lay off every bet, but the calculation would still be nearly double.

    It's also the case that some of the best that I've placed have stayed under the radar, and not shifted the odds. Yet.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,769
    edited January 2015

    Pulpstar said:

    surbiton said:

    Dair 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 keep talking about Scottish seats going blue. They won't they are going SNP a minimum of 9, possibly all 11. None are going blue.
    She has no knowledge of what is going on in Scotland. The reason the Lib Dems will be slaughtered is precisely because they went into bed with the Tories.
    Again, if you look carefully, actually even if you don't look carefully but instead simply look, you'll see that there are only 2 Scottish seats in the list of 25 possibles. Neither of those two are out of the realms.
    Aberdeenshire West isn't, Argyll and Bute most definitely is.
    I'm not too sure how I have to put this, perhaps I should stop trying, but neither of those are in the 25 either!! They are the outside list. The two I placed in the 25 are:

    Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk
    and
    Fife North East.

    This latter is mainly because Ming is standing down, which I think makes it more vulnerable.
    I backed Conservatives for £3 in Fife at 16-1, pre SNP surge. I remember SNP were 4s at the time, the Conservative price hasn't come in and I'm glad I didn't get on for any more. Nailed on SNP gain.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    Pulpstar said:

    Weight of cash suggests Thornbury and Yate is safe, not a single bet at 11-4 there for the Conservatives.

    http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/thornbury-and-yate/winning-party

    That isn't "weight of cash" - I think it's just click-through rate (but not updated live). Oddschecker have no idea what bets are ultimately placed.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited January 2015
    Hasheem Amla averaging 380 In this ODI series!
  • audreyanneaudreyanne Posts: 1,376
    Pulpstar said:

    I'll spell it out just for the benefit of any lurkers that aren't so sure - If Ladbrokes are longer than Hills on a price, beware - its probably not a good bet.

    Hmmmm … now there's one for an interesting discussion! It's a slightly contentious comment Pulpstar but I'm going to engage with it after I've finished my round of long-range betting.

    Anyway, peace to you and I hope you make some dosh.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,769
    Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk is an interesting seat... but I'm wary of betting on it as it could well be one of those "special case" Lib Dem seats. And given the Ashcroft polling 11-8 doesn't tempt me.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Grandiose 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.
    Maybe they are. You wouldn't tell anyone if you were...
    There are only a few banknote paper manufacturers, and printers. Someone would know...
    De La Rue.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    George Kealey ‏@PrimeMinisterGK 5m5 minutes ago
    "@Nigel_Farage: This is really very funny... http://order-order.com/2015/01/28/guy-news-special-free-amjad-bashir-protest-outside-cchq/ …"
    Is Amjed Bashir a kidnap victim? :)
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    Ashcroft has polled every LD seat in England and Wales where the winning margin was under 20%.

    Tories lead in nine, are level in two and are within a few points in another four.

    Labour also lead in nine, with Cambridge the only close call.
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693

    Pulpstar said:

    Weight of cash suggests Thornbury and Yate is safe, not a single bet at 11-4 there for the Conservatives.

    http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/thornbury-and-yate/winning-party

    That isn't "weight of cash" - I think it's just click-through rate (but not updated live). Oddschecker have no idea what bets are ultimately placed.
    Indeed. Ignore their ridiculous pie charts.
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    Reading old political threads is hilarious. That libdemvoice piece from 2013 included this classic in the comments regarding the SNP threatening the Libs : -

    "But what will their poll rating be after they have, as seems likely, lost all credibility by failing in the referendum the year before? Their raison d’etre will have virtually disappeared overnight."
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,690
    chestnut said:

    Ashcroft has polled every LD seat in England and Wales where the winning margin was under 20%.

    Tories lead in nine, are level in two and are within a few points in another four.

    Labour also lead in nine, with Cambridge the only close call.

    And the LibDems have gone backwards and the Conservatives 'forward' since then.

    That being said, Huppert will hold on to Cambridge.
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    chestnut said:

    Ashcroft has polled every LD seat in England and Wales where the winning margin was under 20%.

    Tories lead in nine, are level in two and are within a few points in another four.

    Labour also lead in nine, with Cambridge the only close call.

    Tories led in nine, were level in two and were within a few points in another four.

    Labour also led in nine, with Cambridge the only close call.
  • TCPoliticalBettingTCPoliticalBetting Posts: 10,819
    edited January 2015
    More details on why UKIP is struggling in Portsmouth. As Farage boasts, "not from Oxbridge".....
    "HE is the man at the centre of a series of political rows which have seen key Ukip members quit the party. But Paul Lovegrove, the chairman of Portsmouth South Ukip and Hampshire organiser, says his criminal past gives him the experience to be able to talk competently on subjects such as prison reform and the justice system.
    Mr Lovegrove has served two prison sentences – one for wounding with intent in 1996 and one for actual bodily harm in 2000.
    After leaving the Royal Navy, he got into trouble when a family feud ended up with him grabbing a bread knife from the kitchen and slashing a man’s face in a fight."
    http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/local/turmoil-for-ukip-as-members-quit-over-criminal-past-of-portsmouth-south-chairman-1-6546271
  • More details on why UKIP is struggling in Portsmouth. As Farage boasts, "not from Oxbridge".....

    Farage's comments are hilarious:

    But Ukip leader Nigel Farage said he is standing by Mr Lovegrove, whose last prison sentence was in 2005.

    Mr Farage said: ‘We believe that people deserve a second chance in life.

    ‘Mr Lovegrove may have fallen off the rails earlier in his life but he is now totally reformed and we are standing by him 100 per cent. We knew about his past.

    ‘With any political party, having people from all walks of life is a bonus.

    ‘After all you can’t have every party full of Oxbridge graduates.’


    I think that is what is known in the trade as a 'false dichotomy'.

    I wouldn't bet on Mr Lovegrove surviving as the local UKIP chairman for long...
  • audreyanneaudreyanne Posts: 1,376
    rcs1000 said:

    chestnut said:

    Ashcroft has polled every LD seat in England and Wales where the winning margin was under 20%.

    Tories lead in nine, are level in two and are within a few points in another four.

    Labour also lead in nine, with Cambridge the only close call.

    And the LibDems have gone backwards and the Conservatives 'forward' since then.

    That being said, Huppert will hold on to Cambridge.
    Yep those polls are a bit stale now, and taken when the Tories were bumbling along the bottom.

    new thread by the way folks
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    Ishmael_X said:

    Lots of speculation here without looking at the polling numbers.

    The last two waves of Ashcroft CON-LD battlegrounds each had average swings to CON of just 2%. Now there was an awful lot of variation between the seats but they don't, as some on here are suggesting, point to big gains. Possibly 7 but maybe 10 max.

    In most of these defences the LDs are far better organised with more skilled ground troops and far better databases.

    Clearly where an incumbent MP like Alan Beith is standing down then it will be a harder. But the Ashcroft polling had the yellows ahead amongst alll those expressing a preference in his seat.

    I don't think I am ever going to understand this. That is historical polling, however specialised and expensive and interesting it was at the time. If I want to know what the weather is going to be like tomorrow where I live, a bespoke micro-climatological forecast for my house and garden conducted by a team of met office experts, if it's more than 24 hours old, is bugger all value compared with just listening to the national forecast.
    However, you can compare the historical constituency polling with the national polling at the time, so that you can calibrate a local forecast given an updated national poll.

    The calibration in this instance is that the Lib-to-Con swing in Lib-Con marginals will be smaller than that in the national polls. The size of this swing may change over time, but Smithson is arguing that this calibration is invariant.

    To take your weather forecast analogy, you may know that where you live tends to be a few degrees cooler in summer than the forecast for the nearest big city, because it is closer to the coast, so you can adjust the forecast for the big city appropriately.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,471



    I think that is what is known in the trade as a 'false dichotomy'.

    Are you arguing that Oxbridge and prison are not mutually exclusive or do you go further and suggest a positive correlation?
  • More details on why UKIP is struggling in Portsmouth. As Farage boasts, "not from Oxbridge".....

    Farage
    "Mr Lovegrove may have fallen off the rails earlier in his life but he is now totally reformed and we are standing by him 100 per cent. We knew about his past.
    ‘With any political party, having people from all walks of life is a bonus."

    I wouldn't bet on Mr Lovegrove surviving as the local UKIP chairman for long...
    So far this has caused chaos in Portsmouth UKIP and forced a retired London lawyer to resign as the UKIP PPC in neighbouring Fareham.

    Now one criminal conviction could be said to be unfortunate and people deserve a second chance.... But the list in that article paints a different picture spanning 10+ years.

    Yes just UKIPs infamous selection systems..... Maybe he should go on the next UKIP MEP list?
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Sathnam Sanghera ‏@Sathnam · 2h2 hours ago
    Saddened to report I've had an official complaint from UKIP press office about something I tweeted last night.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B8Yth7-IAAMizJm.jpg
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,679
    rcs1000 said:

    chestnut said:

    Ashcroft has polled every LD seat in England and Wales where the winning margin was under 20%.

    Tories lead in nine, are level in two and are within a few points in another four.

    Labour also lead in nine, with Cambridge the only close call.

    And the LibDems have gone backwards and the Conservatives 'forward' since then.

    That being said, Huppert will hold on to Cambridge.
    Not sure why you are so convinced about Cambridge. I'd have thought it was 50-50 at best. There'll be a fair number of red liberals there and for once Ed's weirdness shouldn't matter.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,197

    FPT:

    Charles said:

    Carnyx said:

    Alistair said:

    Trident off to Wales?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2929226/Trident-quit-Scotland-Wales-Secret-plan-nuclear-subs-triggered-rise-SNP.html

    One fewer 'trump card' in the "inevitable" (sic) Indy negotiations......

    Given that the SNP aim is to remove Trident from Scotland then that's a win for the SNP.
    And the loss of jobs? In a 'united Kingdom moving for no good reason is pretty costly. Wales is not ideal because of the oil terminal.
    The loss of jobs was hugely exaggerated - IIRC Labour were touting 45K jobs at the same time as MoD was giving 512 as the jobs dependent on Trident.

    Neither of the figures are plausible to be honest.

    I assume that 512 is the direct employment, but does not take into account any suppliers who might move, and the impact on the local service economy of the loss of high paying jobs at the site. But 45K seems a ludicrous exaggeration.
    45,000 is a ludicrous exaggeration - by a Nat. The actual Labour claim was less than half of that......

    Labour claimed: Some 6700 military and civilian jobs are at Faslane, and a further 1500 posts are due to be created by 2022.

    Labour calculate a further 11,000 people are also directly and indirectly reliant on the base for their livelihoods.


    http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/yes-vote-would-put-19000-faslane-jobs-at-risk.19860457
    They have used fantasy figures for the job numbers forever. Be lucky if 5 figures total for sure , the unions did work on it and it was nowhere near any of the magic numbers the unionists quote on a regular basis.
This discussion has been closed.