politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Maybe Ed Miliband has judged that the Tory press isn’t the

@BethRigby: It's not just the #BCC concerned abt extending paternity leave: John Allan of #FSB: "[It's] a cost that some firms will struggle to afford”

Look on the bright side.

At least none of Labour's announcements so far have been accompanied by an actual car crash.

Yet.

OK, pop poll pickers...so today we definitely have Populus, Lord A (er, well, yes, um) and dear ole' YouGov.

About time for another ComRes (online or phone or both) isn't it....and ICM and MORI are surely due this week, aren't they?

rcs1000 said:

chestnut said:

SquareRoot said:

Mr Smithson seems fixated on "Why Dave cannot win " threads

Indeed he does.

The Daily Mail is the UK's most frequented news website.

53 million visits per month.

Of which 48 million* were related to celebrities boobs.

* OK, I made that up. But what proportion of Daily Mail page views are of the opinion pieces? 1%? 0.1%? or less?

The most salient story today seems to be the anti-Hebdo protests in London.

3rd on their most read

12,000 shares already

430 comments of which the top 10 have more than 13,000 upvotes and the top 4 20,000 upvotes.

Prince Charles article also has 54,000 shares now.

Those are the big two politically relevant stories in amongst the celeb tat.

Interesting article.

If you go on 2010 figures, the LDs were twice as popular as the the Sun.

Even considering current voter apathy, We can expect the two main parties to EACH receive more votes than the combined readership of the printed press.

Did someone mention Labour hypocrisy?

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/6327797/Nearly-40-Labour-MPs-hire-staff-on-zero-hours-contracts.html

Confirmed Martin Boon has told us, we're not getting the ICM this week.

JohnO said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JohnO said:

OK, pop poll pickers...so today we definitely have Populus, Lord A (er, well, yes, um) and dear ole' YouGov.

About time for another ComRes (online or phone or both) isn't it....and ICM and MORI are surely due this week, aren't they?

I think we'll get ICM next week, and if we're good Ipsos-Mori this week.

My chance to trouser £100 rests on this Ipsos-Mori.

Bonne chance....now you're a pbTory, we do share our winnings. Paging Neil....

I expect I won't be winning this one. The bet is the Greens to be third or higher in this month's Ipsos-Mori poll.

What was the bet for this ICM £100 Green stuff ?

What were the odds ?

14-1 ?

OblitusSumMe said:

The politicisation of climate science has all been driven by those people attempting to throw mud at the bits of climate science that are so settled they are boring to working climate scientists. There is plenty of uncertainty in climate science, but the political opponents don't ever want to talk about the interesting bits, because its the bits that imply that it's a real thing that they feel they have to attack for political reasons.

Hmm, I think that's a bit generous to the climate-change scientists. As a scientist myself I was absolutely flabbergasted to discover that the climate-change computer model of Norwich University was proprietary, i.e. the source code of the model was not available for peer review.

That, by definition, is not science.

Roger said:

Charles

"But they never behaved like this: what has changed?"

Thatcher! (Alanbrooke take note). She encouraged greed and 'get rich quick' with her privatizations and lauding the unacceptable face of capitalism. Inviting the likes of Hanson into her inner circle. She even presided over the corruption of lawyers once as respected as doctors. Now the only professions that have remained unscathed are ones in the public services

Guffaw !

wel done Roger you've avoided today's remedial class.

Now can you explain why Labour did nothing about it ? And why is "filthy rich" Mandelson OK for Labourites ?

As for Lawyers they did it to themselves, Thatcher has bugger all to do with it.

Pulpstar said:

What was the bet for this ICM £100 Green stuff ?

What were the odds ?

14-1 ?

5/1 - Dead heat rules apply. From the headline figures, not the drilled down figures.

TheScreamingEagles said:

The most important stats about climate change today.

@Andrew_ComRes: ATTENTION SINGLE MEN: Almost 1 in 4 women less likely to go on date w/someone who doesn't think climate change needs tackling #showthelove

@Andrew_ComRes: 26% of women less likely to marry someone who doesn't believe climate change needs tackling #showthelove

That sounds like the one in 4 who aren't worth chasing.

Outrage bandwagon ahoy !

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

The most important stats about climate change today.

@Andrew_ComRes: ATTENTION SINGLE MEN: Almost 1 in 4 women less likely to go on date w/someone who doesn't think climate change needs tackling #showthelove

@Andrew_ComRes: 26% of women less likely to marry someone who doesn't believe climate change needs tackling #showthelove

That sounds like the one in 4 who aren't worth chasing.

Outrage bandwagon ahoy !

Probably because those who believe AGW is rubbish are more rational whilst those who don't are more emotional. Alternatively it could be a sort of 'build a safe nest for our young' mentality.

Floater said:

Did someone mention Labour hypocrisy?

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/6327797/Nearly-40-Labour-MPs-hire-staff-on-zero-hours-contracts.html

Regularly - still trying to square how forcing businesses to give paid paternity leave to male staff is 'aggressively pro business'.

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

What was the bet for this ICM £100 Green stuff ?

What were the odds ?

14-1 ?

5/1 - Dead heat rules apply. From the headline figures, not the drilled down figures.

Was the bet placed before or after Bennett's car crash interview ?

Before.

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

What was the bet for this ICM £100 Green stuff ?

What were the odds ?

14-1 ?

5/1 - Dead heat rules apply. From the headline figures, not the drilled down figures.

Was the bet placed before or after Bennett's car crash interview ?

God knows I'm not her biggest fan but she's done very well in dealing with the significantly increased exposure in recent times.

Pulpstar said:

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-2/mori

Must admit I'm looking at this table and struggling to work out which side is the value, 5-1 sounds like a fair price but perhaps it's really a 10s chance ?

No idea honestly though - a tricky one to price

What'a apparent is that although Labour sometimes tick's up, the overall trend is down since 2013. Very much the same picture with other pollsters and there's no reason to think that long term trend should change between now and polling day...

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

The most important stats about climate change today.

@Andrew_ComRes: ATTENTION SINGLE MEN: Almost 1 in 4 women less likely to go on date w/someone who doesn't think climate change needs tackling #showthelove

@Andrew_ComRes: 26% of women less likely to marry someone who doesn't believe climate change needs tackling #showthelove

That sounds like the one in 4 who aren't worth chasing.

Outrage bandwagon ahoy !

Has given me a few ideas for chat up lines.

I'll melt your heart like a car engine melts the polar ice caps.

I'll get your temperature rising quicker than the Earth's temperature due to global warming.

Surely you'd be better telling them about the trauma of climate change and how that twister dumped you in Kansas in your red shoes ?

Pulpstar said:

Neil said:

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

What was the bet for this ICM £100 Green stuff ?

What were the odds ?

14-1 ?

5/1 - Dead heat rules apply. From the headline figures, not the drilled down figures.

Was the bet placed before or after Bennett's car crash interview ?

God knows I'm not her biggest fan but she's done very well in dealing with the significantly increased exposure in recent times.

Have you actually costed the manifesto properly though ?

Rather difficult to do seeing as the 2015 GE manifesto hasnt been published yet. Andrew Neil's charms as a political interviewer have always evaded me.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/why-politics-in-flux-will-produce-unexpected-alliances.118014653

If, for example, the Nationalists take 40 seats in Scotland, then Ed Miliband will need to gain 88 constituencies in England. That simply isn't going to happen, indeed no one I've spoken to recently (including Labour people) believe anyone other than the Conservatives will emerge as the largest party in terms of MPs.

[...]

I can't help feeling, however, that this "no deal with the Tories" line is just that, a pre-election position the SNP feels it has to hold. Speaking to the Observer in December Mr Salmond was more pragmatic, saying that the SNP would look to squeeze concessions from a minority Conservative government on an issue-by-issue basis, for example securing Scotland an opt out should the rest of the UK choose to leave the European Union.

@PopulusPolls: Latest Populus VI: Lab 34 (-), Con 33 (+2), LD 8 (-), UKIP 15 (-1), Others 10 (-1). Tables here: http://t.co/5SfSTX9zbX

@MSmithsonPB: From John Curtice report for Electoral Reform Soc - the vote share targets for LAB & CON majorities http://t.co/pXrz2cFwAj

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2015/02/08/kievs-bloody-war-is-backfiring/
Western Ukrainian journalist Ruslan Kotsaba arrested for treason. "I would rather sit in jail for three to five years than go to the east to kill my Ukrainian brothers. This fear-mongering must be stopped."

Pulpstar said:

Neil said:

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

What was the bet for this ICM £100 Green stuff ?

What were the odds ?

14-1 ?

5/1 - Dead heat rules apply. From the headline figures, not the drilled down figures.

Was the bet placed before or after Bennett's car crash interview ?

God knows I'm not her biggest fan but she's done very well in dealing with the significantly increased exposure in recent times.

Have you actually costed the manifesto properly though ?

Or did you not expect it to be scrutinised on a costing basis rather than just political attacks on it being too left wing etc... which would be very good for the Greens

O'Neill's interview was smart precisely because he didn't really attack it from a political perspective, just eviscerated the accounting of it.

Except the number of NOTA-party (Ukip, Greens) voters who give a toss is vanishingly small because no-one expects them to form a government.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Tissue_Price said:

" for example securing Scotland an opt out should the rest of the UK choose to leave the European Union. "

How the hell would that work?

I'm guessing Scotland would become an independent country

Floater said:

More trouble in France (Marseille) - hooded gunmen (plural) fire on police.

I haven't got French news for a while but that sounds like pretty much a typical Monday morning in Marseille.

Tissue_Price said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Tissue_Price said:

" for example securing Scotland an opt out should the rest of the UK choose to leave the European Union. "

How the hell would that work?

I'm guessing Scotland would become an independent country

Ah yes, hadn't thought of that!

Charles said:

Re: BBC bias

I found it interesting that the BBC found it added to the story to mention that Stephen Green, "now a Tory peer" was Chairman of HSBC at the time.

It doesn't add anything to the story - which is the (apparently) shameful behaviour of HSBC, but makes it an explicitly political attack

As an aside, where the heck did it go wrong with my industry? So many people have been operating on the wrong side of the line, it's so depressing to think about.

Your last question is one I have been pondering as well. It's worth a lengthy post in itself. Rather than clutter up this thread I may do something separately and see if OGH is interested. It has relevance not just to banking but to other sectors because the root causes to my mind are very similar.

I do think it relevant to mention that Green is a Tory peer. The HSBC story is not new and one does sometimes wonder whether anyone in government does any due diligence before making appointments. Also he has been quite prominent in talking about his religious beliefs and how they are compatible with banking.

Even if Balls was asleep on the job - and I tend to the view that Labour turned a blind eye to what was going on while the money rolled in because they didn't want to kill the golden goose - all part of the Faustian pact they made with the City - it will still harm the Tories because while better than Labour in at least making some effort to go after tax evaders, they are perceived too often to be on the side of the very wealthy rather than the majority of us.

Pulpstar said:

Tissue_Price said:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/why-politics-in-flux-will-produce-unexpected-alliances.118014653

If, for example, the Nationalists take 40 seats in Scotland, then Ed Miliband will need to gain 88 constituencies in England. That simply isn't going to happen, indeed no one I've spoken to recently (including Labour people) believe anyone other than the Conservatives will emerge as the largest party in terms of MPs.

[...]

I can't help feeling, however, that this "no deal with the Tories" line is just that, a pre-election position the SNP feels it has to hold. Speaking to the Observer in December Mr Salmond was more pragmatic, saying that the SNP would look to squeeze concessions from a minority Conservative government on an issue-by-issue basis, for example securing Scotland an opt out should the rest of the UK choose to leave the European Union.

"Whoever forms the next UK government has to be the largest single party in the House of Commons"

That's a nonsense.

He even refutes it in his own piece !

He then cites "Only very rarely has a party with fewer seats than its main rival formed a government, i.e. in 1923 and February 1974."

Shush. I want that misconception getting the widest possible currency in the coming months.

Pulpstar said:

Tissue_Price said:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/why-politics-in-flux-will-produce-unexpected-alliances.118014653

If, for example, the Nationalists take 40 seats in Scotland, then Ed Miliband will need to gain 88 constituencies in England. That simply isn't going to happen, indeed no one I've spoken to recently (including Labour people) believe anyone other than the Conservatives will emerge as the largest party in terms of MPs.

[...]

I can't help feeling, however, that this "no deal with the Tories" line is just that, a pre-election position the SNP feels it has to hold. Speaking to the Observer in December Mr Salmond was more pragmatic, saying that the SNP would look to squeeze concessions from a minority Conservative government on an issue-by-issue basis, for example securing Scotland an opt out should the rest of the UK choose to leave the European Union.

"Whoever forms the next UK government has to be the largest single party in the House of Commons"

That's a nonsense.

He even refutes it in his own piece !

He then cites "Only very rarely has a party with fewer seats than its main rival formed a government, i.e. in 1923 and February 1974."

Yes, and the maths is wonky too, isn't it - Ed needs 88/2 = 44 gains. But the more interesting line is the one on the expected outcome.

Pulpstar said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

@MSmithsonPB: From John Curtice report for Electoral Reform Soc - the vote share targets for LAB & CON majorities http://t.co/pXrz2cFwAj

Interesting - on John Curtice's figures, at 10% LibDem vote share the vote-distribution advantage of Labour almost disappears, whereas at 15% LibDem vote share it's very big.

It must also be reliant on SNP performance too, the 50-1 Corals offered on Con Seats, Lab votes was madness.

And indeed UKIP vote [piling up 15%s in Berkshire and Surrey]. Everything is working in the Tories' favour with respect to these three parties [which only gets us back to a "fair" seat split] - so all the more bizarre that Mike keeps repeating his "11.4% ahead in England" UNS mantra.

Tissue_Price said:

... Speaking to the Observer in December Mr Salmond was more pragmatic, saying that the SNP would look to squeeze concessions from a minority Conservative government on an issue-by-issue basis, for example securing Scotland an opt out should the rest of the UK choose to leave the European Union.

Did he really say that?

Spot the logic failure competition.

"As HSBC shares dipped 1% in Monday morning trading, falling 7.6p to 613p, the Conservative Treasury minister David Gauke said primary responsibility for the scandal lay with HSBC, but he also hit out at Labour. The shadow chancellor, Ed Balls, was economic secretary to the Treasury during the period covered by the HSBC files, which are a snapshot of behaviour at the bank between 2005 and early 2007."

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/feb/09/margaret-hodge-accuses-ex-chairman-lord-stephen-green-over-hsbc-files

OblitusSumMe said:

What do you mean by your final sentence?

Science has never proceeded by audit. Other scientists would not have come into the Roslin Institute and asked to clone their own sheep using the equipment there. They would have followed the description of the method in the relevant papers and then recreated it themselves in their own labs, with their own equipment.

Being open about computer code is important, but a paper should provide enough information about the methods used that other scientists can recreate it, and arguably this method is more robust to error, as mistakes in computer code can survive undetected for a long time, but two people writing code for the same method are unlikely to make the same coding mistakes.

I mean that, by definition, in science you must be able to reproduce the results and check the workings. In the case of a computer model, there might be, as you say, straightforward coding errors, and there will certainly be implicit assumptions. Essentially the climate-change models were black boxes which other scientists weren't allowed to look into. By definition that is not science, the models were not peer-reviewed nor reproducible by other scientists.

As I said, I was absolutely flabbergasted when this came out. The University of Norwich went to great lengths to try to keep the model secret. This totally shook my faith in the climate change 'science', since it clearly wasn't science if it was secret and unverifiable.

Your point about the Roslin Institute is wrong: other scientists could reproduce the experiment. What's more, if there was anything unclear about how to do it, then a scientist can always ask the original authors of the paper and would expect to get a sensible reply, not 'you are not allowed to know'.

Anyone thinking of shorting Samsung stock?

@Chrisitv: Samsung Smart TV viewers warned sets "listen' to every conversation and may share any details they hear with Samsung or third parties"

@Chrisitv: Samsung says "If spoken words include personal or sensitive information, that will be among data captured and transmitted to third party."

Pulpstar said:

Tissue_Price said:

Pulpstar said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

@MSmithsonPB: From John Curtice report for Electoral Reform Soc - the vote share targets for LAB & CON majorities http://t.co/pXrz2cFwAj

Interesting - on John Curtice's figures, at 10% LibDem vote share the vote-distribution advantage of Labour almost disappears, whereas at 15% LibDem vote share it's very big.

It must also be reliant on SNP performance too, the 50-1 Corals offered on Con Seats, Lab votes was madness.

And indeed UKIP vote [piling up 15%s in Berkshire and Surrey]. Everything is working in the Tories' favour with respect to these three parties [which only gets us back to a "fair" seat split] - so all the more bizarre that Mike keeps repeating his "11.4% ahead in England" UNS mantra.

I've been building a very nice book on the seats/votes issue - Con Seats, Labour votes is the jackpot though.

I doubt if UKIP will perform particularly well in Berkshire or Surrey, and they'll have no impact on the outcome there, in any case.

UKIP will poll well all the way down the East, and South East coast, Devon & Cornwall, the West Midlands, and South Yorkshire.

Scott_P said:

Anyone thinking of shorting Samsung stock?

@Chrisitv: Samsung Smart TV viewers warned sets "listen' to every conversation and may share any details they hear with Samsung or third parties"

@Chrisitv: Samsung says "If spoken words include personal or sensitive information, that will be among data captured and transmitted to third party."

Siri's been doing that since forever, why is everybody suddenly on Samsung's case?

Cyclefree said:

Charles said:

Re: BBC bias

I found it interesting that the BBC found it added to the story to mention that Stephen Green, "now a Tory peer" was Chairman of HSBC at the time.

It doesn't add anything to the story - which is the (apparently) shameful behaviour of HSBC, but makes it an explicitly political attack

As an aside, where the heck did it go wrong with my industry? So many people have been operating on the wrong side of the line, it's so depressing to think about.

Your last question is one I have been pondering as well. It's worth a lengthy post in itself. Rather than clutter up this thread I may do something separately and see if OGH is interested. It has relevance not just to banking but to other sectors because the root causes to my mind are very similar.

I do think it relevant to mention that Green is a Tory peer. The HSBC story is not new and one does sometimes wonder whether anyone in government does any due diligence before making appointments. Also he has been quite prominent in talking about his religious beliefs and how they are compatible with banking.

Even if Balls was asleep on the job - and I tend to the view that Labour turned a blind eye to what was going on while the money rolled in because they didn't want to kill the golden goose - all part of the Faustian pact they made with the City - it will still harm the Tories because while better than Labour in at least making some effort to go after tax evaders, they are perceived too often to be on the side of the very wealthy rather than the majority of us.

It's not just finance - something seems to have gone wrong with our culture across multiple areas at the same time. It's not quite corruption, but it's certainly self-seeking.

malcolmg said:

felix said:

No individual, in their right mind would choose to pay extra tax than is legally necessary so why do we insist that companies act differently? Fine when people break the law prosecute to the full but all the rest is cant and rank hypocrisy. It's like blaming the banks when people borrow more than they can afford. We really need to get back to people taking responsibility for their actions.

The issue is these tossers allow their chums to "avoid " tax by not fixing the rules properly. They are happy to assist their chums accountants get round their pathetic legislation but are far more diligent on PAYE and on benefit claimants. It is the rank hypocrisy and assistance of one section of society that people do not like.

malcolmg said:

Sean_F said:

Pulpstar said:

Casino_Royale said:

I wake this morning to universal idiotic calls to police what people say on the Internet.

Where did all this madness start?

Where ?

An all-party committee wants to ban "racists" from using social media.

Just confirms the place is full of donkeys

Roger said:

Charles

"As an aside, where the heck did it go wrong with my industry? So many people have been operating on the wrong side of the line, it's so depressing to think about."

Greed. Mixed with a bit of the 'masters of the universe' stuff which polished their egos. A pretty ugly combination

Where there is money there will be stupidity and greed. And that applies to all of us, not just bankers. Always has been and always will.

The more interesting question to my mind is why we are so poor at understanding this and controlling it and what we might learn to do better in future.

Neil said:

Pulpstar said:

Neil said:

Pulpstar said:

Neil said:

Pulpstar said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Pulpstar said:

What was the bet for this ICM £100 Green stuff ?

What were the odds ?

14-1 ?

5/1 - Dead heat rules apply. From the headline figures, not the drilled down figures.

Was the bet placed before or after Bennett's car crash interview ?

God knows I'm not her biggest fan but she's done very well in dealing with the significantly increased exposure in recent times.

Have you actually costed the manifesto properly though ?

Rather difficult to do seeing as the 2015 GE manifesto hasnt been published yet. Andrew Neil's charms as a political interviewer have always evaded me.

But the citizen's income - it doesn't even sound like too bad an idea and I imagine could have alot of appeal... but did noone think about the expense of it and how it should be paid for ?

I think I remember you saying it's now been shelved, O Neill giving you a helping hand with your figures

There are many citizen's income proposals out there and all are capable of being costed (and I imagine all have been). Citizen's income remains Green party policy. Whether (or what form) it appears in the 2015 GE manifesto will have nothing to do with Andrew Neil.

The joy about "Citizen's Income" is that you can simply get rid of an enormous number of other benefits (i.e. all of them, with the possible exception of disability) - so, no more housing benefit, no more job seekers, etc. etc. etc.

And you also get rid of all the adminstrative costs associated with those benefits. You could even roll child-benefit into it by having a small "citizen's income" per child.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Smarmeron said:

Spot the logic failure competition.

"As HSBC shares dipped 1% in Monday morning trading, falling 7.6p to 613p, the Conservative Treasury minister David Gauke said primary responsibility for the scandal lay with HSBC, but he also hit out at Labour. The shadow chancellor, Ed Balls, was economic secretary to the Treasury during the period covered by the HSBC files, which are a snapshot of behaviour at the bank between 2005 and early 2007."

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/feb/09/margaret-hodge-accuses-ex-chairman-lord-stephen-green-over-hsbc-files

Balls deep in trouble ?

Expect Balls to come out swinging on this as he did with the Libor stuff. As HMRC didn't know about the leaks until 2010, he's probably in the clear - it's not as if the fact that banks were behaving badly in that period is unknown, and I doubt many people will expect him as economic sec to know the intimate global workings of a bank if those in charge of policing them didn't. It's Tory ministers trying to get the mud slung everywhere as they know appointing Stephen Green and making him a Lord after HSBC had been rumbled is a very bad look.


Yes in general Balls was evidently too soft on the banks, but that's hardly a charge the Tories can make stick when they appointed the guy in charge to government after they knew about what his bank had been up to!