Skip to content
Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Local By-Election Preview : February 12th 2015

SystemSystem Posts: 12,597
edited February 2015 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Local By-Election Preview : February 12th 2015

Result of council at last election (2013): Conservatives 32, Liberal Democrats 14, United Kingdom Independence Party 12, Labour 7, Independents 4 (No Overall Control, Conservatives short by 3)
Result of ward at last election (2013):

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    The curse of the new thread
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,776
    Cheers for this, Mr. Hayfield.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    Thanks as ever for these, Harry. I note the UKIP candidate in Harlow is their parliamentary candidate for Chelmsford.

    Speaking of Harlow, 1/3 seems generous for Robert Halfon to hold on, though the price won't appeal to everyone.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    By criticising tax avoidance — an entirely legal activity — Ed Miliband has opened up some of his own colleagues and donors to questions about their own tax affairs.

    They include donor John Mills, who gave £1.65m to Labour in shares two years ago because it was the “most tax-efficient way of doing this”. The Labour leader may also see renewed scrutiny of the arrangements set up around the Miliband family home after the death of his father.
    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b005e9e8-b2ca-11e4-b234-00144feab7de.html
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,872
    Btw For Rod Crosby's L&N model... how does it hold up if you seperate out Cameron's English, Welsh and Scottish PM rankings ?
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    The Harlow result will be of particular interest.

  • WilliamOWilliamO Posts: 16
    I look forward to Harry Hayfield's splendid preview every week. It's the most serious and fact based effort on here. Totally unbiased like most of Mr Smithson's Labour leaning articles.
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    Scott_P said:

    By criticising tax avoidance — an entirely legal activity — Ed Miliband has opened up some of his own colleagues and donors to questions about their own tax affairs.

    They include donor John Mills, who gave £1.65m to Labour in shares two years ago because it was the “most tax-efficient way of doing this”. The Labour leader may also see renewed scrutiny of the arrangements set up around the Miliband family home after the death of his father.
    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b005e9e8-b2ca-11e4-b234-00144feab7de.html

    Milibands mum will be pleased. He split the family, and now the media will be sniffing around their financial affairs.
  • volcanopetevolcanopete Posts: 2,078
    Thanks to Harry.Ukip under the spotlight.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    TheWatcher said:

    Milibands mum will be pleased. He split the family, and now the media will be sniffing around their financial affairs.

    There are several donors listed in the FT article. I am sure they are delighted. Not that Labour has any problem attracting non-union funds...

    Oh, wait...
  • ArtistArtist Posts: 1,893
    I'd be interested in seeing a constituency poll for Harlow, the question is who does UKIP hurt the most in the seat and to what extent.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,872
    http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/a-vote-for-the-snp-is-a-vote-for-the-lib-dems-is-a-vote-for-the-tories-is-a-vote-for-ukip-2015021295288

    Tactical voting explained in full.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,009
    edited February 2015
    Labour were out in Sheffield Hallam today, Oliver Coppard and a few MPs with him.

    Didn't see them, but they were out there.

    I think I might end up tactically voting.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,872
    edited February 2015
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Labour were out in Sheffield Hallam today, Oliver Coppard and a few MPs with him.

    Didn't see them, but they were out there.

    I think I might end up tactically voting.

    Imagine if the day after the GE that Clegg is toppled by 1 vote.

    And Farron gives tacit support to the SNP/Labour on a bill by bill basis.

    And various PBers have lost money backing Clegg.

    And you'd wasted your vote on a no hoper candidate ;)
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,009
    Pulpstar said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Labour were out in Sheffield Hallam today, Oliver Coppard and a few MPs with him.

    Didn't see them, but they were out there.

    I think I might end up tactically voting.

    Imagine if the day after the GE that Clegg is toppled by 1 vote.

    And Farron gives tacit support to the SNP/Labour on a bill by bill basis.

    And various PBers have lost money backing Clegg.

    And you'd wasted your vote on a no hoper candidate ;)
    Why couldn't I live in Rochester & Strood, my life would be so much simpler.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,776
    Mr. Eagles, a punishment from fate for your wilfully deranged views about Caesar and Hannibal?
  • WilliamOWilliamO Posts: 16
    Artist:

    It is a very very safe Tory seat!
  • ___Bobajob______Bobajob___ Posts: 872
    Oborne vs Hodges on Ed.

    A great podcast http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/the-spectator/2015/02/peter-oborne-ed-miliband-is-the-greatest-opposition-leader-since-the-war/
  • ___Bobajob______Bobajob___ Posts: 872
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Labour were out in Sheffield Hallam today, Oliver Coppard and a few MPs with him.

    Didn't see them, but they were out there.

    I think I might end up tactically voting.

    One more vote for the Cleggmeister.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,965
    edited February 2015
    WilliamO said:

    Artist:

    It is a very very safe Tory seat!

    LAB GAIN (hopefully like Sheffield Hallam)
  • ___Bobajob______Bobajob___ Posts: 872
    TheWatcher said:

    Scott_P said:

    By criticising tax avoidance — an entirely legal activity — Ed Miliband has opened up some of his own colleagues and donors to questions about their own tax affairs.

    They include donor John Mills, who gave £1.65m to Labour in shares two years ago because it was the “most tax-efficient way of doing this”. The Labour leader may also see renewed scrutiny of the arrangements set up around the Miliband family home after the death of his father.
    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b005e9e8-b2ca-11e4-b234-00144feab7de.html
    Milibands mum will be pleased. He split the family, and now the media will be sniffing around their financial affairs.

    In your PB Tory dreams :)
  • ___Bobajob______Bobajob___ Posts: 872
    Hodges is effing owned by Oborne in the Speccy podcast. His entire thesis seems to be that Ed should simply be an anodyne Blairite to trick people into voting for him.

    Well worth listening to – I'm putting it forward for a Nighthawks link @TSE
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,872
    ___Bobajob___ said:

    Oborne vs Hodges on Ed.

    A great podcast http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/the-spectator/2015/02/peter-oborne-ed-miliband-is-the-greatest-opposition-leader-since-the-war/

    I think he's underrated but greatest LOTO since the war is pushing it a bit...
  • volcanopetevolcanopete Posts: 2,078
    Looking at NI,SF has confirmed if it was needed no Westminster seats will be taken up.Taking into account the Speaker this reduces the total required from 326 to 322 for a majority.The only change from the status quo looks to me to be DUP going from 8-9 seats,which could be significant,by beating Alliance's Naomi Long in Belfast East.Betfair has DUP 1-4,Alliance 2-1.SDLP looks to see off SF in Foyle to retain their 3.Lady Sylvia Hermon,who could possibly have the choice of government in her hands,is 1-100 to retain North Down.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 10,216
    Scott_P said:

    By criticising tax avoidance — an entirely legal activity — Ed Miliband has opened up some of his own colleagues and donors to questions about their own tax affairs.

    They include donor John Mills, who gave £1.65m to Labour in shares two years ago because it was the “most tax-efficient way of doing this”. The Labour leader may also see renewed scrutiny of the arrangements set up around the Miliband family home after the death of his father.
    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b005e9e8-b2ca-11e4-b234-00144feab7de.html

    I was impressed with Fink's interview in the Evening Standard tonight. He perfectly distinguished between the legal and prudent arrangement of one's financial affairs and downright criminality - a distinction that Miliband has been striving to blur. It will be harder in future for Miliband to disseminate such pernicious abstractions. Either someone's a criminal under British law or they're not. Weird notions that only exist in the fetid imaginings of the far-Left are neither here nor there.
  • ___Bobajob______Bobajob___ Posts: 872
    So Oborne voting for Dave and backing Ed.

    Hodges voting for Ed and backing Dave.

    Funny old world.
  • ___Bobajob______Bobajob___ Posts: 872
    Stark_Dawning said:

    Scott_P said:

    By criticising tax avoidance — an entirely legal activity — Ed Miliband has opened up some of his own colleagues and donors to questions about their own tax affairs.

    They include donor John Mills, who gave £1.65m to Labour in shares two years ago because it was the “most tax-efficient way of doing this”. The Labour leader may also see renewed scrutiny of the arrangements set up around the Miliband family home after the death of his father.
    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b005e9e8-b2ca-11e4-b234-00144feab7de.html
    I was impressed with Fink's interview in the Evening Standard tonight. He perfectly distinguished between the legal and prudent arrangement of one's financial affairs and downright criminality - a distinction that Miliband has been striving to blur. It will be harder in future for Miliband to disseminate such pernicious abstractions. Either someone's a criminal under British law or they're not. Weird notions that only exist in the fetid imaginings of the far-Left are neither here nor there.

    LOL. It was entirely embarrassing. Central Office will be wishing the Finkster simply kept his mouth shut.
  • ___Bobajob______Bobajob___ Posts: 872
    Pulpstar said:

    ___Bobajob___ said:

    Oborne vs Hodges on Ed.

    A great podcast http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/the-spectator/2015/02/peter-oborne-ed-miliband-is-the-greatest-opposition-leader-since-the-war/

    I think he's underrated but greatest LOTO since the war is pushing it a bit...
    Indeed. But the podcast is well worth listening to - the headline is clearly hyperbole.

    Meanwhile, I see that my alter ego TheLastBobaFett actually got banned after just two posts earlier this evening.

    Surely a PB record?
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 10,216
    ___Bobajob___ said:

    Stark_Dawning said:

    Scott_P said:

    By criticising tax avoidance — an entirely legal activity — Ed Miliband has opened up some of his own colleagues and donors to questions about their own tax affairs.

    They include donor John Mills, who gave £1.65m to Labour in shares two years ago because it was the “most tax-efficient way of doing this”. The Labour leader may also see renewed scrutiny of the arrangements set up around the Miliband family home after the death of his father.
    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b005e9e8-b2ca-11e4-b234-00144feab7de.html
    I was impressed with Fink's interview in the Evening Standard tonight. He perfectly distinguished between the legal and prudent arrangement of one's financial affairs and downright criminality - a distinction that Miliband has been striving to blur. It will be harder in future for Miliband to disseminate such pernicious abstractions. Either someone's a criminal under British law or they're not. Weird notions that only exist in the fetid imaginings of the far-Left are neither here nor there.
    LOL. It was entirely embarrassing. Central Office will be wishing the Finkster simply kept his mouth shut.

    Why were you embarrassed?
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    volcanopete said:

    Lady Sylvia Hermon,who could possibly have the choice of government in her hands,is 1-100 to retain North Down.

    Not a prayer of that - you don't decide whether or not to form a government based on Lady Sylvia Hermon. Realistically you'd need to be able to deliver 5+ votes [consistently] to be worth considering as part of an arrangement*

    Of course, the Lady might prove crucial in a vote of no confidence at some point; but if it's gotten that close the government wouldn't be long for this world anyway.

    *on that note, here's a strong contender for the worst bet available on the GE: Con/Green coalition at 7/1 with Betfair Sportsbook
  • saddosaddo Posts: 534
    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/feb/12/did-ed-miliband-avoid-inheritance-tax-parents-home-deed-of-variation

    "Frank Nash, tax partner at accountants Blick Rothenberg, says the effect of the deed is no different to that which would have been achieved if there had been a well-written will in the first place. “What the deed seems to have done is to pass the £150,000 tax-free allowance from the father directly to the children,” he says. “If the father had sat down a month earlier and written the will to do that there would have been no issue.”"

    So in classic leftie style, Milibands tax avoidance is good tax avoidance coz his Dad wrote his will wrong.

    I've got nothing against avoiding tax. If its legal not to pay it, you have to be nuts to pay it.

    Labour are trying to position everyone who is rich who legally avoids unnecessary tax as tax evaders as part of their slimy class war.

    They really deserve to lose on this alone. Bunch of pond life in their million pound north London mansions.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,942
    edited February 2015
    ___Bobajob___ said:

    Hodges is effing owned by Oborne in the Speccy podcast. His entire thesis seems to be that Ed should simply be an anodyne Blairite to trick people into voting for him.

    Well worth listening to – I'm putting it forward for a Nighthawks link @TSE

    We all remember Oborne praising El Gord in such wildly enthusiastic terms around 2007... And it didn't work out that great in the end...



  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 10,216
    GIN1138 said:

    ___Bobajob___ said:

    Hodges is effing owned by Oborne in the Speccy podcast. His entire thesis seems to be that Ed should simply be an anodyne Blairite to trick people into voting for him.

    Well worth listening to – I'm putting it forward for a Nighthawks link @TSE

    We all remember Oborne praising El Gord is such wildly enthusiastic terms around 2007... And it didn't work out that great in the end...



    That and his prediction that the leadership of Ming Campbell would prove 'lethal' to the Tories. I could go on. But while we're on this subject, did Oborne ever publish his killer dossier on Alistair Campbell, which he promised to do around the time of the Mail/Ralph Miliband lark? This is a genuine question. I was abroad shortly afterwards and out of the news loop.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    @Rottenborough
    'The general rule that incumbents tend to put on a few points in the actual campaign. '

    Most people seem to believe that but it is actually a myth! The official election campaign - the month leading up to polling day - has generally favoured the Opposition. This was true in - 1959 - 1964 - 1966 - 1970 - Feb 1974 - Oct 1974 - 1987 - 2001 - 2005 - 2010. The 1983 campaign saw no swing either way - though this was due to a swing from Labour to the Alliance. The Tory vote did actually drop several points in the final weeks. The 1979 and 1997 elections did see the incumbent gain ground - but on both occasions the Government was trailing badly and went on to lose decisively. This leaves 1992 for Tory optimists.
    The above does not contradict the idea of 'swingback' from midterm at all - but it can reasonably be argued that this has already happened and that the Tories have circa 7 weeks left to build up a lead to offset likely campaign slippage.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,809
    edited February 2015
    volcanopete said:

    Looking at NI,SF has confirmed if it was needed no Westminster seats will be taken up.Taking into account the Speaker this reduces the total required from 326 to 322 for a majority.The only change from the status quo looks to me to be DUP going from 8-9 seats,which could be significant,by beating Alliance's Naomi Long in Belfast East.Betfair has DUP 1-4,Alliance 2-1.SDLP looks to see off SF in Foyle to retain their 3.Lady Sylvia Hermon,who could possibly have the choice of government in her hands,is 1-100 to retain North Down.

    I've posted this a few times on here but nobody (even political "experts") seems to be able to understand it.

    The Speaker should always be counted and he should be counted as Con.

    Which is why the BBC in its results does count the Speaker as Con.

    The reason is that Lab has to supply two Deputy Speakers whilst Con only supplies one.

    None of the Speakers vote - not just the Speaker, the Deputy Speakers don't vote either.

    So you must either count the Speaker as Con. Or, if not, deduct two Deputy Speakers off Lab and one off Con. Which gives the same net result as counting the speaker as Con.

    Which is what the BBC does and BBC results are used for settling most bets.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 44,487
    edited February 2015
    Pulpstar said:


    And Farron gives tacit support to the SNP/Labour on a bill by bill basis.

    Not sure if Farron could work with the SNP after his last Question Time anti-SNP rant (though of course there's no 'accomodation' one should put past an LD).
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    edited February 2015
    MikeL said:

    volcanopete said:

    Looking at NI,SF has confirmed if it was needed no Westminster seats will be taken up.Taking into account the Speaker this reduces the total required from 326 to 322 for a majority.The only change from the status quo looks to me to be DUP going from 8-9 seats,which could be significant,by beating Alliance's Naomi Long in Belfast East.Betfair has DUP 1-4,Alliance 2-1.SDLP looks to see off SF in Foyle to retain their 3.Lady Sylvia Hermon,who could possibly have the choice of government in her hands,is 1-100 to retain North Down.

    [...]

    So you must either count the Speaker as Con. Or, if not, deduct two Deputy Speakers off Lab and one off Con. Which gives the same result as counting the speaker as Con.

    Which is what the BBC does and BBC results are used for settling most bets.
    Yes, the Speaker can be considered as Con for post-election outcome consideration. But he doesn't stand as such. In terms of bet settlement, however, you are wrong:

    Ladbrokes

    The Speaker will not count for any party totals. Any seats won in Northern Ireland will not count for either Labour, Conservatives or Lib Dem party totals.

    bet365

    The Speaker, if seeking re-election, will not count as an MP of any party.

    William Hill / Paddys

    The Speaker, if seeking re-election, will not count.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,872
    Theuniondivvie said:

    Pulpstar said:


    And Farron gives tacit support to the SNP/Labour on a bill by bill basis.

    Not sure if Farron could work with the SNP after his last Question Time anti-SNP rant (though of course there's no 'accomodation' one should put past an LD).
    He could do what Lib Dems do best... abstain ;)
  • FenmanFenman Posts: 1,047
    Polling in Bar Hill closes in ten minutes. Turnout is 'light'. tories seem worried, but God knows why!
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548
    Ed should publish the full details of his family's tax arrangements and financial affairs and propose that all those standing for political office and their donors be obliged to do the same. Then nobody could call him a hypocrite.

    I wonder what's stopping him.
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @JonnyJimmy
    Dave or Ozzie could do it and shoot Ed's fox?
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,965
    justin124 said:

    @Rottenborough
    'The general rule that incumbents tend to put on a few points in the actual campaign. '

    Most people seem to believe that but it is actually a myth! The official election campaign - the month leading up to polling day - has generally favoured the Opposition. This was true in - 1959 - 1964 - 1966 - 1970 - Feb 1974 - Oct 1974 - 1987 - 2001 - 2005 - 2010. The 1983 campaign saw no swing either way - though this was due to a swing from Labour to the Alliance. The Tory vote did actually drop several points in the final weeks. The 1979 and 1997 elections did see the incumbent gain ground - but on both occasions the Government was trailing badly and went on to lose decisively. This leaves 1992 for Tory optimists.
    The above does not contradict the idea of 'swingback' from midterm at all - but it can reasonably be argued that this has already happened and that the Tories have circa 7 weeks left to build up a lead to offset likely campaign slippage.

    Interesting. So probably only 2 months for swingback.

    EICIPM (2.42 on Betfair) is a cracking bet IMO
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,809
    Tissue_Price said:

    MikeL said:

    volcanopete said:

    Looking at NI,SF has confirmed if it was needed no Westminster seats will be taken up.Taking into account the Speaker this reduces the total required from 326 to 322 for a majority.The only change from the status quo looks to me to be DUP going from 8-9 seats,which could be significant,by beating Alliance's Naomi Long in Belfast East.Betfair has DUP 1-4,Alliance 2-1.SDLP looks to see off SF in Foyle to retain their 3.Lady Sylvia Hermon,who could possibly have the choice of government in her hands,is 1-100 to retain North Down.

    [...]

    So you must either count the Speaker as Con. Or, if not, deduct two Deputy Speakers off Lab and one off Con. Which gives the same result as counting the speaker as Con.

    Which is what the BBC does and BBC results are used for settling most bets.
    Yes, the Speaker can be considered as Con for post-election outcome consideration. But he doesn't stand as such. In terms of bet settlement, however, you are wrong:

    Ladbrokes

    The Speaker will not count for any party totals. Any seats won in Northern Ireland will not count for either Labour, Conservatives or Lib Dem party totals.

    bet365

    The Speaker, if seeking re-election, will not count as an MP of any party.

    William Hill / Paddys

    The Speaker, if seeking re-election, will not count.
    OK, fair enough.

    What about Betfair? I thought they followed BBC. BBC results below has Speaker as Con - Con total 307, blue on map.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/election2010/results/default.stm
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548
    Smarmeron said:

    @JonnyJimmy
    Dave or Ozzie could do it and shoot Ed's fox?

    That would be courageous!
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    bigjohnowls said:

    justin124 said:

    @Rottenborough
    'The general rule that incumbents tend to put on a few points in the actual campaign. '

    Most people seem to believe that but it is actually a myth! The official election campaign - the month leading up to polling day - has generally favoured the Opposition. This was true in - 1959 - 1964 - 1966 - 1970 - Feb 1974 - Oct 1974 - 1987 - 2001 - 2005 - 2010. The 1983 campaign saw no swing either way - though this was due to a swing from Labour to the Alliance. The Tory vote did actually drop several points in the final weeks. The 1979 and 1997 elections did see the incumbent gain ground - but on both occasions the Government was trailing badly and went on to lose decisively. This leaves 1992 for Tory optimists.
    The above does not contradict the idea of 'swingback' from midterm at all - but it can reasonably be argued that this has already happened and that the Tories have circa 7 weeks left to build up a lead to offset likely campaign slippage.

    Interesting. So probably only 2 months for swingback.

    EICIPM (2.42 on Betfair) is a cracking bet IMO
    Take 2.58 on "Prime Minister After Cameron" instead. Agree that this is too big, given the rest of the markets.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,965
    edited February 2015
    Tissue_Price said:

    bigjohnowls said:

    justin124 said:

    @Rottenborough
    'The general rule that incumbents tend to put on a few points in the actual campaign. '

    Most people seem to believe that but it is actually a myth! The official election campaign - the month leading up to polling day - has generally favoured the Opposition. This was true in - 1959 - 1964 - 1966 - 1970 - Feb 1974 - Oct 1974 - 1987 - 2001 - 2005 - 2010. The 1983 campaign saw no swing either way - though this was due to a swing from Labour to the Alliance. The Tory vote did actually drop several points in the final weeks. The 1979 and 1997 elections did see the incumbent gain ground - but on both occasions the Government was trailing badly and went on to lose decisively. This leaves 1992 for Tory optimists.
    The above does not contradict the idea of 'swingback' from midterm at all - but it can reasonably be argued that this has already happened and that the Tories have circa 7 weeks left to build up a lead to offset likely campaign slippage.

    Interesting. So probably only 2 months for swingback.

    EICIPM (2.42 on Betfair) is a cracking bet IMO
    Take 2.58 on "Prime Minister After Cameron" instead. Agree that this is too big, given the rest of the markets.
    Thanks got 2.546 on that market
  • HarryHayfieldHarryHayfield Posts: 55
    @volcanopete: My thoughts on Northern Ireland:
    • Democratic Unionist: Antrim East, Londonderry East, Lagan Valley, North Antrim, Strangford (5)
    • Social Democratic and Labour Party: Belfast South, South Down (2)
    • Sinn Fein: Belfast West, Fermanagh and South Tyrone, Mid Ulster, Newry and Armagh, West Tyrone (5)
    • Independent: North Down (1)
    • Too close to call: Belfast East, Belfast North, Foyle, South Antrim, Upper Bann (5)
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,872
    MikeL said:

    Tissue_Price said:

    MikeL said:

    volcanopete said:

    Looking at NI,SF has confirmed if it was needed no Westminster seats will be taken up.Taking into account the Speaker this reduces the total required from 326 to 322 for a majority.The only change from the status quo looks to me to be DUP going from 8-9 seats,which could be significant,by beating Alliance's Naomi Long in Belfast East.Betfair has DUP 1-4,Alliance 2-1.SDLP looks to see off SF in Foyle to retain their 3.Lady Sylvia Hermon,who could possibly have the choice of government in her hands,is 1-100 to retain North Down.

    [...]

    So you must either count the Speaker as Con. Or, if not, deduct two Deputy Speakers off Lab and one off Con. Which gives the same result as counting the speaker as Con.

    Which is what the BBC does and BBC results are used for settling most bets.
    Yes, the Speaker can be considered as Con for post-election outcome consideration. But he doesn't stand as such. In terms of bet settlement, however, you are wrong:

    Ladbrokes

    The Speaker will not count for any party totals. Any seats won in Northern Ireland will not count for either Labour, Conservatives or Lib Dem party totals.

    bet365

    The Speaker, if seeking re-election, will not count as an MP of any party.

    William Hill / Paddys

    The Speaker, if seeking re-election, will not count.
    OK, fair enough.

    What about Betfair? I thought they followed BBC. BBC results below has Speaker as Con - Con total 307, blue on map.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/election2010/results/default.stm
    Dunno seeing as I'm red on Betfair specifically for NOM (Green at Ladbrokes) seems 325 Con seats would be a nice double winner.
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @JonnyJimmy
    Depends on what they would allow to be inspected?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/9218119/David-Camerons-inherited-family-wealth-based-in-foreign-tax-havens.html
  • ___Bobajob______Bobajob___ Posts: 872
    bigjohnowls said:

    justin124 said:

    @Rottenborough
    'The general rule that incumbents tend to put on a few points in the actual campaign. '

    Most people seem to believe that but it is actually a myth! The official election campaign - the month leading up to polling day - has generally favoured the Opposition. This was true in - 1959 - 1964 - 1966 - 1970 - Feb 1974 - Oct 1974 - 1987 - 2001 - 2005 - 2010. The 1983 campaign saw no swing either way - though this was due to a swing from Labour to the Alliance. The Tory vote did actually drop several points in the final weeks. The 1979 and 1997 elections did see the incumbent gain ground - but on both occasions the Government was trailing badly and went on to lose decisively. This leaves 1992 for Tory optimists.
    The above does not contradict the idea of 'swingback' from midterm at all - but it can reasonably be argued that this has already happened and that the Tories have circa 7 weeks left to build up a lead to offset likely campaign slippage.

    Interesting. So probably only 2 months for swingback.

    EICIPM (2.42 on Betfair) is a cracking bet IMO
    Thanks to @Tissue_Price for the 2.58 tip – I'll get on.

    Yes, the Opposition tends to pick up points during the official campaign, due to greater media exposure, etc. (Harder for them to get airtime normally)

  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 44,487
    Pulpstar said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    Pulpstar said:


    And Farron gives tacit support to the SNP/Labour on a bill by bill basis.

    Not sure if Farron could work with the SNP after his last Question Time anti-SNP rant (though of course there's no 'accomodation' one should put past an LD).
    He could do what Lib Dems do best... abstain ;)

    Mark Oaten was certainly a notable ab stainer.*



    *allegedly.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,965
    Pulpstar said:

    MikeL said:

    Tissue_Price said:

    MikeL said:

    volcanopete said:

    Looking at NI,SF has confirmed if it was needed no Westminster seats will be taken up.Taking into account the Speaker this reduces the total required from 326 to 322 for a majority.The only change from the status quo looks to me to be DUP going from 8-9 seats,which could be significant,by beating Alliance's Naomi Long in Belfast East.Betfair has DUP 1-4,Alliance 2-1.SDLP looks to see off SF in Foyle to retain their 3.Lady Sylvia Hermon,who could possibly have the choice of government in her hands,is 1-100 to retain North Down.

    [...]

    So you must either count the Speaker as Con. Or, if not, deduct two Deputy Speakers off Lab and one off Con. Which gives the same result as counting the speaker as Con.

    Which is what the BBC does and BBC results are used for settling most bets.
    Yes, the Speaker can be considered as Con for post-election outcome consideration. But he doesn't stand as such. In terms of bet settlement, however, you are wrong:

    Ladbrokes

    The Speaker will not count for any party totals. Any seats won in Northern Ireland will not count for either Labour, Conservatives or Lib Dem party totals.

    bet365

    The Speaker, if seeking re-election, will not count as an MP of any party.

    William Hill / Paddys

    The Speaker, if seeking re-election, will not count.
    OK, fair enough.

    What about Betfair? I thought they followed BBC. BBC results below has Speaker as Con - Con total 307, blue on map.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/election2010/results/default.stm
    Dunno seeing as I'm red on Betfair specifically for NOM (Green at Ladbrokes) seems 325 Con seats would be a nice double winner.
    You are joking you lose if NOM

    You have been telling me its a certainty as well
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    MikeL said:

    Tissue_Price said:

    MikeL said:

    volcanopete said:

    Looking at NI,SF has confirmed if it was needed no Westminster seats will be taken up.Taking into account the Speaker this reduces the total required from 326 to 322 for a majority.The only change from the status quo looks to me to be DUP going from 8-9 seats,which could be significant,by beating Alliance's Naomi Long in Belfast East.Betfair has DUP 1-4,Alliance 2-1.SDLP looks to see off SF in Foyle to retain their 3.Lady Sylvia Hermon,who could possibly have the choice of government in her hands,is 1-100 to retain North Down.

    [...]

    So you must either count the Speaker as Con. Or, if not, deduct two Deputy Speakers off Lab and one off Con. Which gives the same result as counting the speaker as Con.

    Which is what the BBC does and BBC results are used for settling most bets.
    Yes, the Speaker can be considered as Con for post-election outcome consideration. But he doesn't stand as such. In terms of bet settlement, however, you are wrong:

    Ladbrokes

    The Speaker will not count for any party totals. Any seats won in Northern Ireland will not count for either Labour, Conservatives or Lib Dem party totals.

    bet365

    The Speaker, if seeking re-election, will not count as an MP of any party.

    William Hill / Paddys

    The Speaker, if seeking re-election, will not count.
    OK, fair enough.

    What about Betfair? I thought they followed BBC. BBC results below has Speaker as Con - Con total 307, blue on map.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/election2010/results/default.stm
    I can't see a relevant rule. They do have the general rule below, which I'd have thought would be "does not count" since Bercow isn't standing as a Conservative.

    Where the Specific Sports Rules do not specify how and on what basis a market will be settled, markets will be settled on the official result of the relevant governing body regardless of any subsequent disqualification or amendment to the result (except if an amendment is announced within 24 hours of the initial settlement of the relevant market in order to correct an error in reporting the result).

    If no official result of a relevant governing body is available, the result will be determined by Betfair (acting reasonably) using information from independent sources.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Another Miliband headline. Lucy Powell will be so proud...

    @SkyNews: DAILY TELEGRAPH FRONT PAGE: "Enjoy low prices while you can" #skypapers http://t.co/cemuSsHtXy
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,965
    ___Bobajob___ said:

    bigjohnowls said:

    justin124 said:

    @Rottenborough
    'The general rule that incumbents tend to put on a few points in the actual campaign. '

    Most people seem to believe that but it is actually a myth! The official election campaign - the month leading up to polling day - has generally favoured the Opposition. This was true in - 1959 - 1964 - 1966 - 1970 - Feb 1974 - Oct 1974 - 1987 - 2001 - 2005 - 2010. The 1983 campaign saw no swing either way - though this was due to a swing from Labour to the Alliance. The Tory vote did actually drop several points in the final weeks. The 1979 and 1997 elections did see the incumbent gain ground - but on both occasions the Government was trailing badly and went on to lose decisively. This leaves 1992 for Tory optimists.
    The above does not contradict the idea of 'swingback' from midterm at all - but it can reasonably be argued that this has already happened and that the Tories have circa 7 weeks left to build up a lead to offset likely campaign slippage.

    Interesting. So probably only 2 months for swingback.

    EICIPM (2.42 on Betfair) is a cracking bet IMO
    Thanks to @Tissue_Price for the 2.58 tip – I'll get on.

    Yes, the Opposition tends to pick up points during the official campaign, due to greater media exposure, etc. (Harder for them to get airtime normally)

    Not much liquidity its 2.5 now unfortunately
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 86,154
    Scott_P said:

    Another Miliband headline. Lucy Powell will be so proud...

    @SkyNews: DAILY TELEGRAPH FRONT PAGE: "Enjoy low prices while you can" #skypapers http://t.co/cemuSsHtXy

    Dowler family dismay at Miliband..
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,872
    bigjohnowls said:

    Pulpstar said:

    MikeL said:

    Tissue_Price said:

    MikeL said:

    volcanopete said:

    Looking at NI,SF has confirmed if it was needed no Westminster seats will be taken up.Taking into account the Speaker this reduces the total required from 326 to 322 for a majority.The only change from the status quo looks to me to be DUP going from 8-9 seats,which could be significant,by beating Alliance's Naomi Long in Belfast East.Betfair has DUP 1-4,Alliance 2-1.SDLP looks to see off SF in Foyle to retain their 3.Lady Sylvia Hermon,who could possibly have the choice of government in her hands,is 1-100 to retain North Down.

    [...]

    So you must either count the Speaker as Con. Or, if not, deduct two Deputy Speakers off Lab and one off Con. Which gives the same result as counting the speaker as Con.

    Which is what the BBC does and BBC results are used for settling most bets.
    Yes, the Speaker can be considered as Con for post-election outcome consideration. But he doesn't stand as such. In terms of bet settlement, however, you are wrong:

    Ladbrokes

    The Speaker will not count for any party totals. Any seats won in Northern Ireland will not count for either Labour, Conservatives or Lib Dem party totals.

    bet365

    The Speaker, if seeking re-election, will not count as an MP of any party.

    William Hill / Paddys

    The Speaker, if seeking re-election, will not count.
    OK, fair enough.

    What about Betfair? I thought they followed BBC. BBC results below has Speaker as Con - Con total 307, blue on map.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/election2010/results/default.stm
    Dunno seeing as I'm red on Betfair specifically for NOM (Green at Ladbrokes) seems 325 Con seats would be a nice double winner.
    You are joking you lose if NOM

    You have been telling me its a certainty as well
    No ?

    I have £200 @ 13-8 with Ladbrokes on NOM, £50 on Con Majority @ 4-1 and -£113.85 at Betfair ?
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,965
    Pulpstar said:

    bigjohnowls said:

    Pulpstar said:

    MikeL said:

    Tissue_Price said:

    MikeL said:

    volcanopete said:

    Looking at NI,SF has confirmed if it was needed no Westminster seats will be taken up.Taking into account the Speaker this reduces the total required from 326 to 322 for a majority.The only change from the status quo looks to me to be DUP going from 8-9 seats,which could be significant,by beating Alliance's Naomi Long in Belfast East.Betfair has DUP 1-4,Alliance 2-1.SDLP looks to see off SF in Foyle to retain their 3.Lady Sylvia Hermon,who could possibly have the choice of government in her hands,is 1-100 to retain North Down.

    [...]

    So you must either count the Speaker as Con. Or, if not, deduct two Deputy Speakers off Lab and one off Con. Which gives the same result as counting the speaker as Con.

    Which is what the BBC does and BBC results are used for settling most bets.
    Yes, the Speaker can be considered as Con for post-election outcome consideration. But he doesn't stand as such. In terms of bet settlement, however, you are wrong:

    Ladbrokes

    The Speaker will not count for any party totals. Any seats won in Northern Ireland will not count for either Labour, Conservatives or Lib Dem party totals.

    bet365

    The Speaker, if seeking re-election, will not count as an MP of any party.

    William Hill / Paddys

    The Speaker, if seeking re-election, will not count.
    OK, fair enough.

    What about Betfair? I thought they followed BBC. BBC results below has Speaker as Con - Con total 307, blue on map.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/election2010/results/default.stm
    Dunno seeing as I'm red on Betfair specifically for NOM (Green at Ladbrokes) seems 325 Con seats would be a nice double winner.
    You are joking you lose if NOM

    You have been telling me its a certainty as well
    No ?

    I have £200 @ 13-8 with Ladbrokes on NOM, £50 on Con Majority @ 4-1 and -£113.85 at Betfair ?
    Phew
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,009
    Off topic, I've finally backed England to win the cricket world cup at 10/1

    I know, we're as useful as a condom with holes in both ends,

    But look at the format of the tournament. If we beat Scotland and Afghanistan in the group stages, we're through to Quarters (I know we lost to Ireland and Bangladesh last time)

    Then in the quarters, we'll probably end up facing Saffers, Pakistan, India or West Indies, we should be able to defeat the latter three, and we all know the Saffers are chokers.

    Then we're in the semis, and we're one innings of a lifetime from Buttler or Morgan away from the final.

    So has all the hallmarks of a decent trading bet.
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548
    Smarmeron said:

    @JonnyJimmy
    Depends on what they would allow to be inspected?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/9218119/David-Camerons-inherited-family-wealth-based-in-foreign-tax-havens.html

    I expect ed would be ok on that sort of thing, though I'd be surprised if he hadn't set up tax ameliorating trusts for his children, but it wouldn't be a shock if one or two of his front bench have inherited money abroad.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 86,154
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Off topic, I've finally backed England to win the cricket world cup at 10/1

    I know, we're as useful as a condom with holes in both ends,

    But look at the format of the tournament. If we beat Scotland and Afghanistan in the group stages, we're through to Quarters (I know we lost to Ireland and Bangladesh last time)

    Then in the quarters, we'll probably end up facing Saffers, Pakistan, India or West Indies, we should be able to defeat the latter three, and we all know the Saffers are chokers.

    Then we're in the semis, and we're one innings of a lifetime from Buttler or Morgan away from the final.

    So has all the hallmarks of a decent trading bet.

    10/1 is still about ten times too short odds on England !!!
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Off topic, I've finally backed England to win the cricket world cup at 10/1

    I know, we're as useful as a condom with holes in both ends,

    But look at the format of the tournament. If we beat Scotland and Afghanistan in the group stages, we're through to Quarters (I know we lost to Ireland and Bangladesh last time)

    Then in the quarters, we'll probably end up facing Saffers, Pakistan, India or West Indies, we should be able to defeat the latter three, and we all know the Saffers are chokers.

    Then we're in the semis, and we're one innings of a lifetime from Buttler or Morgan away from the final.

    So has all the hallmarks of a decent trading bet.

    Yeah, reasonable bet given the draw (and the fact that the QF is in Melbourne which should suit). Ed Hawkins has tipped it too. I'm being greedy and waiting for us to lose to Australia first.
  • ___Bobajob______Bobajob___ Posts: 872
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Off topic, I've finally backed England to win the cricket world cup at 10/1

    I know, we're as useful as a condom with holes in both ends,

    But look at the format of the tournament. If we beat Scotland and Afghanistan in the group stages, we're through to Quarters (I know we lost to Ireland and Bangladesh last time)

    Then in the quarters, we'll probably end up facing Saffers, Pakistan, India or West Indies, we should be able to defeat the latter three, and we all know the Saffers are chokers.

    Then we're in the semis, and we're one innings of a lifetime from Buttler or Morgan away from the final.

    So has all the hallmarks of a decent trading bet.

    Good thinking. I might have a tickle. Let me think about it.

    Generally speaking, the main issue we have at the moment is the Captain's Curse: Morgan is just a dud with the bat at the moment. That said he was in poor form before being handed the captaincy.
  • ___Bobajob______Bobajob___ Posts: 872
    bigjohnowls said:

    ___Bobajob___ said:

    bigjohnowls said:

    justin124 said:

    @Rottenborough
    'The general rule that incumbents tend to put on a few points in the actual campaign. '

    Most people seem to believe that but it is actually a myth! The official election campaign - the month leading up to polling day - has generally favoured the Opposition. This was true in - 1959 - 1964 - 1966 - 1970 - Feb 1974 - Oct 1974 - 1987 - 2001 - 2005 - 2010. The 1983 campaign saw no swing either way - though this was due to a swing from Labour to the Alliance. The Tory vote did actually drop several points in the final weeks. The 1979 and 1997 elections did see the incumbent gain ground - but on both occasions the Government was trailing badly and went on to lose decisively. This leaves 1992 for Tory optimists.
    The above does not contradict the idea of 'swingback' from midterm at all - but it can reasonably be argued that this has already happened and that the Tories have circa 7 weeks left to build up a lead to offset likely campaign slippage.

    Interesting. So probably only 2 months for swingback.

    EICIPM (2.42 on Betfair) is a cracking bet IMO
    Thanks to @Tissue_Price for the 2.58 tip – I'll get on.

    Yes, the Opposition tends to pick up points during the official campaign, due to greater media exposure, etc. (Harder for them to get airtime normally)

    Not much liquidity its 2.5 now unfortunately
    Got a bit at 2.52 and some at 2.5

    Now down to 2.48.

    Still decent odds.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,009
    Tissue_Price said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Off topic, I've finally backed England to win the cricket world cup at 10/1

    I know, we're as useful as a condom with holes in both ends,

    But look at the format of the tournament. If we beat Scotland and Afghanistan in the group stages, we're through to Quarters (I know we lost to Ireland and Bangladesh last time)

    Then in the quarters, we'll probably end up facing Saffers, Pakistan, India or West Indies, we should be able to defeat the latter three, and we all know the Saffers are chokers.

    Then we're in the semis, and we're one innings of a lifetime from Buttler or Morgan away from the final.

    So has all the hallmarks of a decent trading bet.

    Yeah, reasonable bet given the draw (and the fact that the QF is in Melbourne which should suit). Ed Hawkins has tipped it too. I'm being greedy and waiting for us to lose to Australia first.
    Oooh, that's a good point.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 35,366
    Fenman said:

    Polling in Bar Hill closes in ten minutes. Turnout is 'light'. tories seem worried, but God knows why!

    LibDem gain?


    Hope springs eternal.........
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @JonnyJimmy
    The great thing is that even if some of them were up to something "dodgy". they would have to pay back an estimated amount, and a small surcharge, at which point, no one would find out, as they become immune and tax secrecy protects them.
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Off topic, I've finally backed England to win the cricket world cup at 10/1

    I know, we're as useful as a condom with holes in both ends,

    But look at the format of the tournament. If we beat Scotland and Afghanistan in the group stages, we're through to Quarters (I know we lost to Ireland and Bangladesh last time)

    Then in the quarters, we'll probably end up facing Saffers, Pakistan, India or West Indies, we should be able to defeat the latter three, and we all know the Saffers are chokers.

    Then we're in the semis, and we're one innings of a lifetime from Buttler or Morgan away from the final.

    So has all the hallmarks of a decent trading bet.

    10/1 is still about ten times too short odds on England !!!
    For us to win 3 games in a row? We're not that bad!

    If we can injure someone and get Stokes back in, those will look pretty good odds when we're in the semis
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,872
    @Bigjohnowls Vanilla message for you.
  • ___Bobajob______Bobajob___ Posts: 872
    Tissue_Price said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Off topic, I've finally backed England to win the cricket world cup at 10/1

    I know, we're as useful as a condom with holes in both ends,

    But look at the format of the tournament. If we beat Scotland and Afghanistan in the group stages, we're through to Quarters (I know we lost to Ireland and Bangladesh last time)

    Then in the quarters, we'll probably end up facing Saffers, Pakistan, India or West Indies, we should be able to defeat the latter three, and we all know the Saffers are chokers.

    Then we're in the semis, and we're one innings of a lifetime from Buttler or Morgan away from the final.

    So has all the hallmarks of a decent trading bet.

    Yeah, reasonable bet given the draw (and the fact that the QF is in Melbourne which should suit). Ed Hawkins has tipped it too. I'm being greedy and waiting for us to lose to Australia first.
    Very good shout. Certain defeat on Saturday morning for us IMO which should soften the odds nicely.
  • StickytrollStickytroll Posts: 30
    ___Bobajob___ said:

    Tissue_Price said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Off topic, I've finally backed England to win the cricket world cup at 10/1

    I know, we're as useful as a condom with holes in both ends,

    But look at the format of the tournament. If we beat Scotland and Afghanistan in the group stages, we're through to Quarters (I know we lost to Ireland and Bangladesh last time)

    Then in the quarters, we'll probably end up facing Saffers, Pakistan, India or West Indies, we should be able to defeat the latter three, and we all know the Saffers are chokers.

    Then we're in the semis, and we're one innings of a lifetime from Buttler or Morgan away from the final.

    So has all the hallmarks of a decent trading bet.

    Yeah, reasonable bet given the draw (and the fact that the QF is in Melbourne which should suit). Ed Hawkins has tipped it too. I'm being greedy and waiting for us to lose to Australia first.
    Very good shout. Certain defeat on Saturday morning for us IMO which should soften the odds nicely.
    Don't say that - I'll be in the members end of the MCG
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 86,154
    edited February 2015
    JonnyJimmy said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Off topic, I've finally backed England to win the cricket world cup at 10/1

    I know, we're as useful as a condom with holes in both ends,

    But look at the format of the tournament. If we beat Scotland and Afghanistan in the group stages, we're through to Quarters (I know we lost to Ireland and Bangladesh last time)

    Then in the quarters, we'll probably end up facing Saffers, Pakistan, India or West Indies, we should be able to defeat the latter three, and we all know the Saffers are chokers.

    Then we're in the semis, and we're one innings of a lifetime from Buttler or Morgan away from the final.

    So has all the hallmarks of a decent trading bet.

    10/1 is still about ten times too short odds on England !!!
    For us to win 3 games in a row? We're not that bad!

    If we can injure someone and get Stokes back in, those will look pretty good odds when we're in the semis
    I was joking (kinda of). We are c##p, but we aren't the UAE.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    Let's play the utterly pointless YouGov guessing game. I think we are due a tie...

    C 33 L 33 LD 6 UKIP 14 GRN 7
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,009
    Tissue_Price said:

    Let's play the utterly pointless YouGov guessing game. I think we are due a tie...

    C 33 L 33 LD 6 UKIP 14 GRN 7

    I think it will be a larger Lab lead than we've seen for a while.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,965
    Pulpstar said:

    @Bigjohnowls Vanilla message for you.

    Blumming Heck!!

    I wish i was as organised.

    Me i am green on EICIPM, Lab most seats and now EICIPM after Cameron (only a bit)

    Red on all other outcomes although i did cover a bit on most seats market in November I got tempted back in with EICIPM drift so back to square one
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 86,154
    Tissue_Price said:

    Let's play the utterly pointless YouGov guessing game. I think we are due a tie...

    C 33 L 33 LD 6 UKIP 14 GRN 7

    Has to be a decent Labour lead surely.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,872
    bigjohnowls said:

    Pulpstar said:

    @Bigjohnowls Vanilla message for you.

    Blumming Heck!!

    I wish i was as organised.

    Me i am green on EICIPM, Lab most seats and now EICIPM after Cameron (only a bit)

    Red on all other outcomes although i did cover a bit on most seats market in November I got tempted back in with EICIPM drift so back to square one
    When you've backed seats and votes at 7 different bookies...
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    I would go for a 1 point lead to Labour, but those next week might be a lot more informative.
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 4,042
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Tissue_Price said:

    Let's play the utterly pointless YouGov guessing game. I think we are due a tie...

    C 33 L 33 LD 6 UKIP 14 GRN 7

    I think it will be a larger Lab lead than we've seen for a while.
    Nah, to taunt us after Ipsos-MORI it will be a Tory lead.
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548
    Smarmeron said:

    @JonnyJimmy
    The great thing is that even if some of them were up to something "dodgy". they would have to pay back an estimated amount, and a small surcharge, at which point, no one would find out, as they become immune and tax secrecy protects them.

    Which is why ed should maybe go even further and also publish all of his correspondence with his accountant.

    If he's got nothing to hide, and his front bench team don't either, then they could force the Tories to do the same and look rich and a bit dodgy, or if they refuse look even dodgier
  • nigel4englandnigel4england Posts: 4,800
    ___Bobajob___ said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Off topic, I've finally backed England to win the cricket world cup at 10/1

    I know, we're as useful as a condom with holes in both ends,

    But look at the format of the tournament. If we beat Scotland and Afghanistan in the group stages, we're through to Quarters (I know we lost to Ireland and Bangladesh last time)

    Then in the quarters, we'll probably end up facing Saffers, Pakistan, India or West Indies, we should be able to defeat the latter three, and we all know the Saffers are chokers.

    Then we're in the semis, and we're one innings of a lifetime from Buttler or Morgan away from the final.

    So has all the hallmarks of a decent trading bet.

    Good thinking. I might have a tickle. Let me think about it.

    Generally speaking, the main issue we have at the moment is the Captain's Curse: Morgan is just a dud with the bat at the moment. That said he was in poor form before being handed the captaincy.
    I've bought Kane Williamson series runs at 374, he has been in blistering form and has Scotland and Afghanistan in his group, looks a great bet to me.

    Bought Buttler performance tomorrow on the basis he will definitely get a bat!

    Ben Stokes should be going in at six tomorrow
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    justin124 said:

    This was true in - 1959 - 1964 - 1966 - 1970 - Feb 1974 - Oct 1974 - 1987 - 2001 - 2005 - 2010. T

    So, it failed in 1979, 1983, 1992, 1997.

    And the swing back in 87, 01 and 05 went to people who lost.

    The only opposition leader to add votes in the last month, and win, since 1974.... was Cameron?

  • ___Bobajob______Bobajob___ Posts: 872
    nigel4england said:

    ___Bobajob___ said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Off topic, I've finally backed England to win the cricket world cup at 10/1

    I know, we're as useful as a condom with holes in both ends,

    But look at the format of the tournament. If we beat Scotland and Afghanistan in the group stages, we're through to Quarters (I know we lost to Ireland and Bangladesh last time)

    Then in the quarters, we'll probably end up facing Saffers, Pakistan, India or West Indies, we should be able to defeat the latter three, and we all know the Saffers are chokers.

    Then we're in the semis, and we're one innings of a lifetime from Buttler or Morgan away from the final.

    So has all the hallmarks of a decent trading bet.

    Good thinking. I might have a tickle. Let me think about it.

    Generally speaking, the main issue we have at the moment is the Captain's Curse: Morgan is just a dud with the bat at the moment. That said he was in poor form before being handed the captaincy.
    I've bought Kane Williamson series runs at 374, he has been in blistering form and has Scotland and Afghanistan in his group, looks a great bet to me.

    Bought Buttler performance tomorrow on the basis he will definitely get a bat!

    Ben Stokes should be going in at six tomorrow
    It's Sat morning I think we play Nigel?
  • ___Bobajob______Bobajob___ Posts: 872
    Naked reverse ramping from Francis and TSE – it will be within a point either way, bouncing as usual around the MOE – a statistical tie.
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @JonnyJimmy
    Every time the subject comes up it dissolves into an argument of what is "disclosure", and what is "properly private"
    Everyone gets to posture, but nothing gets revealed.
  • nigel4englandnigel4england Posts: 4,800
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Tissue_Price said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Off topic, I've finally backed England to win the cricket world cup at 10/1

    I know, we're as useful as a condom with holes in both ends,

    But look at the format of the tournament. If we beat Scotland and Afghanistan in the group stages, we're through to Quarters (I know we lost to Ireland and Bangladesh last time)

    Then in the quarters, we'll probably end up facing Saffers, Pakistan, India or West Indies, we should be able to defeat the latter three, and we all know the Saffers are chokers.

    Then we're in the semis, and we're one innings of a lifetime from Buttler or Morgan away from the final.

    So has all the hallmarks of a decent trading bet.

    Yeah, reasonable bet given the draw (and the fact that the QF is in Melbourne which should suit). Ed Hawkins has tipped it too. I'm being greedy and waiting for us to lose to Australia first.
    Oooh, that's a good point.
    That must be factored in, but if we do well against the Aussies then the price may shorten.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/11407318/Juncker-torpedoes-David-Camerons-plan-to-rework-EU-treaties.html
  • PurseybearPurseybear Posts: 766
    edited February 2015
    Smarmeron said:

    those next week might be a lot more informative.

    Why?
  • ___Bobajob______Bobajob___ Posts: 872
    nigel4england said:

    ___Bobajob___ said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Off topic, I've finally backed England to win the cricket world cup at 10/1

    I know, we're as useful as a condom with holes in both ends,

    But look at the format of the tournament. If we beat Scotland and Afghanistan in the group stages, we're through to Quarters (I know we lost to Ireland and Bangladesh last time)

    Then in the quarters, we'll probably end up facing Saffers, Pakistan, India or West Indies, we should be able to defeat the latter three, and we all know the Saffers are chokers.

    Then we're in the semis, and we're one innings of a lifetime from Buttler or Morgan away from the final.

    So has all the hallmarks of a decent trading bet.

    Good thinking. I might have a tickle. Let me think about it.

    Generally speaking, the main issue we have at the moment is the Captain's Curse: Morgan is just a dud with the bat at the moment. That said he was in poor form before being handed the captaincy.
    I've bought Kane Williamson series runs at 374, he has been in blistering form and has Scotland and Afghanistan in his group, looks a great bet to me.

    Bought Buttler performance tomorrow on the basis he will definitely get a bat!

    Ben Stokes should be going in at six tomorrow
    Nigel – where did you find the top run scorer bet?

    Cheers.
  • compouter2compouter2 Posts: 2,371
    edited February 2015
    January will be the crossover month....February the pulling away month......March will see healthy Tory leads.

    Labour 3% in front

    Super Dave, the political masterclass and supremo with three leads out of 21. Ed is crap only has 15 out of the last 21 polls.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,009
    YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour have a three-point lead: CON 31, LAB 34, LD 7, UKIP 15, GRN 7
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548
    Smarmeron said:

    @JonnyJimmy
    Every time the subject comes up it dissolves into an argument of what is "disclosure", and what is "properly private"
    Everyone gets to posture, but nothing gets revealed.

    Do you think Ed has "properly private" (= something to hide) stuff?
  • ___Bobajob______Bobajob___ Posts: 872
    34/31

    Okay hats off I was wrong – Francis and TSE correct.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour have a three-point lead: CON 31, LAB 34, LD 7, UKIP 15, GRN 7

    Well I got the Greens right
  • IOSIOS Posts: 1,450
    get those greens back and Labour is going to win a stonking majority.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,965
    chestnut said:

    justin124 said:

    This was true in - 1959 - 1964 - 1966 - 1970 - Feb 1974 - Oct 1974 - 1987 - 2001 - 2005 - 2010. T

    So, it failed in 1979, 1983, 1992, 1997.

    And the swing back in 87, 01 and 05 went to people who lost.

    The only opposition leader to add votes in the last month, and win, since 1974.... was Cameron?

    Film out tomorrow about 1992

    Fifty Shades of Grey

    Gets coat
  • ___Bobajob______Bobajob___ Posts: 872
    compouter2 said:

    January will be the crossover month....February the pulling away month......March will see healthy Tory leads.

    Labour 3% in front

    Super Dave, the political masterclass and supremo with three leads out of 21. Ed is crap only has 15

    The polling appears to be going the wrong way for the Tories.

    Ed is great when he has something to attack. It's his defensive skills that pose a problem. Can he keep on the attack until the campaign proper begins?
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,321
    Mail tipping petrol onto the flames. Changed will and Milibands...

    not sure how far it will change votes.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    IOS said:

    get those greens back and Labour is going to win a stonking majority.

    UKIP 15
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 86,154
    edited February 2015
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour have a three-point lead: CON 31, LAB 34, LD 7, UKIP 15, GRN 7

    What will be interesting to see is will this be really be a 1-2 day divergence from the mean of about ~1% lead for Labour, or has Ed's hit manage to grab another 1-2%.

    All too early to tell, as obviously only one data point and 3% is well within margin of error.
This discussion has been closed.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025