politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » February 2015 Issues Index

First!

And a couple for the horsey followers on here.....

Newcastle
2.20 Seventeen Black ew 5/1
4.20 Snowed In ew 5/1

Would make a nice ew double.

Off to the London Racing Club's pre-Festival Review Nite tonite. Any glimpses of wisdom will be dutifully reported here tomorrow.

Now, back to the NHS folks. Sorry for the interruption.

NHS concern down overall but still important. Looking at swing voters (ABC1 35-54) economic concern is very high so the government's message will still resonate well and as long as Dave pledges to increase NHS spending over the next Parliament then they will still get the votes. The Tories are not as far behind as Labour need them on the NHS and are pulling up even on quite a few other policy areas.

Newstatesman poll has 75% of Labour candidates against renewal of Trident. Room here, for a SNP deal?

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/03/exclusive-75-labour-ppcs-oppose-trident-renewal

Peter_the_Punter said:

First!

And a couple for the horsey followers on here.....

Newcastle
2.20 Seventeen Black ew 5/1
4.20 Snowed In ew 5/1

Would make a nice ew double.

Off to the London Racing Club's pre-Festival Review Nite tonite. Any glimpses of wisdom will be dutifully reported here tomorrow.

Now, back to the NHS folks. Sorry for the interruption.

Cheers PtP. The first of these is available at 7/2 (still e/w) betting without the favourite, which also appeals as an alternative angle.

The Bellylaugh's graphic of pre-election support for PM does rather back up what I've always maintained: that the party with the best leader tends to win.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11446252/Campaign-Calculus-Only-Ed-Miliband-can-stop-Labour-now.html

The only anomaly is that Callaghan was rated higher than Thatcher, although that was probably just straightforward 1970s working class sexism. I can remember a thoughtful voter in a TV vox observing that he "couldn't see how Mrs Fatcha could evah git in."

Miliband is going to lose the popular vote although he could still end up as PM off coming second.

rottenborough said:

Newstatesman poll has 75% of Labour candidates against renewal of Trident. Room here, for a SNP deal?

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/03/exclusive-75-labour-ppcs-oppose-trident-renewal

Unfit for government.

Tissue_Price said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

First!

And a couple for the horsey followers on here.....

Newcastle
2.20 Seventeen Black ew 5/1
4.20 Snowed In ew 5/1

Would make a nice ew double.

Off to the London Racing Club's pre-Festival Review Nite tonite. Any glimpses of wisdom will be dutifully reported here tomorrow.

Now, back to the NHS folks. Sorry for the interruption.

Cheers PtP. The first of these is available at 7/2 (still e/w) betting without the favourite, which also appeals as an alternative angle.

Sure TP, if that's how you want to do it I wouldn't put you off.

All I would point is that these are quite heavy bets for me and like many punters I go in heaviest when I think I've spotted an opposable favorite. That's what is behind these two bets, so naturally betting 'without' doesn't appeal to me on this occasion.

We'll soon know if I'm wrong!

TheScreamingEagles said:

I thought of headlining it "Osborne's magnificent stewardship of the economy is responsible for the economy no longer being the major issue"

But I thought, that might give Alanbrooke a seizure.

"Salience of economy as electoral issue declines as gap between Osborne's original and revised deficit reduction forecasts grows?"

rottenborough said:

Newstatesman poll has 75% of Labour candidates against renewal of Trident. Room here, for a SNP deal?

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/03/exclusive-75-labour-ppcs-oppose-trident-renewal

There are going to be a lot of lefties in the House of Commons after May.

"Tory minister criticises 'inhuman inflexibility' in benefit sanctions "

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/03/tory-minister-inhuman-inflexibility-benefit-sanctions

Peter_the_Punter said:

Tissue_Price said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

First!

And a couple for the horsey followers on here.....

Newcastle
2.20 Seventeen Black ew 5/1
4.20 Snowed In ew 5/1

Would make a nice ew double.

Off to the London Racing Club's pre-Festival Review Nite tonite. Any glimpses of wisdom will be dutifully reported here tomorrow.

Now, back to the NHS folks. Sorry for the interruption.

Cheers PtP. The first of these is available at 7/2 (still e/w) betting without the favourite, which also appeals as an alternative angle.

Sure TP, if that's how you want to do it I wouldn't put you off.

All I would point is that these are quite heavy bets for me and like many punters I go in heaviest when I think I've spotted an opposable favorite. That's what is behind these two bets, so naturally betting 'without' doesn't appeal to me on this occasion.

We'll soon know if I'm wrong!

Yes I guessed you were opposing the favourite. What I like about the 7/2 isn't so much the extra chance of winning (if the forecast lands), but the chance of getting paid on 4th place.

Shredding the Rochdale home office files that mysteriously ‘disappeared’ ..?

Sorry,

Curse of the new thread ... FPT

According to the Casey Report, Rotherham authorities are still in denial. It never happened.

Listening to R5L recently, it appears that offences remain unreported because people still don't believe the people in charge will act.

Who is to blame? The perpetrators obviously, but also the authorities.

If the UK were to announce that burglary was no longer a crime if committed by men between say, thirty and fifty years of age, only a small proportion of that population would take advantage - most would not. But if a householder reported a crime, it would be ignored, it would never have taken place. And the numbers would increase despite the official count being nil.

That's what happened in Rotherham and Oxford and Rochdale etc. Because of PC considerations, a section of the population were allowed to commit a crime and have it ignored. Is it any wonder that it the numbers increased? Yes, only a small section of that group would take advantage, and other groups would carry on as before, but the authorities were guilty of encouraging the increase.

But I'm not sure how this jail term for people looking the other way can work. Wouldn't you have to prove they knew? Proving someone ignored something is bound to be difficult. First they have to acknowledge a crime took place, then they would have to admit they deliberately ignored it.

Documentary evidence can easily disappear from locked offices.

The Daily Mirror has been phone hacking ... yawn, yawn.

My phone is available for hacking and I'll only charge £2 a day to read the full contents. How many detectives were occupied in the celebrity cases? How many were investigating the Rotherham scandal?

Mr. StClare, lots of files reportedly went missing from Rotherham as well.

Pulpstar said:

Market on which politics trader gets the sack first after May:

Evens Betfair Sportsbook
6-4 Corals
3-1 Skybet
10-1 Bar ?

There isn't really one trader. There's usually one compiler, and then it's up to the trading team to manage the market (including the 24/7 aspect). So there's a big difference between putting up utter ricks as your opening book, and being caught out when news breaks.

Ipsos ask two questions.

1. What would you say is the most important issue facing Britain today?

2. What do you see as the main/other important issues facing Britain today?

Just looking at their first response, the NHS doesn't seem like a vote swayer.

Immigration 18% (Con 21%, Lab 10%, LD 8%, UKIP 64%)
Economy 15% (Con 31%, Lab 16%, LD 27%, UKIP 3%)
NHS 12% (Con 8%, Lab 15%, LD 12%, UKIP 3%)
Unemployment 8% (Con 3%, Lab 13%, LD 13%, UKIP 2%)

p.10, table 3
https://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Polls/issues-index-tables-feb-2015.pdf

LD voters top issue is the Economy, UKIP voters top issue is immigration.

(Green voters are not broken out in the tables.)

These are the voters Lab/Con need to attract.

anotherDave said:

Ipsos ask two questions.

1. What would you say is the most important issue facing Britain today?

2. What do you see as the main/other important issues facing Britain today?

Just looking at their first response, the NHS doesn't seem like a vote swayer.

Immigration 18% (Con 21%, Lab 10%, LD 8%, UKIP 64%)
Economy 15% (Con 31%, Lab 16%, LD 27%, UKIP 3%)
NHS 12% (Con 8%, Lab 15%, LD 12%, UKIP 3%)
Unemployment 8% (Con 3%, Lab 13%, LD 13%, UKIP 2%)

p.10, table 3
https://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Polls/issues-index-tables-feb-2015.pdf

LD voters top issue is the Economy, UKIP voters top issue is immigration.

(Green voters are not broken out in the tables.)

These are the voters Lab/Con need to attract.

Incredibly low figures (2 % or 3%) for UKIP on the economy, NHS and unemployment

Tissue_Price said:

From what you have seen or heard about the proposed cut to tuition fees, do you think the following groups would be better or worse off financially, or would it make no difference to them?

Students who go on to earn only a low salary

                      Av   C    L    LD   UK
Would be better off   32   22   44   34   28
Would be worse off    10   15    6    6   14
Wd make no difference 42   50   38   48   41
Don't know            16   13   11   12   16

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/gxsjii6bmt/TimesRedBoxResults_150302_tuition_fees_W.pdf

The correct answer is

No Difference
No Difference

To the "Average/low" salary question; and better off to the high salary option.

Tissue_Price said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Tissue_Price said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

First!

And a couple for the horsey followers on here.....

Newcastle
2.20 Seventeen Black ew 5/1
4.20 Snowed In ew 5/1

Would make a nice ew double.

Off to the London Racing Club's pre-Festival Review Nite tonite. Any glimpses of wisdom will be dutifully reported here tomorrow.

Now, back to the NHS folks. Sorry for the interruption.

Cheers PtP. The first of these is available at 7/2 (still e/w) betting without the favourite, which also appeals as an alternative angle.

Sure TP, if that's how you want to do it I wouldn't put you off.

All I would point is that these are quite heavy bets for me and like many punters I go in heaviest when I think I've spotted an opposable favorite. That's what is behind these two bets, so naturally betting 'without' doesn't appeal to me on this occasion.

We'll soon know if I'm wrong!

Yes I guessed you were opposing the favourite. What I like about the 7/2 isn't so much the extra chance of winning (if the forecast lands), but the chance of getting paid on 4th place.

Well I was right about the favorite but that's all I got right. They could have paid out on the first six and I still wouldn't have collected. :-(

Tissue_Price said:

Pulpstar said:

Tissue_Price said:

From what you have seen or heard about the proposed cut to tuition fees, do you think the following groups would be better or worse off financially, or would it make no difference to them?

Students who go on to earn only a low salary

                      Av   C    L    LD   UK
Would be better off   32   22   44   34   28
Would be worse off    10   15    6    6   14
Wd make no difference 42   50   38   48   41
Don't know            16   13   11   12   16

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/gxsjii6bmt/TimesRedBoxResults_150302_tuition_fees_W.pdf

The correct answer is

No Difference
No Difference

To the "Average/low" salary question; and better off to the high salary option.

You must be a Tory.

I feel like a fully paid up member of the SNP right now tbh...

Sean_F said:

I'm surprised to see unemployment so high, although interestingly, that's quite a strong subject for the Conservatives these days.

Overall, the Conservatives need to get the NHS down, and the economy up, in terms of salience.

The Welsh NHS may be dreadful, but the voters will never be persuaded that Labour are bad on the NHS, anymore than they'll be persuaded that the Conservatives are bad on Defence, despite tons of contrary evidence in both cases.

Maybe it's the type of employment. I can't see many of the under 35s in the C2DE category necessarily being thrilled by the types of jobs they do, or that are on offer.

CD13 said:

But I'm not sure how this jail term for people looking the other way can work. Wouldn't you have to prove they knew? Proving someone ignored something is bound to be difficult. First they have to acknowledge a crime took place, then they would have to admit they deliberately ignored it.

No different from the current laws on failing to report money laundering.

Plato said:

I always associate *crumpet* with Nanette Newman. What did she do apart from Fairy Liquid squeaky plate adverts?

dr_spyn said:

Beer Baccy & Crumpet Party banned from running in May 2015, yet Electoral Commission happy to allow them to exist in 2012.

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/164017/20131017-Political-party-profiles-2012-PDF.pdf

ISTR some TV miniseries in the 1970s - was it called Room at the Top, or something - in which Nanette got pretty much the whole lot out. And splendid she was too, in that Jenny Agutterish not-cover-girl-gorgeous-but-still-gorgeous way of the thirtysomething British actress.

Blowed if I can remember what else she's done.

She's a bit like Robert Palmer or Peter Gabriel. I'd never heard of either of them before, respectively, Johnny and Mary in 1980 and Sledgehammer in 1986, but everyone else seemed to be quite clear that they were already famous.

There's actually quite a few like that. Nigel Havers, for example. One day he just appeared and he'd been famous for ever. Or Alan Rickman before Die Hard.

Edit: it was Man at the Top (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073342/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_16) but in the trivia it says that "Nanette Newman has indicated in interviews that her nude scenes were provided by a body double". Fooled me!

Can someone explain to me the weightings in IPSOS Mori table, they have Con weighted to 14% and Labour on 27%, that is not reflective of current VI or from 2010. It doesn't make any sense to me.

Looking at Scotland's answer to the first question (106 unweighted subsample), perhaps Labour should be focused on the Economy rather than the NHS.

Economy 24% (higher than any other UK region)
NHS 6% (lower than any other UK region)

p.6
https://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Polls/issues-index-tables-feb-2015.pdf

Dr. Spyn, nothing wrong with feeling bloody-minded.

Let us know what reply you get.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Bit strange that economy (Tories supposed strong suit) not as important to people, NHS (Labour's supposed strong suit) more important....Labour share been in decline over the period of its rise in importance, while Tories vote notching up a tad.

Look at the weightings on page 10, they don't make any sense.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Bit strange that economy (Tories supposed strong suit) not as important to people, NHS (Labour's supposed strong suit) more important....Labour share been in decline over the period of its rise in importance, while Tories vote notching up a tad.

I do wonder if the NHS is an easy option to give when you've exhausted your personal 'hot topics'. Makes you look caring to the pretty pollster, too.

Do IM prompt on that question?

CD13 said:

Sorry,

Curse of the new thread ... FPT


But I'm not sure how this jail term for people looking the other way can work. Wouldn't you have to prove they knew? Proving someone ignored something is bound to be difficult. First they have to acknowledge a crime took place, then they would have to admit they deliberately ignored it.

Documentary evidence can easily disappear from locked offices.

You make them responsible by virtue of their position. So if you are in charge of social services and the girls are in care and are being trafficked, you are responsible for not preventing that. Your only defence would be to show that you had taken all reasonable steps to prevent it - and that means something more than just writing a policy.

People want to have all the kudos of being in charge - the title, the status, the big team, the money etc. Well, they have to learn that with that goes responsibility. So if something goes wrong, the buck stops with them.

JonnyJimmy said:

Just looking at Shadsy's GE specials and my eye is caught by;

"Exact vote tie in any seat 33/1"

It doesn't specify that it means a dead heat for first place. Does that mean if any two parties tie for votes anywhere in the list for any seat, then the vote is a winner?

If so that sounds like value, though I haven't given it any statistical analysis..

I'm sure this is value were it to apply to any two candidates tieing for votes in any seat. I'm equally sure that the usually sure-footed Shadsy is only referring to a tie for first place in which case these are singularly bad odds, if only for the fact that they will keep having recounts until a winner finally emerges. You could of course place a bet and argue the toss after the event. Laddies may after all decide to pay out of the goodness *cough* of their heart!

F1: pre-season thoughts here:
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/testing-thoughts.html

Remember, Alonso won't be in Oz. Unfortunately, I couldn't see a classified market, so there was no way to take advantage.

Mr. Hopkins, unlikely Wales will (3% of the population, 2% of the wealth).

And of course, any new ways to get rich are being ruthlessly shut down (such as a complete moratorium on fracking).

The last thing, the very last thing labour want is for Wales to become prosperous. Oh dear me no. Where would labour be without all that subsistence, poverty and poor health and educational outcomes?

peter_from_putney said:

"Only Ed Miliband can stop Labour now"

says Martin Baxter in today's Daily Telegraph.

Interesting closing thought:

"Common sense suggests that the gap between Labour's support and their leader's ratings will shrink when voters are face to face with a ballot paper. But this could happen in two ways. Either support for Miliband goes up as Labour supporters swallow their doubts, or else Labour votes go down as Miliband-sceptics put their crosses elsewhere. No-one knows for sure, but the historical record suggests the latter possibility is more likely."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11446252/Campaign-Calculus-Only-Ed-Miliband-can-stop-Labour-now.html

Do we have this historical record anywhere?

FrancisUrquhart said:

Bit strange that economy (Tories supposed strong suit) not as important to people, NHS (Labour's supposed strong suit) more important....Labour share been in decline over the period of its rise in importance, while Tories vote notching up a tad.

I wouldn't agree that the economy is not as important. This question is not measuring absolute importance but relative importance. As the economy has improved, it has become relatively less of an issue compared to other things. That doesn't mean it won't still be a major issue at the election.

I notice that the NHS has slipped this month. It might slip again in coming months as worries about a winter A&E crisis fade.

One other comment is that certain issues will have more resonance with certain segments of the population e.g. education will be a much higher priority of parents of school age children

Pulpstar said:

Tissue_Price said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Tissue_Price said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

Tissue_Price said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

First!

And a couple for the horsey followers on here.....

Newcastle
2.20 Seventeen Black ew 5/1
4.20 Snowed In ew 5/1

Would make a nice ew double.

Off to the London Racing Club's pre-Festival Review Nite tonite. Any glimpses of wisdom will be dutifully reported here tomorrow.

Now, back to the NHS folks. Sorry for the interruption.

Cheers PtP. The first of these is available at 7/2 (still e/w) betting without the favourite, which also appeals as an alternative angle.

Sure TP, if that's how you want to do it I wouldn't put you off.

All I would point is that these are quite heavy bets for me and like many punters I go in heaviest when I think I've spotted an opposable favorite. That's what is behind these two bets, so naturally betting 'without' doesn't appeal to me on this occasion.

We'll soon know if I'm wrong!

Yes I guessed you were opposing the favourite. What I like about the 7/2 isn't so much the extra chance of winning (if the forecast lands), but the chance of getting paid on 4th place.

Well I was right about the favorite but that's all I got right. They could have paid out on the first six and I still wouldn't have collected. :-(

Missed the race, saw the 1-2-3 result, had an inkling I might be proved spectacularly right, wasn't.

Let's hope your second pin was luckier.

Looks like a truly awful day up in Newcastle, second horse is well named for the conditions anyway. Blizzard like.

Don't think it was the weather that stopped my one. It did however jump as though it was feeling an injury. No way of knowing, of course, but it didn't jump normally. Between the hurdles it was ok, but it was given away lengths at each obstacle.

MarkHopkins said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Six spaceport locations remain in play for the UK:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-31711083

We should have it in England. Scotland could well go its own way in the next decade or two.

Most are in Scotland, who (as you say) could go their own way and take the spaceport with them.

Perhaps we should choose the Welsh one. Hmmm. What if they decide to go independent?

Perhaps its safest to pick the English one. Cornwall. Is Cornwall safe?

'Spaceport'? Is this serious?
'low cost rocket planes' ?? Yes we have heard all that before. Tell that to Richard Branson.
Low cost, with all the options in the far extremes of the country?

Since the 'spaceport' will be no more than a glorified converted RAF runway I do not think there is much for Scotland to take away should it choose.
I've been to Stornaway, the Outer Hebrides have some lovely windswept beaches. Is anyone at all seriously suggesting we launch rockets or 'rocket planes' from there?

You will be telling me next there is an election looming.

MarqueeMark said:

peter_from_putney said:

"Only Ed Miliband can stop Labour now"

says Martin Baxter in today's Daily Telegraph.

Interesting closing thought:

"Common sense suggests that the gap between Labour's support and their leader's ratings will shrink when voters are face to face with a ballot paper. But this could happen in two ways. Either support for Miliband goes up as Labour supporters swallow their doubts, or else Labour votes go down as Miliband-sceptics put their crosses elsewhere. No-one knows for sure, but the historical record suggests the latter possibility is more likely."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11446252/Campaign-Calculus-Only-Ed-Miliband-can-stop-Labour-now.html

Do we have this historical record anywhere?

Yes, I saw that - a case of Martin hedging his bets I thought. Not sure to what "historical records" he is referring.

Rolf Harris has been stripped of his CBE according to BBC ticker.

SimonStClare said:

Rolf Harris has been stripped of his CBE according to BBC ticker.

That'll learn him.

Flightpath said:

MarkHopkins said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Six spaceport locations remain in play for the UK:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-31711083

We should have it in England. Scotland could well go its own way in the next decade or two.

Most are in Scotland, who (as you say) could go their own way and take the spaceport with them.

Perhaps we should choose the Welsh one. Hmmm. What if they decide to go independent?

Perhaps its safest to pick the English one. Cornwall. Is Cornwall safe?

'Spaceport'? Is this serious?
'low cost rocket planes' ?? Yes we have heard all that before. Tell that to Richard Branson.
Low cost, with all the options in the far extremes of the country?

Since the 'spaceport' will be no more than a glorified converted RAF runway I do not think there is much for Scotland to take away should it choose.
I've been to Stornaway, the Outer Hebrides have some lovely windswept beaches. Is anyone at all seriously suggesting we launch rockets or 'rocket planes' from there?

You will be telling me next there is an election looming.

If it is Campbeltown, it will be RAF Macrihanish.

An interesting place. The runway is absolutely vast. Was rumoured to be a stop-off point for the top-secret Aurora spy plane. Also B-2 stealth bombers went through there after 9/11. And plenty of special forces training around and abouts.

The tin-foil hat brigade linked the Mull of Kintyre Chinook disaster to activities at Macrihanish. Who knows. If it is being put forward as a space port, that rather suggests its military status may have been downgraded.

Charles said:

isam said:

Charles said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Dr. Spyn, nothing wrong with feeling bloody-minded.

Let us know what reply you get.

I refer you to Janesh's article: "feeling vaguely cussed (in other words, British)"

Janan Ganesh, Esq. (@JGaneshEsq)
03/03/2015 07:45
Thesaurus and chai latte at the ready. Time to put quill to parchment. I feel a column coming on.

I admit that his modus operandi may be, shall we say, unusual

But it doesn't make him wrong.

Anyway, I rather like chai latte

Janan Ganesh, Esq. (@JGaneshEsq)
10/02/2015 13:44
Always use the pretentious alternative. For example, instead of saying “I have a hangover”, try “J’ai la gueule de bois”. #GaneshStyleTips