politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Lord Ashcroft finds Clegg in trouble in Sheffield Hallam bu

Pulpstar said:

I note Bet365 changed their prices very quickly.

Whoever is the trader there is on the ball

They have several traders, not all of whom agree with each other!

MarkHopkins said:

Plato said:

I got Kipper too. Unsurprisingly. I'm a political mutt here.

HurstLlama said:

O/T The Telegraph site has a little quiz this morning designed to say which party most matches your views. A little amusement as it asks about how important you think a proposal is as well as whether you agree with it or do not care. Apparently I match most closely with UKIP, which is hardly a surprise.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11471048/who-should-I-vote-for.html

Perhaps all responses just give you Kipper. That's one way to influence how people vote.

Your views match best with the LibDems. Cute app.

Danny565 said:

MaxPB said:

What's interesting is that if the "go to bed with Nige, wake up with Ed" line is working in these 8 now that the campaign proper has started, the Lab/Con marginals may start looking much more favourable for the Tories as well.

On the other hand, Labour are benefitting by squeezing the Green vote. Though the effect it has on different marginals will depend on what the previous levels of Green and UKIP support were in each individual seat, of course.

According to the Aschroft marginal polling the greens are going nowhere fast but UKIP have seriously damaged Tory chances in a large number of seats. Any return to the Tories from UKIP VI will help the Tories defend a lot of marginals. Suddenly Enfield North looks saveable for the Tories as well as others.

From a first look it seems that the UKIP deflation is resulting in those ex-UKIP voters to return to their previous parties, resulting in a boost for either the Tories or the LD depending on the seat.
This is certainly a boost for the coalition, though Clegg still losing his seat despite the increasing Tory tactical vote, shows that ex-UKIP voters prefer to vote Labour to get rid of him.

I wonder though if ex-UKIP voters return to Labour too.

@Plato

Did you see the pictures of the Sea Lions that have taken over a marina in the USA?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthpicturegalleries/11504585/Unexpected-guests-Thousands-of-sea-lions-take-over-coastal-community.html?frame=3250688

botanically_speaking said:

more ZHC fun and games

BBC website:
Chris Leslie says Labour would write the legislation in a way that prevents employers from terminating employment when the 12-week period it's specifying comes to an end. "You can frame the legislation in a way that doesn't allow that kind of perverse circumstance to happen," he says.

This is fascinating. Effectively a ZHC contract will give the employee significantly more rights than an employee on a permanent contract (who has pretty much none for the first 12 months)

policy making "on the fly"

Forget ZHC for the moment -- but on-the-hoof policy-making, or at least "clarification", is a consequence of Miliband's "say nothing" strategy for the past few years. Policies -- and shadow ministers -- have not been challenged.

Roger said:

Looking at these polls quickly the conclusion seems to be where they are up against a Tory the Lib Dems hold on where they're up against Labour they lose

So Camborne and Redruth, North Devon and St Austell and Newquay are just figments of our collective imaginations? Lols.

When the Tories boast of creating 1000 jobs a day and they are full time jobs, what they mean is that people are deciding to become self employed ' cup cake ' makers etc. They avoid a trip to the job centre with the interviews associated with that and they get self employed allowances and payments. Most don't make much money but they are off the jobless list. Others are on Zero Hours contracts which by any stretch of Tory definition can't be called full time, they are also off the jobless tally.

DecrepitJohnL said:

botanically_speaking said:

more ZHC fun and games

BBC website:
Chris Leslie says Labour would write the legislation in a way that prevents employers from terminating employment when the 12-week period it's specifying comes to an end. "You can frame the legislation in a way that doesn't allow that kind of perverse circumstance to happen," he says.

This is fascinating. Effectively a ZHC contract will give the employee significantly more rights than an employee on a permanent contract (who has pretty much none for the first 12 months)

policy making "on the fly"

Forget ZHC for the moment -- but on-the-hoof policy-making, or at least "clarification", is a consequence of Miliband's "say nothing" strategy for the past few years. Policies -- and shadow ministers -- have not been challenged.

That blank piece of paper is still well very empty...

MaxPB said:

Roger said:

Looking at these polls quickly the conclusion seems to be where they are up against a Tory the Lib Dems hold on where they're up against Labour they lose

So Camborne and Redruth, North Devon and St Austell and Newquay are just figments of our collective imaginations? Lols.

The Lib Dem incumbency effect can best be seen by looking at Camborne imo.

I am not a great hater. But I hate these people:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/apr/01/british-couple-win-1m-euromillions-lottery-draw-second-time-two-years

BenM said:

MaxPB said:

Straw poll - ZHCs changes have gone down badly among my whatsapp group.

Big business letter - nobody cares.

Martin Freeman - F*** him lecturing us on how to vote

Martin Freeman appears in a simple election broadcast, whereas 100 very rich CEOs say vote for lower taxes on us please!

Who is doing the lecturing, pray?

Business people are at least successful and some people aspire to that. Anyway, as I said no one in the group seems to care about it.

Hardly a simple election broadcast either, it was the first of the campaign so the highest profile.

SouthamObserver said:

I am not a great hater. But I hate these people:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/apr/01/british-couple-win-1m-euromillions-lottery-draw-second-time-two-years

The odds of us witnessing this are considerably shorter than 1 in 283 billion.

Noone will ever, ever, ever complete a bingo card in 15 balls though, of that we can be certain.

Others are on Zero Hours contracts which by any stretch of Tory definition can't be called full time, they are also off the jobless tally.

FFS Roserees, what jobs are labour offering? If we take the experience of every labour government so far the answer is 'fewer'

DecrepitJohnL said:

botanically_speaking said:

more ZHC fun and games

BBC website:
Chris Leslie says Labour would write the legislation in a way that prevents employers from terminating employment when the 12-week period it's specifying comes to an end. "You can frame the legislation in a way that doesn't allow that kind of perverse circumstance to happen," he says.

This is fascinating. Effectively a ZHC contract will give the employee significantly more rights than an employee on a permanent contract (who has pretty much none for the first 12 months)

policy making "on the fly"

Forget ZHC for the moment -- but on-the-hoof policy-making, or at least "clarification", is a consequence of Miliband's "say nothing" strategy for the past few years. Policies -- and shadow ministers -- have not been challenged.

Leaving aside that I think the ZHC stuff is a very good policy, I do generally agree with this. It was a very stupid move to leave all their policy announcements til the last minute. They needed to do it well in advance so that any holes in the policies could be identified and tweaked, as well as giving shadow ministers experience of arguing their case, rather than pathetically folding the second they get a challenging line of questioning.

SouthamObserver said:

I am not a great hater. But I hate these people:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/apr/01/british-couple-win-1m-euromillions-lottery-draw-second-time-two-years

Typical lefty, hating success. They've worked hard for their money - it's not easy beating the odds - and I'm sure some of their profits will trickle down to help water the local tradesmen on their zero-hour contracts.

Kay Burley ✔ @KayBurley

So I'm 70% Labour according to the #sunnation poll. I think it was the ColdPlay answer that did it... http://www.sunnation.co.uk/how-labour-are-you …

lol - I think our Kay still trying to prove she's not a tory ;-)

Johathan

"The Martin Freeman ad was great. He is at least as successful as the 100, if not more so. "

I agree. It at least gives Labour supporters the confidence that their advertisers and researchers are up to the task.

Tykejohnno said:

Kay Burley ✔ @KayBurley

So I'm 70% Labour according to the #sunnation poll. I think it was the ColdPlay answer that did it... http://www.sunnation.co.uk/how-labour-are-you …

lol - I think our Kay still trying to prove she's not a tory ;-)

It's well known that Kay Burley is a Labour supporter. I don't know where the idea she's a tory came from.

Ashcroft best not reveal these polls to be an April Fools !

chestnut said:

Tory-LD Switchers where Labour challenging:

Hallam: 23%
Cambridge: 18%

Con-Lab swings

Hallam: 14%
Cambridge: 8%

Both those swings are way above UNS. Who says Tories don't do tactical voting? It may augur well for UKIP in and around Rotherham.

Would be an incredible journey if conservatives voting Ukip was what eventually kept Cameron in his job as PM

AllyPally_Rob said:

SouthamObserver said:

AllyPally_Rob said:

Sheffield Hallam now shaping up to be the 'Portillo Moment' of election night...

That really only works if Labour wins the overall election, which they won't. In the unlikely event that Clegg does lose, it will spark a wry smile of consolation rather than the joy that Portillo's defeat caused.

Well by Portillo Moment I mean an individual deceleration worth staying up for rather than the result being a national indication.

Given Ed Balls should be safe in his constituency I can't think of too many other potentials, Danny Alexander i guess?

Plus Clegg strikes me as the kind of bloke who might give a David Mellor style concession speech!

No, Mellor's in a class of his own.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2848448/I-ve-Cabinet-m-award-winning-broadcaster-m-QC-smart-little-git-David-Mellor-s-incredible-f-word-rant-taxi-driver.html

I would point out that both JackW and I have been singing from the Huppert hymn sheet for a while.

I could be wrong, but I suspect Clegg will hold on in Hallam - I think there will be (just) enough Tory tactical voters to return him to the Commons.

I wouldn't be surprised if the LibDems lost Torbay and St Ives as some UKIP voters go 'tactical'.

Danny565 said:

Tykejohnno said:

Kay Burley ✔ @KayBurley

So I'm 70% Labour according to the #sunnation poll. I think it was the ColdPlay answer that did it... http://www.sunnation.co.uk/how-labour-are-you …

lol - I think our Kay still trying to prove she's not a tory ;-)

It's well known that Kay Burley is a Labour supporter. I don't know where the idea she's a tory came from.

Well let's put it another way,the debate she preferred Cameron to Ed.

Off topic. US Presidential 2016. The Hillary email story just does not quit. She is being summonsed before a Congressional hearing to explain on record how she decided which emails to hand over to State; AP are suing for FOIA access to certain emails; and polls show that this scandal is hitting her numbers with independent voters in swing states.

My prognosis: media groups with continue with FOIA requests using different key words, so that there will be a steady drip of yet more incredible stories, such as today stating that, according to State Department, in her years at State, Hillary only sent 4 emails on drones.

http://www.pottsmerc.com/government-and-politics/20150331/state-dept-found-only-4-emails-about-drones-sent-by-hillary-clinton
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/31/committee-demands-clinton-appear-explain-emails/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/03/31/poll_clintons_margin_narrows_in_key_swing_states_126105.html

Hillary is required to appear before the Committee by 1 May. I wonder if this will bring forward her announcement so that it is done before any fall out from the hearing, or whether it will persuade her to hold off until she can gauge the damage done. Her history of caution would indicate the latter.

Data tables missing for Torbay.

Tories new campaign video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5dkxwbbA-g

Pong said:

Tissue_Price said:

SouthamObserver said:

I am not a great hater. But I hate these people:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/apr/01/british-couple-win-1m-euromillions-lottery-draw-second-time-two-years

Typical lefty, hating success. They've worked hard for their money - it's not easy beating the odds - and I'm sure some of their profits will trickle down to help water the local tradesmen on their zero-hour contracts.

I suspect most, if not all of their profits will be reinvested. Buy enough lottery tickets and the odds of winning come down considerably.

The odds of seeing a story like this are simply not 281 Billion to one either, a shoddy understanding of probability in that story !

Tykejohnno said:

Tories new campaign video.

Blimey! Did the BBC sell them rights for this or did the Tories borrow them. Either way I expect someone is in trouble.

TheWatcher said:

Roger said:

Johathan

"The Martin Freeman ad was great. He is at least as successful as the 100, if not more so. "

I agree. It at least gives Labour supporters the confidence that their advertisers and researchers are up to the task.

Except he turns out to be another hypocrite, with a child at private school, £6500 maps on his wall, and no problems with private healthcare.

I wonder if he's on PAYE like the little people?

Typical Lefty! Hating success!

SouthamObserver said:

Jonathan said:

TheWatcher said:

Roger said:

Johathan

"The Martin Freeman ad was great. He is at least as successful as the 100, if not more so. "

I agree. It at least gives Labour supporters the confidence that their advertisers and researchers are up to the task.

Except he turns out to be another hypocrite, with a child at private school, £6500 maps on his wall, and no problems with private healthcare.

I wonder if he's on PAYE like the little people?

The power of the Freeman ad is evident when the right try so very, very hard to discredit it.

Not sure where the idea he is a hypocrite comes from. Is it Labour policy to stop people sending their children to private school, owning maps or using private healthcare?

Yes. Wherever possible without direct banning.

SouthamObserver said:

Jonathan said:

TheWatcher said:

Roger said:

Johathan

"The Martin Freeman ad was great. He is at least as successful as the 100, if not more so. "

I agree. It at least gives Labour supporters the confidence that their advertisers and researchers are up to the task.

Except he turns out to be another hypocrite, with a child at private school, £6500 maps on his wall, and no problems with private healthcare.

I wonder if he's on PAYE like the little people?

The power of the Freeman ad is evident when the right try so very, very hard to discredit it.

Not sure where the idea he is a hypocrite comes from. Is it Labour policy to stop people sending their children to private school, owning maps or using private healthcare?

This little matter with tax issue perhaps? That is pretty hypocritical to me. The having a nice house and an expensive map is here nor there.

I will be glad for a day when nobody is attacked for using private health care or sending kids to private school with their own money, but Labour have a history of screaming from the roof tops when Tories do this, as some sort of proof that Tories aren't like "normal" people.

Imagine the outcry if Cameron had sent his kids to private school.

FrancisUrquhart said:

SouthamObserver said:

Jonathan said:

TheWatcher said:

Roger said:

Johathan

"The Martin Freeman ad was great. He is at least as successful as the 100, if not more so. "

I agree. It at least gives Labour supporters the confidence that their advertisers and researchers are up to the task.

Except he turns out to be another hypocrite, with a child at private school, £6500 maps on his wall, and no problems with private healthcare.

I wonder if he's on PAYE like the little people?

The power of the Freeman ad is evident when the right try so very, very hard to discredit it.

Not sure where the idea he is a hypocrite comes from. Is it Labour policy to stop people sending their children to private school, owning maps or using private healthcare?

This little matter with tax issue perhaps? That is pretty hypocritical to me.

What tax issue?

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

BenM said:

TheWatcher said:

Roger said:

Johathan

"The Martin Freeman ad was great. He is at least as successful as the 100, if not more so. "

I agree. It at least gives Labour supporters the confidence that their advertisers and researchers are up to the task.

Except he turns out to be another hypocrite, with a child at private school, £6500 maps on his wall, and no problems with private healthcare.

I wonder if he's on PAYE like the little people?

Why do things listed make Freeman a hypocrite? Has he come out and demanded abolition of them?

No? So he isn't a hpocrite. Rightwing hate is so ugly.

When the leader of the party he is advertising for says that private healthcare is unnecessary then it is hypocritical.

Why?

Dancing on the head of a pin again SO? Of course it is hypocritical. Just like his £120k tax avoidance.

No, it's not hypocritical. You want it to be. But that is not the same thing. And Freeman has not had any tax issues, has he?

MarkHopkins said:

SouthamObserver said:

Jonathan said:

TheWatcher said:

Roger said:

Johathan

"The Martin Freeman ad was great. He is at least as successful as the 100, if not more so. "

I agree. It at least gives Labour supporters the confidence that their advertisers and researchers are up to the task.

Except he turns out to be another hypocrite, with a child at private school, £6500 maps on his wall, and no problems with private healthcare.

I wonder if he's on PAYE like the little people?

The power of the Freeman ad is evident when the right try so very, very hard to discredit it.

Not sure where the idea he is a hypocrite comes from. Is it Labour policy to stop people sending their children to private school, owning maps or using private healthcare?

Yes. Wherever possible without direct banning.

Nope, you are just making that up.

Looks like Shadsy has launched a new site/portal

Is it easier to navigate than normal?

http://sports.ladbrokes.com/sports-central/election/

Jonathan said:

Tykejohnno said:

Tories new campaign video.

Blimey! Did the BBC sell them rights for this or did the Tories borrow them. Either way I expect someone is in trouble.

If the Tories have lifted these without permission I look forward to the condemnation of all those who lambasted labour over its recent FT ad. If the BBC did give permission, then we can put all the bias stories to bed once and for all.

Pulpstar said:

I'm wondering if single people and childless couples may swing against the Conservatives after watching the ad :P

"Hardworking singletons"

JackW said:

Not naming candidates in constituencies is half baked especially if the candidate (Clegg, Farage or Soubry ) has a high local or national profile.

Imagine a congressional poll without naming candidates 5 weeks from an election. Certainly not.

I'd like to see polls with named candidates too. The way to do it IMO is simply to show the ballot paper (obviously works best for online polls) without making a point telling the respondent to "think about the constituency and the candidates". Then if e.g. Clegg is on the paper, they can attach whatever importance they think fit to that.

IMO all three of those will have a net negative impact - all well known but more people keen to keep/get them out than the reverse. But it'll be interesting to find out. Someone ought to try a comparative poll for the scientific interest anyway - we're all guessing about this.

NickPalmer said:

JackW said:

Not naming candidates in constituencies is half baked especially if the candidate (Clegg, Farage or Soubry ) has a high local or national profile.

Imagine a congressional poll without naming candidates 5 weeks from an election. Certainly not.

I'd like to see polls with named candidates too. The way to do it IMO is simply to show the ballot paper (obviously works best for online polls) without making a point telling the respondent to "think about the constituency and the candidates". Then if e.g. Clegg is on the paper, they can attach whatever importance they think fit to that.

IMO all three of those will have a net negative impact - all well known but more people keen to keep/get them out than the reverse. But it'll be interesting to find out. Someone ought to try a comparative poll for the scientific interest anyway - we're all guessing about this.

When the candidates are known, a simple "Enter your postcode" should work for an online pollster.

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

BenM said:

TheWatcher said:

Roger said:

Johathan

"The Martin Freeman ad was great. He is at least as successful as the 100, if not more so. "

I agree. It at least gives Labour supporters the confidence that their advertisers and researchers are up to the task.

Except he turns out to be another hypocrite, with a child at private school, £6500 maps on his wall, and no problems with private healthcare.

I wonder if he's on PAYE like the little people?

Why do things listed make Freeman a hypocrite? Has he come out and demanded abolition of them?

No? So he isn't a hpocrite. Rightwing hate is so ugly.

When the leader of the party he is advertising for says that private healthcare is unnecessary then it is hypocritical.

Why?

Dancing on the head of a pin again SO? Of course it is hypocritical. Just like his £120k tax avoidance.

No, it's not hypocritical. You want it to be. But that is not the same thing. And Freeman has not had any tax issues, has he?

Getting his wife to declare bankruptcy is avoidance. Legal, and I would have done it in his place, but still he is advocating for a party that just made a massive fuss over tax avoidance. I am not.

Having private healthcare and advocating for the party of nationalisation and public services is hypocritical. He doesn't use the services like normal people, how can he know what the NHS is like? How can he advocate for the party that may increase taxes on normal people to pay for an NHS he doesn't use? Or education systems his kids won't use. It is very hypocritical and you Labourites trying to defend it know Labour has made an error in using frontman, but there is no other way of hiding Ed away.

SouthamObserver said:

If the Tories have lifted these without permission I look forward to the condemnation of all those who lambasted labour over its recent FT ad.

You are a very curious mixture of intelligence and completely missing the point, Southam! [This is meant in a friendly way, of course!]

No-one "lambasted labour over its recent FT ad". Plenty of people pointed out that it might be counter-productive for Labour to imply they had the support of people and companies, without asking their permission.

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

BenM said:

TheWatcher said:

Roger said:

Johathan

"The Martin Freeman ad was great. He is at least as successful as the 100, if not more so. "

I agree. It at least gives Labour supporters the confidence that their advertisers and researchers are up to the task.

Except he turns out to be another hypocrite, with a child at private school, £6500 maps on his wall, and no problems with private healthcare.

I wonder if he's on PAYE like the little people?

Why do things listed make Freeman a hypocrite? Has he come out and demanded abolition of them?

No? So he isn't a hpocrite. Rightwing hate is so ugly.

When the leader of the party he is advertising for says that private healthcare is unnecessary then it is hypocritical.

Why?

Dancing on the head of a pin again SO? Of course it is hypocritical. Just like his £120k tax avoidance.

No, it's not hypocritical. You want it to be. But that is not the same thing. And Freeman has not had any tax issues, has he?

Getting his wife to declare bankruptcy is avoidance. Legal, and I would have done it in his place, but still he is advocating for a party that just made a massive fuss over tax avoidance. I am not.

Having private healthcare and advocating for the party of nationalisation and public services is hypocritical. He doesn't use the services like normal people, how can he know what the NHS is like? How can he advocate for the party that may increase taxes on normal people to pay for an NHS he doesn't use? Or education systems his kids won't use. It is very hypocritical and you Labourites trying to defend it know Labour has made an error in using frontman, but there is no other way of hiding Ed away.

Ignoring the obvious libel in line 1, Labour is actually advocating tax increases on people like him.

He pretty much says so in the ad. You're projecting your jaundiced rightwing view of the human character where it isn't justified.

If I was a Labour supporter I would take heart from the Tories negative tactics. Anyone would think they were the underdog. Lets hope Labour have the courage not to follow them into the cesspit. The left always look better when leaving the pit bull tactics to their opponents

AAAH there you are Mr Palmer, unless you are clucking like a wet hen. what about this bet that you offered me and that I revised with winner donations to respective charities.