politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » My favourite GE15 spread bet: That there’ll be a CON margin

Populus changes from Tuesday

Lab (nc)
Con (nc)
UKIP +1
LD -2
Grn +1

Slackbladder said:

Dair said:

SouthamObserver said:

Alanbrooke said:

SouthamObserver said:

Alanbrooke said:

Have Labour just given up on Scotland ?

Scotland has given up on Labour. Why flog a dead horse?

For the obvious reason they will pareto themselves out of existence, like the Tories.

Scotland clearly sees itself as a distinct political entity. With independence off the table, at some stage politics will return to the day-to-day. When it does, what may happen is that new parties will develop. For example, SNP social democrats will have to decide whether separation really is their primary objective when there is so much devolved power (with a lot more to come) and so much that can be done within the UK. Likewise, the centre right may decide that it needs a rejig. The Tories get 500,000 votes in Scotland. If they were no longer called the Tories, but were a distinctly Scottish party they may well get many more. These parties would then align with other UK parties in the Commons. It's what happens elsewhere in Europe. We will catch up.

With 50% of Scots desperate to hold another Referendum and dissolve the United Kingdom, the idea politics will "return to normal" any time soon is risible.

Just face it, the UK is a dead parrot.

Jeeez, it was only 6 months ago you had only 45% and you lost....

Opinion polls are not referendums.

You lost, you lost, you lost.....get that into your thick skulls for a least a while.

You seem to have missed the really important point.......

Those that voted "no" were not real Scots so don't count.

dr_spyn said:

Mystic Meg predictions from Bristol Post for Parliamentary Seats.

http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/General-Election-predictions-seats-Bristol-area/story-26308556-detail/story.html

Might amuse some punters here, or alarm them.

Those look sensible enough.

Indigo said:

Dair said:

anotherDave said:

James Bartholomew has written a new book: "The Welfare of Nations"

"What damage is being done by failing welfare states? What lessons can be learned from the best welfare states? And is it too late to stop welfare states permanently diminishing the lives and liberties of people around the world?"

https://www.bitebackpublishing.com/books/the-welfare-of-nations

I've ordered a copy, and I'm looking forward to reading it. :-)

The problem is not welfare per se. The problem is that none of the parties in most countries are honest about it. It only takes another 5% on the tax take to fund the level of welfare dependency that seems wanted in Western European countries.

5% on the basic rate of tax is £30bn, roughly what we need to spend to keep pace with spending on the NHS every year by 2020, never mind any extra welfare.

It may be £30bn extra income tax if nothing else changes, but watch VAT collapse and unemployment rise..and income tax therefore not rise as much as you expected.

Millions of people would not be able to afford their mortgages if they had to find an extra 5% income tax, or would have to seriously adjust their other expenditure downwards with grim economic consequences.

(This reply should be to Dair really...who claims to be an ex-tory. guess they kicked him out for not really getting it AT ALL..??)

Interesting they have Filton and Bradley Stoke TCTC mind, that's Labour target 130 odd isn't it ?!

Alistair said:

calum said:

Alistair said:

FTPT

As a point of order @antifrank I don't think that @calum m posted the 125/1 odds on 0-5 SLab seats until after it had been cut and I had posted about getting 40/1 on it.

I first tipped the William Hill SLAB markets as soon as they opened in early December. I then flagged each time the odds were cut. The most significant cut came the day before the Survation in late December - I posted as soon as I spotted it:

"Just spotted that William Hill have slashed their SLAB GE 2015 odds e.g. 0-5 seats down from 125/1 to 66/1 and 11-15 down from 20/1 to 10/1."

Apologies for missing that.

You truly are PBTOTY.

That would be a great honour !!

Until Tuesday I thought SLAB retaining 6-10 seats was the most likely outcome. Based on recent events and Miliband promising to spend more time in Scotland, I think 0-5 is looking better by the day.

Anyway as long as SLAB get less than 16 seats I'll make a healthy profit. I'll be donating 50% of any winnings to my MND Campaign:

https://www.justgiving.com/Calum-Ferguson1/

Pulpstar said:

dr_spyn said:

Mystic Meg predictions from Bristol Post for Parliamentary Seats.

http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/General-Election-predictions-seats-Bristol-area/story-26308556-detail/story.html

Might amuse some punters here, or alarm them.

Those look sensible enough.

Pulpstar said:

Interesting they have Filton and Bradley Stoke TCTC mind, that's Labour target 130 odd isn't it ?!

Yes, that and calling Kingswood for the Tories.

Tissue_Price said:

Pulpstar said:

dr_spyn said:

Mystic Meg predictions from Bristol Post for Parliamentary Seats.

http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/General-Election-predictions-seats-Bristol-area/story-26308556-detail/story.html

Might amuse some punters here, or alarm them.

Those look sensible enough.

Pulpstar said:

Interesting they have Filton and Bradley Stoke TCTC mind, that's Labour target 130 odd isn't it ?!

Yes, that and calling Kingswood for the Tories.

Unless there's something I really am unaware of about Bristol demography I'm struggling to see how NW will be a 'narrow' hold and Filton be TCTC tbh though.

I'm on Bristol NW at 8-15 so wish to understand this.

Millions of people would not be able to afford their mortgages if they had to find an extra 5% income tax, or would have to seriously adjust their other expenditure downwards with grim economic consequences.

And what will those same millions get to enjoy when the market reacts to Ed Miliband PM? What is the likely but as yet totally not priced into the market trajectory for interest rates? But, as I said earlier, every cloud has a silver lining - it will collapse house prices to some extent or other. Maybe those 18-24 year olds are dead cunning. They vote Ed is Crap into No.10 with the precise intent of collapsing the housing market so they can get onto the ladder. Baldrick is their guru.

Dair said:

This is truly masterful.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afRE3RwLwaE

Not quite the way I remember it but very funny.

Pulpstar said:

Tissue_Price said:

Pulpstar said:

dr_spyn said:

Mystic Meg predictions from Bristol Post for Parliamentary Seats.

http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/General-Election-predictions-seats-Bristol-area/story-26308556-detail/story.html

Might amuse some punters here, or alarm them.

Those look sensible enough.

Pulpstar said:

Interesting they have Filton and Bradley Stoke TCTC mind, that's Labour target 130 odd isn't it ?!

Yes, that and calling Kingswood for the Tories.

Unless there's something I really am unaware of about Bristol demography I'm struggling to see how NW will be a 'narrow' hold and Filton be TCTC tbh though.

I'm on Bristol NW at 8-15 so wish to understand this.

Shadsy has Filton at 4.33 Labour, so could be good value if it really is TCTC. Is there some local issue?

FWIW the Leicester Mercury has forecast none of the 10 Leics and Rutland seats changing hands. Nicky Morgan seems safe in Loughborough.

It has been reported a few months ago that the contact rate of some Scottish CLPs was so low that the total number of contacts in some cases were lower than those registrated for ward branches in London CLPs (which traditionally have more active CLPs).

Ishmael_X said:

Scott_P said:

Just how desperate do you have to be...

@TelePolitics: Labour 'dead' in Scotland, MP says as candidates turn to Gordon Brown to save campaign http://t.co/4e6TXDtZB7

And this really brings out the scale of the disaster:

"[SLAB] MPs who did “f*** all” campaigning at the last election because of their large majorities are unable to tell what is happening in their seats because they have nothing to benchmark canvass returns against, The Telegraph has been told."

Easterross said:

Afternoon all. The thing I find most telling about the Jim, Ed and Ed show this morning is that it took place in Edinburgh. More than half of Labour's seats are in Strathclyde and it makes me wonder, has Labour written off Glasgow? Willie Bain is a nice wee chap and it would be funny if he becomes Shadow Sec of State for Scotland after 8th May.

I heard a quote from Margaret Curran recently

"If I am Scottish Secretary after the election..."

I don't know what the rest was, I was doubled up laughing so hard

SouthamObserver said:

Patrick said:

If a system does not deliver for most people, do not be surprised if they seek to change it. If your way worked, people would vote for it. Taxes were higher under Mrs Thatcher, the welfare state was far more generous. Those are two inescapable facts.

SO I don't disagree with you. Inequality is an issue. ....

The moral is that politicians should always push to:
1. Manage the economy sensibly, keep sound money and keep us competitive
2. Stop rent seeking and push for equality as far as they can
3. Be honest and open about where we are and the hard choices we face
4. and pigs might fly

We borrow so much because corporations, banks and individuals with more money than they can ever hope to spend prefer to hoard it and hide it away than share it (and why pay taxes to boost state spending when you can lend the money and make a profit?). For me, that's the problem; not the fact that some voters - most of whom have seen their living standards stagnate or fall - do not buy into the fact that trickle down works. I am not advocating we go out and spend hundreds of billions of pounds we do not have; neither am I saying that capitalism is inherently wrong; I don't believe either thing. What I am saying is that the system as it currently is has palpably failed for many millions of people. And that is why they vote as they do. Sneering at the choices they make may make you feel better but it is not a solution. If people do not feel they have a stake in a society they will seek to create a society in which they do feel they have a stake.

We borrow so much Mr SO because Labour spent so much. Between 2000 and 2010 the IFS figures show that Labour increased spending by 50% in real terms. There was never any likelihood that this would be affordable.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Populus changes from Tuesday

Lab (nc)
Con (nc)
UKIP +1
LD -2
Grn +1

Adding Populus into the mix I think the conclusion has to be that there hasn't been any discernable movement this week.

YouGov and Populus are both highly established pollsters polling on a very frequent basis and they both show no change.

ComRes has Con lead down 3 but their previous Con +4 was obviously way on the high side.

TNS moved towards Lab but historically TNS has been good for Lab and just counting certain to vote TNS was actually only Lab +1, not the headline Lab +3.

That just leaves Panelbase and Survation. The chances of Panelbase and Survation both correctly picking up a genuine change when none of the others detected anything are, in my view, pretty low.

In retrospect the 7 polls published yesterday / today don't change the position in either direction - and even if there was a hint of positive for Lab in the national polls it is offset by the YouGov Scotland.

Dair said:

JonCisBack said:

Indigo said:

Dair said:

anotherDave said:

James Bartholomew has written a new book: "The Welfare of Nations"

"What damage is being done by failing welfare states? What lessons can be learned from the best welfare states? And is it too late to stop welfare states permanently diminishing the lives and liberties of people around the world?"

https://www.bitebackpublishing.com/books/the-welfare-of-nations

I've ordered a copy, and I'm looking forward to reading it. :-)

The problem is not welfare per se. The problem is that none of the parties in most countries are honest about it. It only takes another 5% on the tax take to fund the level of welfare dependency that seems wanted in Western European countries.

5% on the basic rate of tax is £30bn, roughly what we need to spend to keep pace with spending on the NHS every year by 2020, never mind any extra welfare.

It may be £30bn extra income tax if nothing else changes, but watch VAT collapse and unemployment rise..and income tax therefore not rise as much as you expected.

Millions of people would not be able to afford their mortgages if they had to find an extra 5% income tax, or would have to seriously adjust their other expenditure downwards with grim economic consequences.

(This reply should be to Dair really...who claims to be an ex-tory. guess they kicked him out for not really getting it AT ALL..??)

If people are in such a predicament financially that a loss of 1% of their income will lead to their home being repossessed they are already pretty much buggered to begin with.

You talk as if there isn't an existing model. There are plenty of models of successfully run, successful economies in Scandinavia which survive perfectly well with the level of expected services being funded fully with a 45% tax to GDP ratio.

The fact that it is a perfectly rational and workable model does not mean it is one I would necessarily chose. Perhaps that's the real problem with dogmatic politics - a complete failure to understand all sides.

5% on income tax is a lot more than 1% of income surely - depends on your salary of course but take a median income of £26K. 5% of the £16K which is taxed is £800. In fact £26K gross is about £20767 according the MSE website.

So going from £20767 to under £20K take home is a loss of about 4%, not 1%

Disposable income out of that £20767 will be way less after bills, say half, so disposable income falls by 8%, maybe more.

1% is way off. But I do agree that a lot of people are financially on the edge. This is true, and is another reason why massive tax hike is a terrible idea.

JonCisBack said:

Dair said:

JonCisBack said:

Indigo said:

Dair said:

anotherDave said:

James Bartholomew has written a new book: "The Welfare of Nations"

"What damage is being done by failing welfare states? What lessons can be learned from the best welfare states? And is it too late to stop welfare states permanently diminishing the lives and liberties of people around the world?"

https://www.bitebackpublishing.com/books/the-welfare-of-nations

I've ordered a copy, and I'm looking forward to reading it. :-)

The problem is not welfare per se. The problem is that none of the parties in most countries are honest about it. It only takes another 5% on the tax take to fund the level of welfare dependency that seems wanted in Western European countries.

5% on the basic rate of tax is £30bn, roughly what we need to spend to keep pace with spending on the NHS every year by 2020, never mind any extra welfare.

It may be £30bn extra income tax if nothing else changes, but watch VAT collapse and unemployment rise..and income tax therefore not rise as much as you expected.

Millions of people would not be able to afford their mortgages if they had to find an extra 5% income tax, or would have to seriously adjust their other expenditure downwards with grim economic consequences.

(This reply should be to Dair really...who claims to be an ex-tory. guess they kicked him out for not really getting it AT ALL..??)

If people are in such a predicament financially that a loss of 1% of their income will lead to their home being repossessed they are already pretty much buggered to begin with.

You talk as if there isn't an existing model. There are plenty of models of successfully run, successful economies in Scandinavia which survive perfectly well with the level of expected services being funded fully with a 45% tax to GDP ratio.

The fact that it is a perfectly rational and workable model does not mean it is one I would necessarily chose. Perhaps that's the real problem with dogmatic politics - a complete failure to understand all sides.

5% on income tax is a lot more than 1% of income surely - depends on your salary of course but take a median income of £26K. 5% of the £16K which is taxed is £800. In fact £26K gross is about £20767 according the MSE website.

So going from £20767 to under £20K take home is a loss of about 4%, not 1%

Disposable income out of that £20767 will be way less after bills, say half, so disposable income falls by 8%, maybe more.

1% is way off. But I do agree that a lot of people are financially on the edge. This is true, and is another reason why massive tax hike is a terrible idea.

Dair's comments just show himself up.

MikeL said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Populus changes from Tuesday

Lab (nc)
Con (nc)
UKIP +1
LD -2
Grn +1

Adding Populus into the mix I think the conclusion has to be that there hasn't been any discernable movement this week.

YouGov and Populus are both highly established pollsters polling on a very frequent basis and they both show no change.

ComRes has Con lead down 3 but their previous Con +4 was obviously way on the high side.

TNS moved towards Lab but historically TNS has been good for Lab and just counting certain to vote TNS was actually only Lab +1, not the headline Lab +3.

That just leaves Panelbase and Survation. The chances of Panelbase and Survation both correctly picking up a genuine change when none of the others detected anything are, in my view, pretty low.

In retrospect the 7 polls published yesterday / today don't change the position in either direction - and even if there was a hint of positive for Lab in the national polls it is offset by the YouGov Scotland.

I don't disagree. Maybe a hint of movement to Labour. And yet the markets have shifted quite considerably. Notably on PM after the GE, which is now basically 50-50 on betfair.

MikeL said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Populus changes from Tuesday

Lab (nc)
Con (nc)
UKIP +1
LD -2
Grn +1

Adding Populus into the mix I think the conclusion has to be that there hasn't been any discernable movement this week.

YouGov and Populus are both highly established pollsters polling on a very frequent basis and they both show no change.

ComRes has Con lead down 3 but their previous Con +4 was obviously way on the high side.

TNS moved towards Lab but historically TNS has been good for Lab and just counting certain to vote TNS was actually only Lab +1, not the headline Lab +3.

That just leaves Panelbase and Survation. The chances of Panelbase and Survation both correctly picking up a genuine change when none of the others detected anything are, in my view, pretty low.

In retrospect the 7 polls published yesterday / today don't change the position in either direction - and even if there was a hint of positive for Lab in the national polls it is offset by the YouGov Scotland.

But on Easter Sunday, the ELBOW plot of weekly Lab leads looked like this, with the Tories actually taking the lead for the first time - last time Lab were any where near 1.7% ahead was February:

https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/585149148980187136

@carlmaxim: 100 ex-girlfriends of Ed Miliband now writing a letter to the Daily Telegraph.

Gloriously mixed metaphor ...

https://commonspace.scot/articles/977/nick-clegg-maoist-snp-are-like-deluded-japanese-soldier-who-hid-in-the-jungle-for-30-years

Brave predictions of our time. NB the coalition performance in Scotland.

http://moneyweek.com/election-2015-why-david-cameron-will-remain-prime-minister/

Tissue_Price said:

Brave predictions of our time. NB the coalition performance in Scotland.

http://moneyweek.com/election-2015-why-david-cameron-will-remain-prime-minister/

7!

TheScreamingEagles said:

Tissue_Price said:

Brave predictions of our time. NB the coalition performance in Scotland.

http://moneyweek.com/election-2015-why-david-cameron-will-remain-prime-minister/

7!

7 Tories in Scotland

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA