politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Con+LD=320 is the magic equation for Dave
Comments
-
test0
-
***Betting post***
I've just had £40 at 14/1 on Marco Rubio with Hills for Next President of the USA.
I was very impressed by this video he's just released. Apparently he's making a "big announcement" on Monday in Miami:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YG6sKJvHYs0 -
Part-ELBOW for the 10 polls so far this week (inc. last night's YG) = Labour lead of 1.7%. If carried through to tomorrow, would be the largest Lab lead in ELBOW this year.
Remember, last week (Easter Sunday) the Tories had their first ever lead of 0.4%.0 -
fair do's.david_herdson said:
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/09/13/david-herdson-says-lab-most-votes-con-most-seats-is-a-good-bet-at-66-1/FrankBooth said:One of OGH's favourite bets was Labour most seats and Con most votes. What are the odds now on the opposite happening? Pretty long 6 months ago I'd have thought.
Ahem.
0 -
Mr. Royale, I think I backed him an election or two ago at long odds. Hope he does better this time.0
-
Casino He is due to announce his candidacy on Monday, after Hillary announces her entry into the race. I think Rubio is more likely to be VP nominee though than the actual nominee, it will be difficult for him to win NH and Iowa0
-
Of course the DUP will likely back the Tories to if they are ahead of Labour, as will UKIP, especially as both want an EU referendum which only Cameron will provide. The DUP are likely to have 9 MPs, UKIP up to 5, making 14 more potential MPs in the Tory column0
-
What's Nicola's favourite horse race?
The Grand Nationalist!0 -
To an extent, but do the maths. Being largest party is not enough. You need at least half the Commons on your side on the key votes. Which, out of the following list, could deals be done with to maintain the Tories in government:Millsy said:Bottom line is - it is very likely that the Tories will be largest party, and that puts Cameron and Co in the driving seat. They will have a few days to cobble together a coalition and back-room promises of votes in case of emergencies
Lab, SNP, LD, Plaid, UKIP, Respect, Greens, DUP, UUP, SDLP, Alliance, Ind (Hermon), AN Other?
It's not just about government. It's also Budgets. In C&S terms, it might just about be possible to do a deal with some of the above list on Confidence matters for a sufficiently legislative return but Supply?
No. Largest party or not, Dave needs the Lib Dems on board if he falls short of the winning line and at least 320 either way.0 -
That's right if you are thinking in terms of a full parliament. But in a heavily deadlocked scenario it would be a case of short-term survival leading to a second election, wouldn't it?david_herdson said:
To an extent, but do the maths. Being largest party is not enough. You need at least half the Commons on your side on the key votes. Which, out of the following list, could deals be done with to maintain the Tories in government:Millsy said:Bottom line is - it is very likely that the Tories will be largest party, and that puts Cameron and Co in the driving seat. They will have a few days to cobble together a coalition and back-room promises of votes in case of emergencies
Lab, SNP, LD, Plaid, UKIP, Respect, Greens, DUP, UUP, SDLP, Alliance, Ind (Hermon), AN Other?
It's not just about government. It's also Budgets. In C&S terms, it might just about be possible to do a deal with some of the above list on Confidence matters for a sufficiently legislative return but Supply?
No. Largest party or not, Dave needs the Lib Dems on board if he falls short of the winning line and at least 320 either way.
0 -
malcolmg said:
Before the indyref, did you foresee the SNP effort to win seats at Westminster in the event of a NO result? Things can change quickly.John_N said:But if neither CON nor LAB achieve an overall majority (and the SNP have probably put paid to the latter eventuality), a CON-SNP pact is what I’ll predict.
It would be political suicide for Holyrood 2016 , it will never ever ever happen unless Tories offered independence on a plate.
Independence-no independence is binary thinking. The Tories could offer the SNP a lot. Or do you think the SNP will turn everything down other than independence? (Following that line of thought, how would they achieve it? Another indyref in the life of the next UK parliament is out of the question. The Tories can't 'offer' independence.) The SNP leadership isn't that stupid! They could get Scotland shaking hands with England and advancing its own interests (this is in media terms) for the first time ever. That plays well at home, not badly. (In any case, had they won the indyref there still could have, and probably would haven, been a LAB majority or plurality at Holyrood in 2016 - so what?) On the other side, do you think the Tories wouldn't be willing to make some concessions to the SNP to stay in office? Would it even be a concession to wave the English flag institutionally anyway? Sounds like a marriage made in heaven.
Let's say the SNP win the third most seats and nobody gets a majority. I'm intrigued as to whether you think Cameron and co. would meet with Sturgeon and co. to discuss possible cooperation. If so, what might be on the table? Or do you think the only big party the SNP could consider cooperating with is LAB, its main opponent in Scotland?0 -
Good work!Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Royale, I think I backed him an election or two ago at long odds. Hope he does better this time.
0 -
And the not so great thing about it is that the downside, which is inherently uncertain, is very much greater than the upside. The polls are broadly tied at the moment. A two percent swing could easily presage an outcome which would guarantee a substantial loss.MikeSmithson said:
The great thing about the bet is that every LAB gain from CON closes the gap by two. Every LAB loss to SNP increases gap by 1 but could be offset by CON losses to UKIP.Peter_the_Punter said:
Pulpstar pointed out that the bet does carry a fair bit of risk, but I followed you in and so far so good.MikeSmithson said:
Fear not Peter. My judgement is superior to Jack's as we saw at Watford in 2010. I sold the CON lead over LAB at 12. This has now dropped to 8.peter_from_putney said:Hmm ....so only modest changes this morning from JackW.
He'll have OGH quaking in his boots with his Con Seats - Lab Seats = <12 Seats spread bet. Based on this latest projection, he'd face a loss of 46 Units x his unit stake (NOT £20).</p>
Jack's problem is that he made a big call several years ago and what you are seeing is confirmation bias.
I have made no call on GE15 and try to bet in the most effective way possible with the aim of making money not making political statements.
Jack's ARSE looking less lustrous than usual this morning.....
I'm assuming that CON and LAB will fare the same against the LDs.
0 -
What struck me is that he's an inspiring speaker, very conservative and has a touch of stardust about him. Just listen to the reaction of the Republican crowds to him.HYUFD said:Casino He is due to announce his candidacy on Monday, after Hillary announces her entry into the race. I think Rubio is more likely to be VP nominee though than the actual nominee, it will be difficult for him to win NH and Iowa
He comes across as much more impressive than Jeb Bush. And the comparison to Romney last time is almost unmakeable.
Will he become the next President of the US? Probably not, the Republicans can be very much an establishment party, but it's not impossible either. I think it's a value bet.0 -
DavidHerdson Mind you, the Tories were tactically inept, had AV gone through they would now get a plurality of UKIP and Cleggite LDs preferences, plus the boundary changes would have gone through too and Cameron would be heading for a small majority, as it is under FPTP and with no boundary changes best he can hope for is largest party0
-
@iainmartin1 Overestimating David Cameron may turn out to be the media's biggest blunder
— Nick Cohen (@NickCohen4) April 11, 2015@NickCohen4 @iainmartin1 Given they made the same blunder in 2010 you'd think they'd learn
— GOsborneGenius (@GOsborneGenius) April 11, 20150 -
My own view is that the Conservatives will gain more from the Lib Dems than Labour do, because so many Lib Dem seats are vulnerable to small swings to the Conservatives.MikeSmithson said:
The great thing about the bet is that every LAB gain from CON closes the gap by two. Every LAB loss to SNP increases gap by 1 but could be offset by CON losses to UKIP.Peter_the_Punter said:
Pulpstar pointed out that the bet does carry a fair bit of risk, but I followed you in and so far so good.MikeSmithson said:
Fear not Peter. My judgement is superior to Jack's as we saw at Watford in 2010. I sold the CON lead over LAB at 12. This has now dropped to 8.peter_from_putney said:Hmm ....so only modest changes this morning from JackW.
He'll have OGH quaking in his boots with his Con Seats - Lab Seats = <12 Seats spread bet. Based on this latest projection, he'd face a loss of 46 Units x his unit stake (NOT £20).</p>
Jack's problem is that he made a big call several years ago and what you are seeing is confirmation bias.
I have made no call on GE15 and try to bet in the most effective way possible with the aim of making money not making political statements.
Jack's ARSE looking less lustrous than usual this morning.....
I'm assuming that CON and LAB will fare the same against the LDs.
But, if the polls remain as they are, that won't make any difference to the outcome. Labour will be the largest party.
0 -
The SNP gains several things from putting Labour into power in Westminster:John_N said:
Before the indyref, did you foresee the SNP effort to win seats at Westminster in the event of a NO result? Things can change quickly.malcolmg said:It would be political suicide for Holyrood 2016 , it will never ever ever happen unless Tories offered independence on a plate.
Independence-no independence is binary thinking. The Tories could offer the SNP a lot. Or do you think the SNP will turn everything down other than independence? (Following that line of thought, how would they achieve it? Another indyref in the life of the next UK parliament is out of the question. The Tories can't 'offer' independence.) The SNP leadership isn't that stupid! They could get Scotland shaking hands with England and advancing its own interests (this is in media terms) for the first time ever. That plays well at home, not badly. (In any case, had they won the indyref there still could have, and probably would haven, been a LAB majority or plurality at Holyrood in 2016 - so what?) On the other side, do you think the Tories wouldn't be willing to make some concessions to the SNP to stay in office? Would it even be a concession to wave the English flag institutionally anyway? Sounds like a marriage made in heaven.
Let's say the SNP win the third most seats and nobody gets a majority. I'm intrigued as to whether you think Cameron and co. would meet with Sturgeon and co. to discuss possible cooperation. If so, what might be on the table? Or do you think the only big party the SNP could consider cooperating with is LAB, its main opponent in Scotland?
- It firms up its position with the left-of-centre, which makes up most of Scotlands electorate.
- It can blame much of what Scotland gets on Labour, its (current) main opponent in Scotland.
- More chance of readies heading north.
However, I wrote a piece a couple of weeks ago explaining that the SNP's in-UK thinking is bigger than you're allowing for: it is no less than to replace Labour with the Tories as the SNP's principal opponents, something which would cement their position in first place in Scotland for decades.
How? Firstly, they need to win over the bulk of the left-of-centre support. Freeing up space on the right allows for a modest Tory revival, which they can permit as the Tories (even broken off from London as a Scottish Progressive Party or whatever), will struggle to get more than 25% of the vote. They also need a Lib Dem revival to attract the remainder of the pro-union left-of centre. Kicking the Tories out in Westminster makes that easier as it removes further taint from the Lib Dems.
But critically, the SNP need to consolidate as much of the centre-left as possible behind them first. As Malcolmg rightly says, there is nothing the Tories can offer and deliver that would outweigh that consideration.0 -
Except for the small fact that the two most recent elections show hardly any drop between a month out and the final result.Gadfly said:This chart shows how Labour have historically lost ground in the run up to elections. Click to enlarge...
It comes from a Telegraph article about Labour losing ground in the last 100 days of a campaign, although the chart indicates that the fall off has typically occurred within the last couple of weeks. Past performance is of course no indication of the future.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11366259/General-Election-2015-with-100-days-to-go-this-chart-should-scare-Ed-Miliband.html
Hopefully the results this time will put 1992 to bed forever.
0 -
Name your stake, odds and any number of PBers will be happy to accomodate you.John_N said:But if neither CON nor LAB achieve an overall majority (and the SNP have probably put paid to the latter eventuality), a CON-SNP pact is what I’ll predict.
A CON-LAB pact is far far more likely and that happens in the event Russia nukes Kiev or some such.
A CON-SNP pact will never, ever ever happen at Westminster. Never - they are two of the most ideologically far apart parties in the whole of the UK. Not even in a World War 3 scenario do Con and SNP come together.0 -
Rubio is stupid and this will come across in the debates, plus he is Hispanic. It's between Paul and Walker. It certainly will be fast and furious between them though, tight all the way to the finish line.Casino_Royale said:***Betting post***
I've just had £40 at 14/1 on Marco Rubio with Hills for Next President of the USA.
I was very impressed by this video he's just released. Apparently he's making a "big announcement" on Monday in Miami:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YG6sKJvHYs0 -
John_N said:
Sure they would be interested but SNP just could not countenance it , would be the end of them.malcolmg said:
Before the indyref, did you foresee the SNP effort to win seats at Westminster in the event of a NO result? Things can change quickly.John_N said:But if neither CON nor LAB achieve an overall majority (and the SNP have probably put paid to the latter eventuality), a CON-SNP pact is what I’ll predict.
It would be political suicide for Holyrood 2016 , it will never ever ever happen unless Tories offered independence on a plate.
Independence-no independence is binary thinking. The Tories could offer the SNP a lot. Or do you think the SNP will turn everything down other than independence? (Following that line of thought, how would they achieve it? Another indyref in the life of the next UK parliament is out of the question. The Tories can't 'offer' independence.) The SNP leadership isn't that stupid! They could get Scotland shaking hands with England and advancing its own interests (this is in media terms) for the first time ever. That plays well at home, not badly. (In any case, had they won the indyref there still could have, and probably would haven, been a LAB majority or plurality at Holyrood in 2016 - so what?) On the other side, do you think the Tories wouldn't be willing to make some concessions to the SNP to stay in office? Would it even be a concession to wave the English flag institutionally anyway? Sounds like a marriage made in heaven.
Let's say the SNP win the third most seats and nobody gets a majority. I'm intrigued as to whether you think Cameron and co. would meet with Sturgeon and co. to discuss possible cooperation. If so, what might be on the table? Or do you think the only big party the SNP could consider cooperating with is LAB, its main opponent in Scotland?0 -
Mike's bet is a good one, but risky.0
-
I can't understand the appeal of Walker.0
-
That's true. I argued in favour of AV at the time on much those grounds.HYUFD said:DavidHerdson Mind you, the Tories were tactically inept, had AV gone through they would now get a plurality of UKIP and Cleggite LDs preferences, plus the boundary changes would have gone through too and Cameron would be heading for a small majority, as it is under FPTP and with no boundary changes best he can hope for is largest party
I've gone further now and would support the introduction of an acceptable system of PR.0 -
A second election more or less at the time of the opposition's choosing, though. Which will not be a time favourable to the government.PeterC said:
That's right if you are thinking in terms of a full parliament. But in a heavily deadlocked scenario it would be a case of short-term survival leading to a second election, wouldn't it?david_herdson said:
To an extent, but do the maths. Being largest party is not enough. You need at least half the Commons on your side on the key votes. Which, out of the following list, could deals be done with to maintain the Tories in government:Millsy said:Bottom line is - it is very likely that the Tories will be largest party, and that puts Cameron and Co in the driving seat. They will have a few days to cobble together a coalition and back-room promises of votes in case of emergencies
Lab, SNP, LD, Plaid, UKIP, Respect, Greens, DUP, UUP, SDLP, Alliance, Ind (Hermon), AN Other?
It's not just about government. It's also Budgets. In C&S terms, it might just about be possible to do a deal with some of the above list on Confidence matters for a sufficiently legislative return but Supply?
No. Largest party or not, Dave needs the Lib Dems on board if he falls short of the winning line and at least 320 either way.0 -
http://www.kentonline.co.uk/kent/news/exclusive-kents-floating-voters-34820/
An unusual poll, in that covers a single county, Kent. The market research company do the fieldwork for ComRes.
Con 39%, UKIP 24%, Lab 22%, Green 8%, Lib Dem 6%. Theoretically, that represents a 5% swing from Conservative to Labour, but that would still not win Labour a single seat in Kent. In practice, such is the huge increase in UKIP support that it would be hard to predict what would happen.0 -
Independent poll of polls suggests Labour are standing still at 34 and the Tories have lost 2 points to 32 in the last 4 weeks.
Perhaps the election campaign has sharpened people`s minds to how rubbish are Cameron and co.0 -
"We will vote against any conservative queens speech"John_N said:malcolmg said:
Before the indyref, did you foresee the SNP effort to win seats at Westminster in the event of a NO result? Things can change quickly.John_N said:But if neither CON nor LAB achieve an overall majority (and the SNP have probably put paid to the latter eventuality), a CON-SNP pact is what I’ll predict.
It would be political suicide for Holyrood 2016 , it will never ever ever happen unless Tories offered independence on a plate.
Independence-no independence is binary thinking. The Tories could offer the SNP a lot. Or do you think the SNP will turn everything down other than independence? (Following that line of thought, how would they achieve it? Another indyref in the life of the next UK parliament is out of the question. The Tories can't 'offer' independence.) The SNP leadership isn't that stupid! They could get Scotland shaking hands with England and advancing its own interests (this is in media terms) for the first time ever. That plays well at home, not badly. (In any case, had they won the indyref there still could have, and probably would haven, been a LAB majority or plurality at Holyrood in 2016 - so what?) On the other side, do you think the Tories wouldn't be willing to make some concessions to the SNP to stay in office? Would it even be a concession to wave the English flag institutionally anyway? Sounds like a marriage made in heaven.
Let's say the SNP win the third most seats and nobody gets a majority. I'm intrigued as to whether you think Cameron and co. would meet with Sturgeon and co. to discuss possible cooperation. If so, what might be on the table? Or do you think the only big party the SNP could consider cooperating with is LAB, its main opponent in Scotland?0 -
There just isn't much smart money in the market right now.taffys said:''Whats it gonna take for the betfair odds to shift more towards Labour? hmph''
I think you'll have to wait for the make up. Punters clearly believe the polls are bullsh8t.
Another week of this rubbish from the tories might do it, though.
The smartest punters (smarter than I) aren't going to bet on an event that is a month away unless the odds are massively out of line. Their money will flow into the market in the last few days, hours and minutes.
0 -
Casino He is a reasonable speaker, but he lacks gravitas, he is conservative on most issues, but some conservatives have suspicions over his relatively liberal line on immigration, Ted Cruz, for example, is more conservative than Rubio0
-
FalseFlag Cruz is also an outside bet, dull midwestern governors often do not even run, Christie could still be a force if Jeb Bush ends up not running (perhaps backing Rubio)0
-
David Herdson Agreed0
-
Or perhaps you are ascribing reasons to MOE changes?SMukesh said:
Perhaps the election campaign has sharpened people`s minds to how rubbish are Cameron and co.
0 -
The choice may not be between CON-SNP and LAB-SNP. It could be between CON-SNP and LAB-SNP-LD-RAINBOW. Be part of something fairly strong or be part of something weak?david_herdson said:
The SNP gains several things from putting Labour into power in Westminster:
- It firms up its position with the left-of-centre, which makes up most of Scotlands electorate.
- It can blame much of what Scotland gets on Labour, its (current) main opponent in Scotland.
- More chance of readies heading north.
However, I wrote a piece a couple of weeks ago explaining that the SNP's in-UK thinking is bigger than you're allowing for: it is no less than to replace Labour with the Tories as the SNP's principal opponents, something which would cement their position in first place in Scotland for decades.
How? Firstly, they need to win over the bulk of the left-of-centre support. Freeing up space on the right allows for a modest Tory revival, which they can permit as the Tories (even broken off from London as a Scottish Progressive Party or whatever), will struggle to get more than 25% of the vote. They also need a Lib Dem revival to attract the remainder of the pro-union left-of centre. Kicking the Tories out in Westminster makes that easier as it removes further taint from the Lib Dems.
But critically, the SNP need to consolidate as much of the centre-left as possible behind them first. As Malcolmg rightly says, there is nothing the Tories can offer and deliver that would outweigh that consideration.
The SNP are likely to have far more seats than the LDs in fourth place.
I agree they're doing some big in-UK thinking. But they're not a long march.
We shall see whether Sturgeon talks to Cameron. I am wary of any argument that says the SNP will turn down seats in the British cabinet (and lots of pork) because they want to cement their position at Holyrood for "decades". Holyrood isn't that important.
Is their Westminster effort only a bit of PR help for their Holyrood effort next year and in subsequent SGEs? It may not seem that way when Cameron calls Sturgeon on 8 May and asks for a meeting.
0 -
How many names does this Tim voting Lib Dem have, from which we can choose the most popular?MikeSmithson said:0 -
Thanks Peter, glad you agree, always nice to have your opinion backed upPeter_the_Punter said:
Won't bet with you Sam because I think you are right. UKIP odds are starting t look tasty again.isam said:I see UKIP under 4.5 seats is as short as 4/7 now
I think that is a crazy price given the polls.
If anyone wants to lay 5/4, therefore getting Best price 4/5 about the unders I will play
5/6 over 3.5 also looks v nice as does 11/4 15-20 (% of the vote)
These prices are all off the back of massive assumptions
If UKIP really are polling 14% on average, then 11/4 15-20 cant be right.. and the assumption that UNS will hurt them and they will poll 11-14% and only get 3-4 seats is just a guess
They are ahead on raw data in Basildon South, Castle Point, S Thanet and Boston. Most shrewdies think they are favs in Rochester. Clacton is a shoo in, not to mention the 5-6 seats north of Watford where they are live chances
The yougov tracker has them ahead or TCTC in several other seats as well
So lets go if you disagree, I will play in any size £1 upwards
On the Grand National, I've had a little more time than I expected and have expanded my portfolio. In addition to Spring Heeled (already advised), I've had small bets on:
First Lieutenant 25/1
Pinea de Re 33/1
Rocky Creek 10/1
At big odds I also like Chance du Roy, Dolatulo and Owega Star, but they are obviously very speculative and you can only back so many.
Off out now. Good luck if you wade in after me....
None of the haters want to play so I guess that's positive confirmation too
Good luck w the gee gees0 -
A couple of decent telephone polls for the Conservatives could close the gap. The problem for the Conservatives is that they have to be consistently ahead of Labour, and that's not happening.CarlottaVance said:
Or perhaps you are ascribing reasons to MOE changes?SMukesh said:
Perhaps the election campaign has sharpened people`s minds to how rubbish are Cameron and co.0 -
SMukesh
"Perhaps the election campaign has sharpened people`s minds to how rubbish are Cameron and co."
I think you underestimate how much Ed has improved. I'd say for those paying attention he at least looks the equal of Dave.
I tend to think all that's going on now wont affect things much. The dye is almost certainly already cast0 -
Yep, there might be a freak result but depending on the exact number of seats as long as Tories are largest party they will be able to do another formal coalition with the Lib Dems plus whatever votes they might need from the Unionists, Ukip and possibly even Plaid and the SNP. Whatever keeps Labour out to secure the long term future of the economy etc etcdavid_herdson said:
To an extent, but do the maths. Being largest party is not enough. You need at least half the Commons on your side on the key votes. Which, out of the following list, could deals be done with to maintain the Tories in government:Millsy said:Bottom line is - it is very likely that the Tories will be largest party, and that puts Cameron and Co in the driving seat. They will have a few days to cobble together a coalition and back-room promises of votes in case of emergencies
Lab, SNP, LD, Plaid, UKIP, Respect, Greens, DUP, UUP, SDLP, Alliance, Ind (Hermon), AN Other?
It's not just about government. It's also Budgets. In C&S terms, it might just about be possible to do a deal with some of the above list on Confidence matters for a sufficiently legislative return but Supply?
No. Largest party or not, Dave needs the Lib Dems on board if he falls short of the winning line and at least 320 either way.0 -
Walker is Romney, dull but inoffensive. Ironically puts him ahead of a few.
Thing is the media have already massively hyped Rubio and he is nowhere in the polling. He really is very stupid, Joe Biden stupid, I really can't emphasise that enough.
Amusingly Jeb Bush put his ethnicity as Hispanic on voting register. He has so many issues and will be the Democrats and establishment's favoured opponent so I expect the media will continue backing him. Still expect the wheels come off for him sooner rather than later.
0 -
I see what you mean but if the telephone polls do show a consistent Conservative lead, it may be (who knows until May 8th?) that they are more accurate than those on-line. Merely taking an average may prove misleading.Sean_F said:
A couple of decent telephone polls for the Conservatives could close the gap. The problem for the Conservatives is that they have to be consistently ahead of Labour, and that's not happening.CarlottaVance said:
Or perhaps you are ascribing reasons to MOE changes?SMukesh said:
Perhaps the election campaign has sharpened people`s minds to how rubbish are Cameron and co.
Anyway, Manifesto Week will be hugely important.0 -
Roger,I have never underestimated Ed especially in the debate format.Roger said:SMukesh
"Perhaps the election campaign has sharpened people`s minds to how rubbish are Cameron and co."
I think you underestimate how much Ed has improved. I'd say for those paying attention he at least looks the equal of Dave.
I tend to think all that's going on now wont affect things much. The dye is almost certainly already cast
I have followed his Question Time for years and noted how he manages to answer difficult questions with ease.
One of the reasons for Tories` panic is that Cameron is not in the leaders` debate on the 16th.Ed has a chance to do well and Farage is the only right-wing representative on the panel thus firming up Tory-UKIP converts.
0 -
Part-ELBOW for 10 polls so far this week (inc. last night's YG):
Lab 34.4
Con 32.7
UKIP 14.2
LD 8.5
Grn 4.60 -
With the pick up in the economy feeding through now another election would see a bigger margin of victory than one in May. If it is possible Con minority with another election in September would do.0
-
It is very telling that Con posters are now arguing for a deal with the SNP to keep Dave in number 10.0
-
When was the last time Labour had a lead in a phone poll?Sean_F said:
A couple of decent telephone polls for the Conservatives could close the gap. The problem for the Conservatives is that they have to be consistently ahead of Labour, and that's not happening.CarlottaVance said:
Or perhaps you are ascribing reasons to MOE changes?SMukesh said:
Perhaps the election campaign has sharpened people`s minds to how rubbish are Cameron and co.
The last one I can see was the Ipsos Mori poll on 11 March - a month ago and a week before the Budget.0 -
Betting Post
Backed No Safety car at 1.8.
In the last 10 races, 3 have featured safety cars, and at least 1 of those was due to wet weather [race is forecast to be dry].
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/china-pre-race.html0 -
No serious Conservative would ever consider this even a 0.000000001% possibility (and that's rounding up).SandyRentool said:It is very telling that Con posters are now arguing for a deal with the SNP to keep Dave in number 10.
0 -
It's a die, not dye, and cast as in thrown, not moulded. Don't they teach you anything at your expensive private schools?Roger said:SMukesh
"Perhaps the election campaign has sharpened people`s minds to how rubbish are Cameron and co."
I think you underestimate how much Ed has improved. I'd say for those paying attention he at least looks the equal of Dave.
I tend to think all that's going on now wont affect things much. The dye is almost certainly already cast0 -
Can you point us to one who's argued so - I must have missed it.SandyRentool said:It is very telling that Con posters are now arguing for a deal with the SNP to keep Dave in number 10.
0 -
I wonder how much movement there will be from other Tories on this. There's not much point in having a voting system that squishes the LibDems and UKIP if it just leaves you at the mercy of the SNP.david_herdson said:
That's true. I argued in favour of AV at the time on much those grounds.HYUFD said:DavidHerdson Mind you, the Tories were tactically inept, had AV gone through they would now get a plurality of UKIP and Cleggite LDs preferences, plus the boundary changes would have gone through too and Cameron would be heading for a small majority, as it is under FPTP and with no boundary changes best he can hope for is largest party
I've gone further now and would support the introduction of an acceptable system of PR.0 -
There will be no Tory SNP deal, the Tories and Cameron would never agree to it, especially after all their posters attacking Labour for it, Sturgeon and the SNP would rather walk over broken glass. The only potential backers for Cameron are LDs, DUP and maybe UKIP and the Alliance0
-
Yes - I've seen little to suggest other than that in England Con & Lab are essentially tied.Sean_F said:
A couple of decent telephone polls for the Conservatives could close the gap. The problem for the Conservatives is that they have to be consistently ahead of Labour, and that's not happening.CarlottaVance said:
Or perhaps you are ascribing reasons to MOE changes?SMukesh said:
Perhaps the election campaign has sharpened people`s minds to how rubbish are Cameron and co.
And that's far from good enough for Con.....0 -
SMukesh While Miliband could also bleed more votes to the SNP, Greens and UKIP0
-
Stumbled across this gem last night:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/alexsingleton/100068746/exclusive-thatcher-advised-ukip-on-party-morale/
Clearly a shy Kipper in later life.0 -
FWIW, I think UKIP are a buy on the spreads at 6, but also more likely than not to get under 4.5 seats. It's one of those bets where the difference between the mean & median distort the odds.isam said:
Thanks Peter, glad you agree, always nice to have your opinion backed upPeter_the_Punter said:
Won't bet with you Sam because I think you are right. UKIP odds are starting t look tasty again.isam said:I see UKIP under 4.5 seats is as short as 4/7 now
I think that is a crazy price given the polls.
If anyone wants to lay 5/4, therefore getting Best price 4/5 about the unders I will play
5/6 over 3.5 also looks v nice as does 11/4 15-20 (% of the vote)
These prices are all off the back of massive assumptions
If UKIP really are polling 14% on average, then 11/4 15-20 cant be right.. and the assumption that UNS will hurt them and they will poll 11-14% and only get 3-4 seats is just a guess
They are ahead on raw data in Basildon South, Castle Point, S Thanet and Boston. Most shrewdies think they are favs in Rochester. Clacton is a shoo in, not to mention the 5-6 seats north of Watford where they are live chances
The yougov tracker has them ahead or TCTC in several other seats as well
So lets go if you disagree, I will play in any size £1 upwards
On the Grand National, I've had a little more time than I expected and have expanded my portfolio. In addition to Spring Heeled (already advised), I've had small bets on:
First Lieutenant 25/1
Pinea de Re 33/1
Rocky Creek 10/1
At big odds I also like Chance du Roy, Dolatulo and Owega Star, but they are obviously very speculative and you can only back so many.
Off out now. Good luck if you wade in after me....
None of the haters want to play so I guess that's positive confirmation too
Good luck w the gee gees
On the GN - as well as backing STFD @ 10/1, I also got a bit overexcited this morning and put £25 EW on Owega Star @ 80/1. Nice that ptp thinks I ain't completely crazy
0 -
It's crackers. It'll never happen. Ever.SandyRentool said:It is very telling that Con posters are now arguing for a deal with the SNP to keep Dave in number 10.
0 -
The problem with the spread markets at the moment is that they are trading like option markets..If the polls stay as they are then they will move dramatically but as when you move nearer to an option expiration they will only move in the last week.MikeSmithson said:
Fear not Peter. My judgement is superior to Jack's as we saw at Watford in 2010. I sold the CON lead over LAB at 12. This has now dropped to 8.peter_from_putney said:Hmm ....so only modest changes this morning from JackW.
He'll have OGH quaking in his boots with his Con Seats - Lab Seats = <12 Seats spread bet. Based on this latest projection, he'd face a loss of 46 Units x his unit stake (NOT £20).</p>
Jack's problem is that he made a big call several years ago and what you are seeing is confirmation bias.
I have made no call on GE15 and try to bet in the most effective way possible with the aim of making money not making political statements.
The spread itself is also an issue at present,they are too wide to enable anybody to trade out of them properly.
OGH could well be right but it would be good if some of the mainline bookies such as PP or the magic sign would allow cashout on election bets. Over to you Shadsy..
0 -
There's a pretty consistent Conservative/UKIP vote of 46-48% across a range of pollsters. Unsurprisingly, the pollsters that rate UKIP the highest (Survation, Populus, TNS, Panelbase) tend to give low Conservative scores. By contrast, the telephone pollsters tend to give lower scores to UKIP and higher scores to the Conservatives. My own view (even as a supporter of UKIP) is that UKIP support will be more like the 12% or so that the telephone companies give them, rather than the 15% + that some internet panels are giving them.JohnO said:
I see what you mean but if the telephone polls do show a consistent Conservative lead, it may be (who knows until May 8th?) that they are more accurate than those on-line. Merely taking an average may prove misleading.Sean_F said:
A couple of decent telephone polls for the Conservatives could close the gap. The problem for the Conservatives is that they have to be consistently ahead of Labour, and that's not happening.CarlottaVance said:
Or perhaps you are ascribing reasons to MOE changes?SMukesh said:
Perhaps the election campaign has sharpened people`s minds to how rubbish are Cameron and co.
Anyway, Manifesto Week will be hugely important.0 -
Labour had similar or better leads 3-4 weeks before the election in 1992. Then everyone remembered how rubbish Kinnock was.SMukesh said:Independent poll of polls suggests Labour are standing still at 34 and the Tories have lost 2 points to 32 in the last 4 weeks.
Perhaps the election campaign has sharpened people`s minds to how rubbish are Cameron and co.
You could be right and Labour might be heading for victory but do not count your chickens.0 -
SMukesh Although also he is open to attack, with Clegg and Cameron not present he is the representative of the Westminster establishment0
-
Ho about it has been the Easter Holidays? Do pollsters weight for holiday periods?Greenwich_Floater said:
Labour had similar or better leads 3-4 weeks before the election in 1992. Then everyone remembered how rubbish Kinnock was.SMukesh said:Independent poll of polls suggests Labour are standing still at 34 and the Tories have lost 2 points to 32 in the last 4 weeks.
Perhaps the election campaign has sharpened people`s minds to how rubbish are Cameron and co.
You could be right and Labour might be heading for victory but do not count your chickens.0 -
It's a real shame multiple bets are not allowed on constituency betting.0
-
What a ludicrous proposition. We Tories despise the SNP only slightly less than SLAB.SandyRentool said:It is very telling that Con posters are now arguing for a deal with the SNP to keep Dave in number 10.
0 -
But you can cashout - Just keep a note of your position and lay on Betfair.timmo said:
The problem with the spread markets at the moment is that they are trading like option markets..If the polls stay as they are then they will move dramatically but as when you move nearer to an option expiration they will only move in the last week.MikeSmithson said:
Fear not Peter. My judgement is superior to Jack's as we saw at Watford in 2010. I sold the CON lead over LAB at 12. This has now dropped to 8.peter_from_putney said:Hmm ....so only modest changes this morning from JackW.
He'll have OGH quaking in his boots with his Con Seats - Lab Seats = <12 Seats spread bet. Based on this latest projection, he'd face a loss of 46 Units x his unit stake (NOT £20).</p>
Jack's problem is that he made a big call several years ago and what you are seeing is confirmation bias.
I have made no call on GE15 and try to bet in the most effective way possible with the aim of making money not making political statements.
The spread itself is also an issue at present,they are too wide to enable anybody to trade out of them properly.
OGH could well be right but it would be good if some of the mainline bookies such as PP or the magic sign would allow cashout on election bets. Over to you Shadsy..
Or back the realistic other side at another bookie.0 -
It`s 2015.Greenwich_Floater said:
Labour had similar or better leads 3-4 weeks before the election in 1992. Then everyone remembered how rubbish Kinnock was.SMukesh said:Independent poll of polls suggests Labour are standing still at 34 and the Tories have lost 2 points to 32 in the last 4 weeks.
Perhaps the election campaign has sharpened people`s minds to how rubbish are Cameron and co.
You could be right and Labour might be heading for victory but do not count your chickens.0 -
Three out of the last six elections saw the government do better than polls were showing 25 days out. Three saw them do worse (but that includes 2001 where most polls were plainly inaccurate). Five of the six saw the Conservatives do better than polls were showing 25 days out.Greenwich_Floater said:
Labour had similar or better leads 3-4 weeks before the election in 1992. Then everyone remembered how rubbish Kinnock was.SMukesh said:Independent poll of polls suggests Labour are standing still at 34 and the Tories have lost 2 points to 32 in the last 4 weeks.
Perhaps the election campaign has sharpened people`s minds to how rubbish are Cameron and co.
You could be right and Labour might be heading for victory but do not count your chickens.0 -
And each way betsGreenwich_Floater said:It's a real shame multiple bets are not allowed on constituency betting.
0 -
Its not that easy to do that unless there is liquidity which in a lot of the markets there isnt yet.Pulpstar said:
But you can cashout - Just keep a note of your position and lay on Betfair.timmo said:
The problem with the spread markets at the moment is that they are trading like option markets..If the polls stay as they are then they will move dramatically but as when you move nearer to an option expiration they will only move in the last week.MikeSmithson said:
Fear not Peter. My judgement is superior to Jack's as we saw at Watford in 2010. I sold the CON lead over LAB at 12. This has now dropped to 8.peter_from_putney said:Hmm ....so only modest changes this morning from JackW.
He'll have OGH quaking in his boots with his Con Seats - Lab Seats = <12 Seats spread bet. Based on this latest projection, he'd face a loss of 46 Units x his unit stake (NOT £20).</p>
Jack's problem is that he made a big call several years ago and what you are seeing is confirmation bias.
I have made no call on GE15 and try to bet in the most effective way possible with the aim of making money not making political statements.
The spread itself is also an issue at present,they are too wide to enable anybody to trade out of them properly.
OGH could well be right but it would be good if some of the mainline bookies such as PP or the magic sign would allow cashout on election bets. Over to you Shadsy..
Or back the realistic other side at another bookie.
Maybe nearer to the GE there will be.0 -
Great post from Miles King exploring the Implications of the Tories proposals for 'volunteering'. As a volunteer myself I'm not sure that these proposals really are for volunteering - how can it be? Just more fluff and nonsense.
https://anewnatureblog.wordpress.com/2015/04/10/pickles-gets-in-a-pickle-over-voluntary-volunteering-days/0 -
I just got a letter from Ed in the post!!!0
-
Is Milliband any better than Kinnock.SMukesh said:
It`s 2015.Greenwich_Floater said:
Labour had similar or better leads 3-4 weeks before the election in 1992. Then everyone remembered how rubbish Kinnock was.SMukesh said:Independent poll of polls suggests Labour are standing still at 34 and the Tories have lost 2 points to 32 in the last 4 weeks.
Perhaps the election campaign has sharpened people`s minds to how rubbish are Cameron and co.
You could be right and Labour might be heading for victory but do not count your chickens.
He's isn't ginger I suppose, or Welsh (stands by for backlash from PC brigade)0 -
Or the TricastPong said:
And each way betsGreenwich_Floater said:It's a real shame multiple bets are not allowed on constituency betting.
0 -
The big difference in 1992 was that Major enjoyed positive MORI ratings throughout. Cameron in March was -16 to Ed's -31.Greenwich_Floater said:
Labour had similar or better leads 3-4 weeks before the election in 1992. Then everyone remembered how rubbish Kinnock was.SMukesh said:Independent poll of polls suggests Labour are standing still at 34 and the Tories have lost 2 points to 32 in the last 4 weeks.
Perhaps the election campaign has sharpened people`s minds to how rubbish are Cameron and co.
You could be right and Labour might be heading for victory but do not count your chickens.
I wonder what next week''s Ipsos-MORI poll will bring.
In 2010 Cameron had +3 and still did not manage a majority.
0 -
Some more dismal economic data released by the ONS yesterday.
Industrial production has risen by all of 0.1% during the last year while construction output is actually 1.3% down.
Still house prices are up and so are retail sales, by no less than 5.7% on the year.
The owners of foreign car factories must be delighted at all the indirect subsidy the British government is giving them.
Anyone remember Osborne's 'March of the Makers' from his 2011 Budget Speech ?
Since then industrial production is down 2.2% and retail sales up by 10.3%.
So much for rebalancing the economy.
Perhaps someone should explain to the PPEocrachy that British factories are there for manufacturing goods not to hold photostunts in.
0 -
The difference is 1992 was after a long period of Tory rule and change frightens people.Greenwich_Floater said:
Is Milliband any better than Kinnock.SMukesh said:
It`s 2015.Greenwich_Floater said:
Labour had similar or better leads 3-4 weeks before the election in 1992. Then everyone remembered how rubbish Kinnock was.SMukesh said:Independent poll of polls suggests Labour are standing still at 34 and the Tories have lost 2 points to 32 in the last 4 weeks.
Perhaps the election campaign has sharpened people`s minds to how rubbish are Cameron and co.
You could be right and Labour might be heading for victory but do not count your chickens.
He's isn't ginger I suppose, or Welsh (stands by for backlash from PC brigade)
Labour have recently been in power and arguably done OK(wait for a blizzard of posts to be ignored) hence the fear factor isn`t working.0 -
Doubt it will be a decisive factor (but who can tell?) but is Naomi Long likely to hold Belfast East for Alliance? I would have thought the DUP would be favourites to regain Peter Robinson's old seat.0
-
It's tim!!
Don't yer just love him.
Wow, your post has vanished.0 -
@another_richard
Never mind the quality, feel the width?
For the nostalgic
www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHl8dJqtywg0 -
He's worse than Kinnock but David Cameron is no John Major.Greenwich_Floater said:
Is Milliband any better than Kinnock.SMukesh said:
It`s 2015.Greenwich_Floater said:
Labour had similar or better leads 3-4 weeks before the election in 1992. Then everyone remembered how rubbish Kinnock was.SMukesh said:Independent poll of polls suggests Labour are standing still at 34 and the Tories have lost 2 points to 32 in the last 4 weeks.
Perhaps the election campaign has sharpened people`s minds to how rubbish are Cameron and co.
You could be right and Labour might be heading for victory but do not count your chickens.
He's isn't ginger I suppose, or Welsh (stands by for backlash from PC brigade)0 -
SMukesh The same arguments about tax apply and Miliband has worse ratings than Kinnock on some measures, he is brighter than Kinnock but a far worse speaker. Cameron may not have the personal appeal of Major but he does look the part of PM. All but one of the final 1992 polls had Labour ahead, only Gallup had the Tories narrowly ahead, but Major won. UKIP may deny Cameron a majority, but a yougov last week had the Tories on 37%, another Labour on 33%, still all to play for
On the debates we shall see0 -
It's a good article by David H, but I do think the LD's figure of 30 might be optimistic.
Personally I think anything sub 300 for Cameron and he is toast.
Even allowing for possible understatement of Tories by online pollsters and a repeat of shifts towards the Tories as has generally historically happened in the later stages of campaigns, I still think a further shift in their favour is necessary.
I don't think it can happen without UKIP dropping to about 7% and therefore I feel he falls short and a rather turbulent period of politics will follow.0 -
Presumably just Opinium and YouGov for polling fare this evening?0
-
I'm sure we are are all pleased that this thug has been jailed:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-32157820
But isn't it interesting how quickly the justice process can happen when the authorities want it.
Now compare with Rotherham.
How many plods, social workers, childrens home managers, councillors and council officials have been jailed ? Or even arrested.
Isn't the answer zero, zero, zero, zero and zero.
Meanwhile the likes of Joyce Thacker continue to spend more time with their payoffs and pensions.
0 -
They did ok between 1997-2001, I'll concede that.SMukesh said:
The difference is 1992 was after a long period of Tory rule and change frightens people.Greenwich_Floater said:
Is Milliband any better than Kinnock.SMukesh said:
It`s 2015.Greenwich_Floater said:
Labour had similar or better leads 3-4 weeks before the election in 1992. Then everyone remembered how rubbish Kinnock was.SMukesh said:Independent poll of polls suggests Labour are standing still at 34 and the Tories have lost 2 points to 32 in the last 4 weeks.
Perhaps the election campaign has sharpened people`s minds to how rubbish are Cameron and co.
You could be right and Labour might be heading for victory but do not count your chickens.
He's isn't ginger I suppose, or Welsh (stands by for backlash from PC brigade)
Labour have recently been in power and arguably done OK(wait for a blizzard of posts to be ignored) hence the fear factor isn`t working.0 -
Its next weekends polls that need to be carefully looked at.This weekends still have the easter holiday overhang. So i would humbly suggest that the polls today will have " a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing"HYUFD said:SMukesh The same arguments about tax apply and Miliband has worse ratings than Kinnock on some measures, he is brighter than Kinnock but a far worse speaker. Cameron may not have the personal appeal of Major but he does look the part of PM. All but one of the final 1992 polls had Labour ahead, only Gallup had the Tories narrowly ahead, but Major won. UKIP may deny Cameron a majority, but a yougov last week had the Tories on 37%, another Labour on 33%, still all to play for
0 -
It may be well that I am wrong but I believe Cameron`s goose is cooked.HYUFD said:SMukesh The same arguments about tax apply and Miliband has worse ratings than Kinnock on some measures, he is brighter than Kinnock but a far worse speaker. Cameron may not have the personal appeal of Major but he does look the part of PM. All but one of the final 1992 polls had Labour ahead, only Gallup had the Tories narrowly ahead, but Major won. UKIP may deny Cameron a majority, but a yougov last week had the Tories on 37%, another Labour on 33%, still all to play for
On the debates we shall see
0 -
Any food stains?Sunil_Prasannan said:I just got a letter from Ed in the post!!!
0 -
No but had his picture at the top!TCPoliticalBetting said:0 -
The fear factor isn't working not because Labour actually did OK but because a lot of people don't blame them for the spectacular car crash of 2008, believing it all to be the fault of bankers. Additionally, I was speaking to a friend at work the other day who came out with the gem that he was better off under Labour, which he probably was - not least because in his case, he's got married and had a kid in the interim. But he wouldn't or couldn't accept the larger picture either of Labour having spent today's money yesterday meaning there's less for now. Not that it really matters for him as it'll be a long time before Hemsworth's anything other than Labour but I've no doubt similar thinking is taking place in marginal too.SMukesh said:
The difference is 1992 was after a long period of Tory rule and change frightens people.Greenwich_Floater said:
Is Milliband any better than Kinnock.SMukesh said:
It`s 2015.Greenwich_Floater said:
Labour had similar or better leads 3-4 weeks before the election in 1992. Then everyone remembered how rubbish Kinnock was.SMukesh said:Independent poll of polls suggests Labour are standing still at 34 and the Tories have lost 2 points to 32 in the last 4 weeks.
Perhaps the election campaign has sharpened people`s minds to how rubbish are Cameron and co.
You could be right and Labour might be heading for victory but do not count your chickens.
He's isn't ginger I suppose, or Welsh (stands by for backlash from PC brigade)
Labour have recently been in power and arguably done OK(wait for a blizzard of posts to be ignored) hence the fear factor isn`t working.0 -
A libdem "bigwig" confirmed to me yesterday that they are extremely confident of getting at least 35 seats. He did concede though that Ed Davey maybe in trouble in Kingston.Greenwich_Floater said:It's a good article by David H, but I do think the LD's figure of 30 might be optimistic.
Personally I think anything sub 300 for Cameron and he is toast.
Even allowing for possible understatement of Tories by online pollsters and a repeat of shifts towards the Tories as has generally historically happened in the later stages of campaigns, I still think a further shift in their favour is necessary.
I don't think it can happen without UKIP dropping to about 7% and therefore I feel he falls short and a rather turbulent period of politics will follow.0 -
SMukesh We shall see over the final few weeks, remember too Netanyahu went into the Israeli elections narrowly behind but squeezed the vote of rightwing parties, there are more likely voters for Cameron to squeeze in UKIP than Miliband from the Greens and SNP
Timmo Indeed0 -
If the libdems get 35 seats, I'll publish my own version of the ARSE in Fenwick's shop window.timmo said:
A libdem "bigwig" confirmed to me yesterday that they are extremely confident of getting at least 35 seats. He did concede though that Ed Davey maybe in trouble in Kingston.Greenwich_Floater said:It's a good article by David H, but I do think the LD's figure of 30 might be optimistic.
Personally I think anything sub 300 for Cameron and he is toast.
Even allowing for possible understatement of Tories by online pollsters and a repeat of shifts towards the Tories as has generally historically happened in the later stages of campaigns, I still think a further shift in their favour is necessary.
I don't think it can happen without UKIP dropping to about 7% and therefore I feel he falls short and a rather turbulent period of politics will follow.0 -
I would have thought the 30-35 range is correct for the yellow peril.timmo said:
A libdem "bigwig" confirmed to me yesterday that they are extremely confident of getting at least 35 seats. He did concede though that Ed Davey maybe in trouble in Kingston.Greenwich_Floater said:It's a good article by David H, but I do think the LD's figure of 30 might be optimistic.
Personally I think anything sub 300 for Cameron and he is toast.
Even allowing for possible understatement of Tories by online pollsters and a repeat of shifts towards the Tories as has generally historically happened in the later stages of campaigns, I still think a further shift in their favour is necessary.
I don't think it can happen without UKIP dropping to about 7% and therefore I feel he falls short and a rather turbulent period of politics will follow.0 -
Left or Right cheek?Greenwich_Floater said:
If the libdems get 35 seats, I'll publish my own version of the ARSE in Fenwick's shop window.timmo said:
A libdem "bigwig" confirmed to me yesterday that they are extremely confident of getting at least 35 seats. He did concede though that Ed Davey maybe in trouble in Kingston.Greenwich_Floater said:It's a good article by David H, but I do think the LD's figure of 30 might be optimistic.
Personally I think anything sub 300 for Cameron and he is toast.
Even allowing for possible understatement of Tories by online pollsters and a repeat of shifts towards the Tories as has generally historically happened in the later stages of campaigns, I still think a further shift in their favour is necessary.
I don't think it can happen without UKIP dropping to about 7% and therefore I feel he falls short and a rather turbulent period of politics will follow.0
