politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » On election day 2010 the betting markets had CON with a 100
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » On election day 2010 the betting markets had CON with a 100 seat lead – it finished up at 49 seats
If this were the case then favourites would always win. They don’t. In the two TV debates during this campaign the betting markets made Nigel Farage favourite to be judged the winner in post debate polling. He wasn’t.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Mike Smithson"
I agree
Political betting is a very very very weak market, nonsense to draw too much from any moves
I find Corals a decent guide...
As can be seen the markets over-stated the Tories and LDs and over-stated LAB.
Should be:
As can be seen the markets over-stated the Tories and LDs and under-stated LAB.
"Now we are seeing the growth of positive forces acting against integration, of vested interests in the preservation and sharpening of racial and religious differences, with a view to the exercise of actual domination, first over fellow-immigrants and then over the rest of the population. The cloud no bigger than a man's hand, that can so rapidly overcast the sky, has been visible recently in Wolverhampton and has shown signs of spreading quickly
For these dangerous and divisive elements the legislation proposed in the Race Relations Bill is the very pabulum they need to flourish. Here is the means of showing that the immigrant communities can organise to consolidate their members, to agitate and campaign against their fellow citizens, and to overawe and dominate the rest with the legal weapons which the ignorant and the ill-informed have provided. As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see "the River Tiber foaming with much blood"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/3643823/Enoch-Powells-Rivers-of-Blood-speech.html
I read a couple of weeks ago a piece of scuttlebutt that the White House would be releasing a steady drip drip drip of scandalous anti-Clinton tidbits to favoured media in the coming months to damage Clinton's campaign. The allegation was strongly denied by Jarrett, but this constant stream of embarrassing stories for Hillary in erstwhile Dem-friendly publications such as the NYT makes me wonder if there is truth to it. While the germ of this story is in Peter Schweizer's book "Clinton Cash", one wonders if the NYT would normally have so diligently pursued it (when hacks such as MSNBC are rubbishing Schweizer) if they had not received some outside, Democratic encouragement ...
Does anyone fancy betting with me on how many actual votes are cast for the conservative candidate in Welwyn Hatfield?
2010: 27,894
I'll offer any reputable punter evens on it being over 25,000 this time round.
Any takers?
Hillary will win the 2016 presidential election on a landslide no matter who the GOP candidate is or if any other democrat runs in the primaries or other trivia.
On US presidential politics it's all about who loses to Hillary in 2016 that might tell us who is not going to beat her in 2020.
If Bush, Walker or Rubio lose to Hillary in the 2016 landslide then a conservative will be picked up to beat her in 2020, if it's Paul, Cruz or Huckabee then it will be a moderate in 2020 who beats her.
In summary, Hillary 2016, GOP 2020.
.
He has just attacked Labour and SNP for not proposing a formal coalition ie exactly what he previously demanded Milliband did. Breathtaking andf totally desperate.
Shows why Milliband should have told them to take a hike when the Tories and their allies originally pressurised them!
CON 268
LAB 309
LD 11
A little extreme on the LD, LAB seats but the Tory number is in line with the polls.
Actually not bad for Tory seat prediction - an extra 0.5-1.0% ish in vote share would have made this more or less spot on i guess, which a pollster would have claimed as being very accurate. But LDs very overstated and Lab under.
LDs better hope the spreads aren't significantly overstating them this time or we might need a Martin Day memorial post about taxis...
Con majority: 9%
Con+DUP: 6%
Con+LD: 17%
Con+LD+DUP: 14%
Con largest, Con+LD+DUP+UKIP or Lab+SNP+LD maj: 7%
Con largest, but Lab+SNP+LD maj: 11%
Con largest, but Lab+SNP maj: 4%
Lab largest, Lab+SNP maj: 8%
Lab+LD+DUP+SDLP+PC+Grn+Hermon: 7%
Lab+LD+DUP: 7%
Lab+LD: 7%
Lab+DUP: 1%
Lab majority: 0%
United (Northern) Ireland !
I mean it's pretty unlikely, but not 0%, surely?
"the Mayor strongly denies any wrongdoing and had full confidence in the justice system, and so this result has been surprising to say the least."
Man with hand caught in cookie jar denies all knowledge of hand. Police still puzzled that hand was connected to anyone.
What the indexes got wrong, apart from following the pollsters LD scores is that they under estimated the electoral bias between LAB & CON.
If you are assuming the same will happen again, then you are assuming that the electoral bias remains as it was previously. That might be risky with the Scottish, UKIP and shakedown of the LD vote all being unprecedented.
I'd say the chance is nearly hopeless but probably more like 125/1
Followed by the M1 Midlands corridor.
I suspect it was to do with the whole Cleggasm thing too which resulted in a lot of people who watch telly but don't vote, stating LD as their VI in polling
Inflation at zero; record employment; good growth; tax receipts up and those at the bottom end paying less tax. Considering where the economy was in 2010 and where other EU countries now are, this is encouraging.
I simply don't believe that had Labour kept power, we would be in this position now and fear that if Labour were to regain power they would put this at risk. Labour - for all that they go on about budget discipline and the rest - have never in my lifetime appeared to understand that money has to be earned (even if you can borrow at low rates), that it belongs to us and needs to be spent wisely ("Never forget that it is the taxpayers' money" should be tattooed on their foreheads) and that spending money efficiently to achieve the best outcome is far far more important than just spending or spending more than the other lot.
But my fundamental objections to them are not about the economy but about the way they have turned from their Methodist - on the side of the working man roots into a statist, corporatist and authoritarian party whose instincts seem to me to be that people exist for the state's benefit rather than, as I believe, that the state should exist as the servant of the people. And who seem to view people not as individuals but as members of communities either to be talked at through self-appointed leaders or tarred with some broad brush characteristic.
We badly need a good sensible and thoughtful social democratic/left of centre party. Labour have not done the hard thinking required to turn them into that party, unfortunately.
I do have some quite serious reservations about some Tory policies e.g. on IHT and the right to buy for housing associations. I also worry about the pension freedoms. I fear that in a few years that will prove to be the germ of another gigantic mis-selling scandal. I worry about the way it has become easier for the rich to insulate themselves from the fact that most people aren't rich and that this can lead to a certain myopia about what life is and should be like for most of us.
I have to confess that I rather like the fact that the Lib Dems are in government. Sometimes, I feel that I am rather more positive about them than they seem to be themselves! If the coalition continued I would not be disappointed. But, as OGH says, the coalition is not on the ballot paper. A pity.
Still, Rahman being thrown out of politics makes today a good day. And the sun is shining.
However this was probably more luck than judgement as the two errors cancelled out (assuming more losses to LD and more gains from Lab).
The LD tally was the real disaster (with further knock-on effects to Labour) - practically no-one was expecting a fall in seats on the day qv. Iain Dale and the exit poll. How much did you make?
1) A whole bunch of over-emotional mugs and a couple of non-colluding deep-pocketed sensible people.
2) Nothing but over-emotional people, but with opposite and balancing over-emotions.
That was during a time where the govts record was poor and difficult to defend - different to this time around.
Lady Hermon like the Alliance candidate if reelected will presumably follow the LDs into supporting whichever party they enter an understanding with. At one time the LDs and UUP didn't get on at all but maybe they have better relations with the DUP.
http://news.sky.com/story/1470829/galloway-i-will-run-for-mayor-if-mp-bid-fails
Do the tories think they have a squeak there?
Mostly racking up another thousand votes in Lab-Con battles like Nuneaton tbh.
Talk about splitting the left leaning vote. That could let a tory in...?
BBC - Lutfur Rahman found guilty of illegal practices in Tower Hamlets election
An east London election has been declared void and will have to be re-run after the mayor was found guilty of corrupt and illegal practices.
An Election Commissioner concluded Tower Hamlets mayor Lutfur Rahman had breached election rules and would have to vacate his post immediately.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-32428648
But this is Galloway and Bradford West so the normal rules don't apply ن شاء الله
In the previous thread, OGH takes it as being such a foregone conclusion that the Tories will lose all their 26 most vulnerable seats to Labour that he doesn't even bother to list them.
Now here's a funny thing. Starting with the 306 seats the Tories won at the 2010 GE and deducting the said 26 seats, then adjusting for say 8 net gains elasewhere (+12 from LDs, -3 to UKIP, -1 to SNP), one arrives back at the self same total of 288 seats for the Blue Team.
Putting it another way, what OGH considers is effectively unachievable for the Tories, Stephen has as his current forecast of their seats tally.
Plenty of scope there methinks for egg on face and let's make no mistake, egg will be freely distributed to the appropriate visage once the result has been established.
Political betting markets are relatively illiquid and pricing anomalies can abound. We see that at present, where the "most seats" market is hard to reconcile with the individual constituency markets. This is good news for punters, of course.
As someone with a vote in this I am overjoyed Galloway will run... as you say it will surely split the racist vote between him and the Labour candidate if they are Khan or Abbot
A Non white right winger would be the best out come IMO
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p02pl51j/preview-w1a-rebranding-the-bbc
BBC: Big, Biggest, Collossalest.
APOLLO: I curse you to always see the future, yet never be believed.
CASSANDRA: Whatever. *makes killing in prediction markets, buys Troy*
And what you can’t see is about 20 Scottish journalists barking commands at me and instructing me on how to eat the Solero.
If there was a serious angle to it, then I suppose there is some kudos associated with being seen as a credible candidate for London Mayor, which might be attractive to some voters - but it's a tenuous argument.
11/4 looks fair given the UKIP fallback.
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2015/01/waveney/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-32429394
There's no map. I WANT MY MAP.
Thankfully I don't (know people who actually talk like this, that is).
Bright and breezy positive call me Dave has a much wider appeal on so many fronts- why it is not the focus of a positive campaign is just dumb.
They didn't say it was a geographical map.