politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Thanet S & Hallam polls fail to move the markets & CON
Comments
-
Labour are looking at 30-40 gains in E&W if they are lucky. Five holds in Scotland if they are unbelievably lucky. It is not going to get better than that for them and is likely to be worse.Sean_F said:
All the evidence suggests that Labour will be wiped out in Scotland, but let's be generous, and leave them 10 seats.Bob__Sykes said:
Labour will get WAY more than 259 seats.Casino_Royale said:
Streuth. That truly is the stuff of nightmares. My skin is crawling just thinking about it.Sean_F said:
Imagine it. If Labour won 259 seats with 32% of the vote, he could still be PM. I think that such a government would be a desperately weak one, but it could be done.AndyJS said:
Hague polled 32.7% in 2001. Ed may struggle to reach that level if a fair number of the latest polls are to be believed.Sean_F said:
Unlike William Hague, Ed Milliband might become Prime Minister, if he makes a net gain of one seat.AndyJS said:
In 2001 William Hague was Mr Plus One Seat since he increased the number of Tory seats from 165 to 166. Maybe something very similar could happen with Ed Miliband in 2015.Greenwich_Floater said:I think I am right in saying that only Panelbase and Populus now show Labour leads (albeit a healthy 3% lead with both)
LAB 260 seats gives Ed M a theoretical chance of being PM, but I would say that must be close to the floor.
Say 259 Labour
58 SNP
3 Plaid
3 SDLP
1 Green
Lady Hermon, makes 325 votes.
I'm sticking with c285. I simply do not believe they will be near wiped out in Scotland. Big losses to SNP sure, but no wipe out. The Scots are teasing the pollsters and taunting Scottish Labour politicians for good measure too.
With the Tories in my view incapable of getting past 270-odd, Ed will become PM with just the acquiescence of the SNP, he won't need to cobble together every last vote from the assorted other lefties.
To reach 285 seats, they'd need to make 58 gains, which I just don't see.
0 -
Ed Miliband's 'islamophobia' promises to the muslim community are being noticed in the mainstream media at last (telegraph today).
0 -
Or 'JackW's ARSE - were you up for it?'dr_spyn said:
Or 'were you up when Ed M concedes defeat'.dyedwoolie said:I think we can all agree, the one thing we all want to be able to say on May 8 is 'were you up for Balls?'
0 -
Any idea how much Soubry has been "promised" ?NickPalmer said:Final electorate figures for Broxtowe in case anyone is interested - 71764 (virtually unchanged), of whom 13246 are postal voters (of whom most voted last week). Last time, the winning mark was just over 20,000 - with fewer LDs but more UKIP this time, I expect it'll be somewhere similar, but perhaps a bit higher since there's really a lot of interest - turnout will probably be 55000 or so (71% last time). If we can get 75% of the promise out, we should be OK.
0 -
My missus was waxing lyrical about the "Women's Equality Party" the other week, saying she was going to join and bemoaning the fact they didn't have candidates this time round. I thought it was a joke, although she wasn't greatly amused as I harrumphed around complaining about the blatantly contradictory nature of seting up a "Women's Equality Party".
Learning that one of my least favourite celebrity Lefties is going to front it will not endear it to me further....!0 -
Wow that is unexpected. I was expecting Tories to squeeze Ukip and Lib dem. In fact Nicky Campbell said on the radio this morning that people were not going from Labour to Tory or Tory to Labour but they were going to the minor parties. A bit like the seat analysis every vote you take directly from your opponent is worth 2.Tissue_Price said:Interesting snippet from MORI defending their poll on twitter...
Ben Page, Ipsos MORI @benatipsosmori
@tmlbk @leightonvw @ncpoliticsuk exactly. And our Con lead actually has high prev lab0 -
Indeed. Reminds me of his announcement that Dave Milliband won the Labour leadership.Casino_Royale said:
Oh word. I do wish he'd put a sock in it.SeanT said:Analysis from Mister Hodges
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11573434/David-Cameron-is-still-on-course-for-Downing-Street.html
He's beginning to crow. Too soon, I think. But some interesting insights, nonetheless.0 -
Parliament's Eastern Association has always been a distinct region.dyedwoolie said:
Norwich has commuters too, but then so does Lincoln and Peterborough etc etc.JEO said:
I thought a lot of people commute from Ipswich and Cambridge to London on a daily basis? You can carve them off if needed, although it would be a tiny population region.dyedwoolie said:
East Anglians do not identify with Midlands or SEJEO said:
I quite like the idea of regional parliaments, as long as they were proper regions that people actually identified with. You could have just four: the North, the Midlands, the Westcountry and the South East.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Sandpit, could be atrocious.
Imagine it: opposition leader loses seats, gets wiped out in Scotland, is a clear second in England, and contrives to become PM by allying with a party committed to the destruction of the UK.
I guess Miliband would also try screwing the English with crappy little regional assemblies as well, to spike the guns of English devolution by buggering it up horrendously.
You could make a convincing Eastern Region out of everything costal from Humber to Essex and include Cambridgeshire. The East is very different to the Home Counties, it's rural, agrarian and aloof0 -
Agreed. Hampshire would have a not unreasonable population for a state of the USA, I see no utility in us being part of an amorphous South East (not including London) Region and run from Milton Keynes.antifrank said:
The US has no problems with the idea of having separate governance for entities as small as Rhode Island and Wyoming and as large as Alaska and California. East Anglia has a distinct culture of its own [INSERT JOKE HERE] and should not be bundled up with other areas for administrative convenience.JEO said:
I thought a lot of people commute from Ipswich and Cambridge to London on a daily basis? You can carve them off if needed, although it would be a tiny population region.dyedwoolie said:
East Anglians do not identify with Midlands or SEJEO said:
I quite like the idea of regional parliaments, as long as they were proper regions that people actually identified with. You could have just four: the North, the Midlands, the Westcountry and the South East.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Sandpit, could be atrocious.
Imagine it: opposition leader loses seats, gets wiped out in Scotland, is a clear second in England, and contrives to become PM by allying with a party committed to the destruction of the UK.
I guess Miliband would also try screwing the English with crappy little regional assemblies as well, to spike the guns of English devolution by buggering it up horrendously.
0 -
"UKIP are very evidently heading south "peter_from_putney said:
We'll just have to seriously disagree on that one. UKIP are very evidently heading south and this is likely to continue as minds are further concentrated over the few remaining days leading up to the GE.Pulpstar said:
Farage at Evens was a great & wondrous price. Had to take some of that myself !isam said:I had my biggest bet of the election yesterday, Farage to win S Thanet at EVS.. hard not to make it value when you've backed EVS -6.5!
You're just making things up
0 -
The problem with London being separate from the South East is that all our economies are based around London. The poor planning and chaos at London Bridge station is something that affects a lot of us commuters on a daily basis. The proposed solution is to give control of Southeastern trains to the Mayor of London, who we don't get to vote for!Tabman said:
I have some sympathy for this position, but you'd need London separate from SEJEO said:
I quite like the idea of regional parliaments, as long as they were proper regions that people actually identified with. You could have just four: the North, the Midlands, the Westcountry and the South East.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Sandpit, could be atrocious.
Imagine it: opposition leader loses seats, gets wiped out in Scotland, is a clear second in England, and contrives to become PM by allying with a party committed to the destruction of the UK.
I guess Miliband would also try screwing the English with crappy little regional assemblies as well, to spike the guns of English devolution by buggering it up horrendously.
My personal preference would be for proper (ie pre 1974) beefed up counties.
If devolution was to counties of England, then Scotland really would rule the roost when it came to arguing over funds. The First Minister of Northamptonshire is unlikely to have much visibility when it came time to demand more money.
0 -
Sean, the hatred of him is that he was Brown's henchman when Brown was at the worst of his bullying behaviour, sitting next to "Mr" McBride.SeanT said:
I've always thought Balls would have made a good leader. I don't quite understand the hatred of him (nor do I share it, nor do most of the public, I suspect).macisback said:
Totally right and Balls will stand up to MacCluskey and his pals as well. Balls is the one senior Labour front bencher at present I have confidence in.Pulpstar said:
If Balls isn't CoTE in a Labour administration it'll be Reeves or Leslie. The Nats will push them around far more than Balls who clearly is not a loony lefty. Trust me if Ed is PM, we need Balls as CoTE.dyedwoolie said:
My child, set thou aside your hopes for the greater hope of joy unboundedPulpstar said:
I f*cking don't. I'm holding some 7-2 and 3-1 next chancellor betslips on him.dyedwoolie said:I think we can all agree, the one thing we all want to be able to say on May 8 is 'were you up for Balls?'
He's clever, articulate, and he manages to appear ordinary (e.g. playing football with a pot belly), even if he isn't. He speaks homo sapiens, unlike Miliband. He's sensible centre-left, not loony.
Yes he is associated with Brown, but so is Ed Miliband.
Labour should have had Balls.
I agree that in the past 5 years he's calmed down a lot and is moderating the loony left of his party, but he will always have that nasty smell hanging around him.0 -
I'll have you know that the Home Counties are plenty rural and agrarian! Kent is the garden of England!dyedwoolie said:
Norwich has commuters too, but then so does Lincoln and Peterborough etc etc.JEO said:
I thought a lot of people commute from Ipswich and Cambridge to London on a daily basis? You can carve them off if needed, although it would be a tiny population region.dyedwoolie said:
East Anglians do not identify with Midlands or SEJEO said:
I quite like the idea of regional parliaments, as long as they were proper regions that people actually identified with. You could have just four: the North, the Midlands, the Westcountry and the South East.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Sandpit, could be atrocious.
Imagine it: opposition leader loses seats, gets wiped out in Scotland, is a clear second in England, and contrives to become PM by allying with a party committed to the destruction of the UK.
I guess Miliband would also try screwing the English with crappy little regional assemblies as well, to spike the guns of English devolution by buggering it up horrendously.
You could make a convincing Eastern Region out of everything costal from Humber to Essex and include Cambridgeshire. The East is very different to the Home Counties, it's rural, agrarian and aloof0 -
Mr. JEO, thou crazed mongoose!
Regional assemblies are demented. Leaving aside the fact that a 'North' Assembly would take about six seconds to be riven by a War of the Roses, they guarantee England gets a raw deal.
Here's why:
1) Scotland has devolution, which will only increase
2) English equality demand that England retains competence over devolved areas [for England, of course]
3) If England is carved into rubbish regions, this is impossible, because:
4) Could we really have varying education, transport, and fiscal policies between Yorkshire and Kent? Between Dover and Bristol? Would income tax [due to be devolved to Holyrood] ever credibly be varied within England?
5) Therefore an England-wide political body is required for England to have parity with Scotland. We could call it:
6) An English Parliament.0 -
I have 3 grown up children under 30.SouthamObserver said:My eldest boy is voting Green. He was very adamant about it last night. He said none of the major parties are telling the truth, so why bother with them? He doesn't expect anything from the Greens, but likes the fact that they are interested in saving the planet - whatever that means. He fully expects never to be able to buy his own home or to enjoy the lifestyle and opportunities his Mum and Dad have enjoyed. He is probably right about that - until we snuff it. My guess is that his views are to a greater or lesser extent shared by many under-30s.
1 will not vote, the other two are voting UKIP.
1 will certainly vote, I remain to be convinced that the other one will bother.0 -
If England is to have regional parliaments, then they should be aligned with the ancient kingdoms of Mercia, Wessex, Northumbria etc.0
-
Or 'JackW's ARSE - were you up for it?'
'Yes but it was pay per view only...'0 -
When Sandi Toksvig makes a joke, it's no laughing matter.Bob__Sykes said:My missus was waxing lyrical about the "Women's Equality Party" the other week, saying she was going to join and bemoaning the fact they didn't have candidates this time round. I thought it was a joke, although she wasn't greatly amused as I harrumphed around complaining about the blatantly contradictory nature of seting up a "Women's Equality Party".
Learning that one of my least favourite celebrity Lefties is going to front it will not endear it to me further....!0 -
So many Tory outliers this week
0 -
This can get very complicated very quickly....Sandpit said:
Likewise. Cameron's not stupid, he's done his time in the top job and would want to do the right thing in resigning if his party have clearly gone backwards.Slackbladder said:
Cameron could call Milibands bluff, resign, then he would be forced to make it work..SeanT said:
In that situation, I wonder if Miliband's party would allow him to form a government, given its clear suicidality for Labour.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Sandpit, could be atrocious.
Imagine it: opposition leader loses seats, gets wiped out in Scotland, is a clear second in England, and contrives to become PM by allying with a party committed to the destruction of the UK.
I guess Miliband would also try screwing the English with crappy little regional assemblies as well, to spike the guns of English devolution by buggering it up horrendously.
Labour's best interest (not Ed's) would be in sitting back, and letting Cameron flail around, trying to form a minority government, which would soon fall (over the EU ref?). Meanwhile Labour get rid of their loser leader, and find someone with more charm for the swiftly ensuing 2nd election.
Result: Labour win, as the Tories fight over Europe or whatever.
So Ed's personal ambitions might be in opposition to Labour's wider interests.
In fact that would be a smart move by the tories, and I expect Cameron wouldn't want to hang around in that situation.
Being in government at the moment does give you some advantages.
The last thing he'd want is to try and cobble together an unstable and unwilling coalition of abstainers propping up a minority government - better to allow the party to select a new leader to fight the inevitable second election.
As @SeanT says, eloquently as always, what is good for Ed is not what's good for Labour. I can well see Ed try and make the mess work, but he'll be completely outplayed by Salmond and the LDs a few months down the line.
The only way i can see Cameron staying it is if we have a second election, and the either labour or tory majority might be possible.
But, that can only happen if Cameron resigns as PM, but remains leader of the tories, but i think thats unlikely.
If Ed gets a chance to be PM, he'll HAVE to try to make it work, and I can't see how labour could remove him.
If the Queen calls you to be PM, you have to follow it through.0 -
Nick by 1,000, I reckon. But a late swing to the Tories could chip away at that.Pulpstar said:
Any idea how much Soubry has been "promised" ?NickPalmer said:Final electorate figures for Broxtowe in case anyone is interested - 71764 (virtually unchanged), of whom 13246 are postal voters (of whom most voted last week). Last time, the winning mark was just over 20,000 - with fewer LDs but more UKIP this time, I expect it'll be somewhere similar, but perhaps a bit higher since there's really a lot of interest - turnout will probably be 55000 or so (71% last time). If we can get 75% of the promise out, we should be OK.
0 -
That was my mantra which has been changed. Polling overstatement not reserved for LAB. In all the by-election polls prior to 2014 CON was overstated as it was to a considerable extent in the 2012 London election.DecrepitJohnL said:
Yes. See this handy BBC summaryNemtynakht said:Can anyone remember to before the last election, the mantra was to take the best figure for the Tories and the worst for Labour across the polls. Was this disproved?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8667801.stm
We'll know on May 8th what current situation is.
0 -
Mr. Taffys, kind of the MSM to wake up.
Mr. Sykes, I had the same thought (about the ridiculousness of equality, but only for one gender).0 -
And I am a more bearish 9 point something. There's a hell of a lot of Kippers re-evaluating their position right now. Even had one guy with a poster up saying he was now going to vote Tory...Sean_F said:
11-13% has been my forecast for some time, and I stick to it.MarqueeMark said:
But do you believe the 18%?Sean_F said:
UKIP are polling 10-18%, so it obviously isn't going that badly.Scrapheap_as_was said:
just how badly was it going for UKIP when you decided to invent it?isam said:In demand SPUD!
The people who see it going their way are calling for it following the derision and forensic investigation when it was showing bad figures for them
Who knew?!
This week 9 polls form 7 different pollsters (all time 26 polls from 11)
CON +10 (+2)
LAB -5 (-18)
UKIP -1 (+7)
LD -3 (-2)
GREEN +4 (+5)
Some of them are thinking the idea of being ruled by Scotland as even more of a horror show than being ruled by Brussels!0 -
Seconded. I agree completely.Tabman said:
I have some sympathy for this position, but you'd need London separate from SEJEO said:
I quite like the idea of regional parliaments, as long as they were proper regions that people actually identified with. You could have just four: the North, the Midlands, the Westcountry and the South East.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Sandpit, could be atrocious.
Imagine it: opposition leader loses seats, gets wiped out in Scotland, is a clear second in England, and contrives to become PM by allying with a party committed to the destruction of the UK.
I guess Miliband would also try screwing the English with crappy little regional assemblies as well, to spike the guns of English devolution by buggering it up horrendously.
My personal preference would be for proper (ie pre 1974) beefed up counties.0 -
Yes, counties not regions. With proper powers devolved from London in both tax and spending. Anyone suggesting regions will be slapped with Mr Dancer's wet enormo-haddock!Tabman said:
I have some sympathy for this position, but you'd need London separate from SEJEO said:
I quite like the idea of regional parliaments, as long as they were proper regions that people actually identified with. You could have just four: the North, the Midlands, the Westcountry and the South East.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Sandpit, could be atrocious.
Imagine it: opposition leader loses seats, gets wiped out in Scotland, is a clear second in England, and contrives to become PM by allying with a party committed to the destruction of the UK.
I guess Miliband would also try screwing the English with crappy little regional assemblies as well, to spike the guns of English devolution by buggering it up horrendously.
My personal preference would be for proper (ie pre 1974) beefed up counties.0 -
Yes, all of that. But I have no idea how cooperative the two parties will be, even if it's in their clear interests to be so.Sandpit said:
I was thinking along similar lines the other day.Casino_Royale said:What I'm wondering is whether an EVEL bill can be rammed through the house, thus neutralising a lot of the SNP.
Another way of doing it might be a Tory bill, that the LDs back and then 20 Labour rebels break ranks, enough to get it through.
Given the forecast complete deadlock, red and blue teams could find a few common interests surely?
EV4EL, Barnett formula, boundary review/reduction to 600 MPs - even Trident renewal, Royal Commission on HoL reform etc.0 -
Mr. Sandpit, an English Parliament is essential. If there's further devolution to counties, fine, but an English Parliament must come first otherwise England cannot have equality with Scotland.0
-
When Sandi Toksvig makes a joke, it's no laughing matter.
Still, its nice of her to start a party to make men equal with women.0 -
Surely the very definition of a three line whip is a vote on the first Queen's speech following a hung Parliament? Anyone not there must surely be fired by their party?edmundintokyo said:dyedwoolie said:
Yes.Nemtynakht said:Can anyone remember to before the last election, the mantra was to take the best figure for the Tories and the worst for Labour across the polls. Was this disproved?
Which specific Labour MPs do you think will be standing up and voting for a Tory Queen's Speech, or letting people say they got a Tory government because they couldn't be arsed to show up for the vote?PeterC said:
I suspect that the party will be split and it will not be able to whip its full strength against the Queen's speech. You are right: it's a political suicide vest.SeanT said:
In that situation, I wonder if Miliband's party would allow him to form a government, given its clear suicidality for Labour.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Sandpit, could be atrocious.
Imagine it: opposition leader loses seats, gets wiped out in Scotland, is a clear second in England, and contrives to become PM by allying with a party committed to the destruction of the UK.
I guess Miliband would also try screwing the English with crappy little regional assemblies as well, to spike the guns of English devolution by buggering it up horrendously.
Labour's best interest (not Ed's) would be in sitting back, and letting Cameron flail around, trying to form a minority government, which would soon fall (over the EU ref?). Meanwhile Labour get rid of their loser leader, and find someone with more charm for the swiftly ensuing 2nd election.
Result: Labour win, as the Tories fight over Europe or whatever.
So Ed's personal ambitions might be in opposition to Labour's wider interests.0 -
My guess is UKIP are going to be squeezed very hard in the marginals. But in the safe seats they could still put in some unexpectedly good showings, especially safe Labour seats in places like Yorkshire and the North East.0
-
There's a shockMarqueeMark said:
And I am a more bearish 9 point something. There's a hell of a lot of Kippers re-evaluating their position right now. Even had one guy with a poster up saying he was now going to vote Tory...Sean_F said:
11-13% has been my forecast for some time, and I stick to it.MarqueeMark said:
But do you believe the 18%?Sean_F said:
UKIP are polling 10-18%, so it obviously isn't going that badly.Scrapheap_as_was said:
just how badly was it going for UKIP when you decided to invent it?isam said:In demand SPUD!
The people who see it going their way are calling for it following the derision and forensic investigation when it was showing bad figures for them
Who knew?!
This week 9 polls form 7 different pollsters (all time 26 polls from 11)
CON +10 (+2)
LAB -5 (-18)
UKIP -1 (+7)
LD -3 (-2)
GREEN +4 (+5)
Some of them are thinking the idea of being ruled by Scotland as even more of a horror show than being ruled by Brussels!
Any betting on under over 9%?0 -
Can I ask - who on here is actually going out canvassing and meeting a wide swathe of the voters? There seem to be a lot of folks here who are happy to bet solely on what the polls are saying.....0
-
That would lead to an extremely centralised England. I would then want to devolve most power down to some form of local unit, with the national parliament in Oxford keeping a few strategic functions. I see no reason why Hampshire can't run health, transport and schools, for example. It is after all bigger than the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg which does all those and more.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. JEO, thou crazed mongoose!
Regional assemblies are demented. Leaving aside the fact that a 'North' Assembly would take about six seconds to be riven by a War of the Roses, they guarantee England gets a raw deal.
Here's why:
1) Scotland has devolution, which will only increase
2) English equality demand that England retains competence over devolved areas [for England, of course]
3) If England is carved into rubbish regions, this is impossible, because:
4) Could we really have varying education, transport, and fiscal policies between Yorkshire and Kent? Between Dover and Bristol? Would income tax [due to be devolved to Holyrood] ever credibly be varied within England?
5) Therefore an England-wide political body is required for England to have parity with Scotland. We could call it:
6) An English Parliament.0 -
They still did pretty well on their predictions. If you strip out Angus Reid who I seem to remember were not highly thought of on here then the average score for the Tories is about 36 and average for Labour is 28 which considering how overstated lib dems was pretty good. I had forgotten the suppose level of support for th lib dems at last election. I remember well when you could openly admit voting lib dem. I wonder if there are shy lib dems this time?DecrepitJohnL said:
Yes. See this handy BBC summaryNemtynakht said:Can anyone remember to before the last election, the mantra was to take the best figure for the Tories and the worst for Labour across the polls. Was this disproved?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8667801.stm
0 -
I would have thought so, but then if they can gather 20-30 likeminded individuals they could collectively make the call for new elections rather than a C+S arrangement.Sandpit said:
Surely the very definition of a three line whip is a vote on the first Queen's speech following a hung Parliament? Anyone not there must surely be fired by their party?edmundintokyo said:dyedwoolie said:
Yes.Nemtynakht said:Can anyone remember to before the last election, the mantra was to take the best figure for the Tories and the worst for Labour across the polls. Was this disproved?
Which specific Labour MPs do you think will be standing up and voting for a Tory Queen's Speech, or letting people say they got a Tory government because they couldn't be arsed to show up for the vote?PeterC said:
I suspect that the party will be split and it will not be able to whip its full strength against the Queen's speech. You are right: it's a political suicide vest.SeanT said:
In that situation, I wonder if Miliband's party would allow him to form a government, given its clear suicidality for Labour.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Sandpit, could be atrocious.
Imagine it: opposition leader loses seats, gets wiped out in Scotland, is a clear second in England, and contrives to become PM by allying with a party committed to the destruction of the UK.
I guess Miliband would also try screwing the English with crappy little regional assemblies as well, to spike the guns of English devolution by buggering it up horrendously.
Labour's best interest (not Ed's) would be in sitting back, and letting Cameron flail around, trying to form a minority government, which would soon fall (over the EU ref?). Meanwhile Labour get rid of their loser leader, and find someone with more charm for the swiftly ensuing 2nd election.
Result: Labour win, as the Tories fight over Europe or whatever.
So Ed's personal ambitions might be in opposition to Labour's wider interests.0 -
£400 at 1.89 queuing to back UKIP in S Thanet on Betfair.. anyone not on the Even money w Coral must be mad, literally mad as a punter to be allowing the annual inflow of thousands of pounds into other peoples bank accounts0
-
My entire betting strategy at present is built around the basic premise that no one really knows what is going on.MarqueeMark said:Can I ask - who on here is actually going out canvassing and meeting a wide swathe of the voters? There seem to be a lot of folks here who are happy to bet solely on what the polls are saying.....
0 -
Sorry, absolutely no chance, but don't let me dissuade you from backing them at 5/1 (generally available).dyedwoolie said:Dyedwoolies tip of the day.
Greens at 8 or higher and Labour at 30 or lower equals Green Gain Norwich South0 -
All depends on the UKIP vote, if a proportion of that swings late to the Conservatives Soubry could sneak it, my impression last weekend is though the vast majority of the UKIP support will stay solid, Nick by less than 1000, maybe 500 but Conservatives to hold Amber Valley well worth a punt, UKIP support in that seat much more ex-Labour.Casino_Royale said:
Nick by 1,000, I reckon. But a late swing to the Tories could chip away at that.Pulpstar said:
Any idea how much Soubry has been "promised" ?NickPalmer said:Final electorate figures for Broxtowe in case anyone is interested - 71764 (virtually unchanged), of whom 13246 are postal voters (of whom most voted last week). Last time, the winning mark was just over 20,000 - with fewer LDs but more UKIP this time, I expect it'll be somewhere similar, but perhaps a bit higher since there's really a lot of interest - turnout will probably be 55000 or so (71% last time). If we can get 75% of the promise out, we should be OK.
0 -
I would like to see rates normalised asap, Taylor rule determining the appropriate level, but I am not convinced CBers have the guts. I do believe artificially low rates are having a disastrous impact with misallocation of resources.Bond_James_Bond said:
We have had both inflation and deflation on fiat money so I am not sure this is conclusive either way. I reckon low rates are here for a lot longer than is widely expected, simply because I see nothing on the horizon to send the north.FalseFlag said:
When we were on the gold standard for 300 odd years prices remained flat, on the fiat money system, as you mention, we have had rampant inflation. You are conflating two very different systems. There is an argument that like Japan we will have low rates for the foreseeable future but I would not count on it.Bond_James_Bond said:Polruan said:
Thanks, that's really interesting - always good to learn something from PB.Bond_James_Bond said:Lennon said:snip
Surely
Another interesting (and house price inflationary) thing about low rates is how fast you pay down the principal. With a 25-year mortgage at 10%, over the first 5 years, you pay off only 6% of the principal. At 2%, you pay off 16% of the principal amount over that time.
It would take you 10 years to pay off 16% of the principal at 10%. Over 10 years on a 2% mortgage rate, you could pay off 35% - and so on. So although these hug mortgages look oppressive, you accumulate equity at an unprecedentedly rapid rate now; which must itself encourage people to pay more.
It is an often-overlooked advantage from low rates that is similar, if not equivalent, to the benefit baby boomers enjoyed, whereby inflation eroded the cost of their mortgage. That doesn't happen any more, but today, you can erode your mortgage pretty damn fast by, er, repaying it!
I could very well be missing something obvious but my main exposure to interest rates comes through my mortgage which I will have for only another 10 years or so; so my horizon is short.0 -
You seem to be extrapolating national shares from your own take on what's happening in TorbayMarqueeMark said:Can I ask - who on here is actually going out canvassing and meeting a wide swathe of the voters? There seem to be a lot of folks here who are happy to bet solely on what the polls are saying.....
0 -
The trick is not to completely discount any poll. All of them have their uses - even the new kid on the block "BPG" or whatever - their actual % figures can be pretty much disregarded - but if they're showing a headline change between polls, that tells us *something* doesn't it?OblitusSumMe said:
Angus Reid happened.Nemtynakht said:Can anyone remember to before the last election, the mantra was to take the best figure for the Tories and the worst for Labour across the polls. Was this disproved?
0 -
Harrow East, Enfield Southgate, Ilford North, Finchley & Golders Green are the best examples of seats Labour could win with a much bigger than average swing. I can't think of many outside London though.Nemtynakht said:
I think both are fair shouts from whAt I understand. In Halifax I think there was a central office late appointment for th Labour PPC.AndyJS said:Don't know whether this has been discussed already, but I was just thinking that it may be the case that because Labour aren't going to win an overall majority some of their voters are going to be a bit disillusioned and won't bother voting in the same numbers as they would have done had they thought they had a chance of doing so, which most of them probably did believe just a few months ago (no matter how unlikely it was even then).
That might create an opening for the Tories to make one or two gains in places like Southampton Itchen, Halifax, etc. Unlikely but not as unlikely as it used to be, maybe.
In South Itchen the Labour candidate is a privately educated oxford ppe graduate and the Tory is a local councillor with a forces background who is a local hero after foiling a shooting in 2011.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-13022096
It's just as likely Labour will win some surprise seats as well. Despite the SNP strengths in Scotland Labour are bound to win a few as the swing against will not be uniform.0 -
Me too!antifrank said:
My entire betting strategy at present is built around the basic premise that no one really knows what is going on.MarqueeMark said:Can I ask - who on here is actually going out canvassing and meeting a wide swathe of the voters? There seem to be a lot of folks here who are happy to bet solely on what the polls are saying.....
And you're doing better!0 -
Not sure if this has been commented upon, but is this one not so subtle dog whistle to Tory voters to vote tactically? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11571712/Conservatives-may-be-wrong-to-celebrate-big-losses-for-the-Lib-Dems.html0
-
Coral allowed me £25 yesterday and have barred me from staking any more today.isam said:£400 at 1.89 queuing to back UKIP in S Thanet on Betfair.. anyone not on the Even money w Coral must be mad, literally mad as a punter to be allowing the annual inflow of thousands of pounds into other peoples bank accounts
0 -
Mr. Morris Dancer,Morris_Dancer said:Mr. JEO, thou crazed mongoose!
Regional assemblies are demented. Leaving aside the fact that a 'North' Assembly would take about six seconds to be riven by a War of the Roses, they guarantee England gets a raw deal.
Here's why:
1) Scotland has devolution, which will only increase
2) English equality demand that England retains competence over devolved areas [for England, of course]
3) If England is carved into rubbish regions, this is impossible, because:
4) Could we really have varying education, transport, and fiscal policies between Yorkshire and Kent? Between Dover and Bristol? Would income tax [due to be devolved to Holyrood] ever credibly be varied within England?
5) Therefore an England-wide political body is required for England to have parity with Scotland. We could call it:
6) An English Parliament.
Your point (4) is actually why I disagree with the other commenters that suggest devolution should only be done at the county level. The counties are far too small to have different education and transport systems. I do not think that is true of the larger regions I have suggested. I would actually argue that the North or the South West being able to decide their own local transport decisions would be much superior to doing this at the all-England level.
Income tax varying for different regions would also be workable, or even desirable. You could have a certain base level going to the UK level, with the rest being set at the regional level. If the North of England prefers social democratic governance, they can give it a try, while us in the South East can focus on being more competitive and laissez-faire. We can then see which regional economic approach is most successful.
Having canvassed in Devon, I know how alienated they feel from Westminster, and I can't see that changing if it was done at the English level in London either. I think it would be helpful to get some big political figures from the regions to help change the national debate away from the metropolitan bubble.0 -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqVSH5TDoJI
To lighten up everybody's day and very NSFW (apologies for the language) but this is genuinely very, very funny. Fair play to the boy.0 -
Doubt it. More like 2,000 to 4,000. I still think Broxtowe is the most likely Lab gain from Con in the country. It has the best demographics. North Warwickshire is slowly trending against Labour, although they're likely to win it this time.Casino_Royale said:
Nick by 1,000, I reckon. But a late swing to the Tories could chip away at that.Pulpstar said:
Any idea how much Soubry has been "promised" ?NickPalmer said:Final electorate figures for Broxtowe in case anyone is interested - 71764 (virtually unchanged), of whom 13246 are postal voters (of whom most voted last week). Last time, the winning mark was just over 20,000 - with fewer LDs but more UKIP this time, I expect it'll be somewhere similar, but perhaps a bit higher since there's really a lot of interest - turnout will probably be 55000 or so (71% last time). If we can get 75% of the promise out, we should be OK.
0 -
Exactly, I can't see it happening. What Tom Watson etc did in 2010 was to threaten to vote against the concessions that Labour were trying to promise the LibDems. This is obviously much easier to sell to the base than directly voting against bringing down the enemy government or voting to prevent your own party from taking office, and if you can threaten credibly you can scare off the other party so you never actually need to carry it out. The risk of this kind of thing is probably one reason why the LibDems have rules out being the third leg of a Lab+SNP+Lib deal.Sandpit said:
Surely the very definition of a three line whip is a vote on the first Queen's speech following a hung Parliament? Anyone not there must surely be fired by their party?edmundintokyo said:dyedwoolie said:
Yes.Nemtynakht said:Can anyone remember to before the last election, the mantra was to take the best figure for the Tories and the worst for Labour across the polls. Was this disproved?
Which specific Labour MPs do you think will be standing up and voting for a Tory Queen's Speech, or letting people say they got a Tory government because they couldn't be arsed to show up for the vote?PeterC said:
I suspect that the party will be split and it will not be able to whip its full strength against the Queen's speech. You are right: it's a political suicide vest.SeanT said:
In that situation, I wonder if Miliband's party would allow him to form a government, given its clear suicidality for Labour.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Sandpit, could be atrocious.
Imagine it: opposition leader loses seats, gets wiped out in Scotland, is a clear second in England, and contrives to become PM by allying with a party committed to the destruction of the UK.
I guess Miliband would also try screwing the English with crappy little regional assemblies as well, to spike the guns of English devolution by buggering it up horrendously.
Labour's best interest (not Ed's) would be in sitting back, and letting Cameron flail around, trying to form a minority government, which would soon fall (over the EU ref?). Meanwhile Labour get rid of their loser leader, and find someone with more charm for the swiftly ensuing 2nd election.
Result: Labour win, as the Tories fight over Europe or whatever.
So Ed's personal ambitions might be in opposition to Labour's wider interests.0 -
BMG ResearchPong said:
The trick is not to completely discount any poll. All of them have their uses - even the new kid on the block "BPG" or whatever - their actual % figures can be pretty much disregarded - but if they're showing a headline change between polls, that tells us *something* doesn't it?OblitusSumMe said:
Angus Reid happened.Nemtynakht said:Can anyone remember to before the last election, the mantra was to take the best figure for the Tories and the worst for Labour across the polls. Was this disproved?
(I like their data tables!)0 -
Agree. I know it's unscientific, but here in a VERY safe NE urban seat, hearing a lot of support for UKIP. From the weirdest quarters too - a primary school head whose school has 65% EAL kids, a police officer, Iranian man who runs cafe. This of course is very unlikely to convert to seats, but I think UKIP will do very well in constituencies where people "know" that labour will win anyway.AndyJS said:My guess is UKIP are going to be squeezed very hard in the marginals. But in the safe seats they could still put in some unexpectedly good showings, especially safe Labour seats in places like Yorkshire and the North East.
0 -
Shops!antifrank said:
Coral allowed me £25 yesterday and have barred me from staking any more today.isam said:£400 at 1.89 queuing to back UKIP in S Thanet on Betfair.. anyone not on the Even money w Coral must be mad, literally mad as a punter to be allowing the annual inflow of thousands of pounds into other peoples bank accounts
My mate managed to get £400 on in his local0 -
-
Mr. Lilburne, further devolution (to county level, say) could still occur, but if there's no English Parliament then equality with Scotland's Parliament is impossible.0
-
Director of Policy for http://crueltyfreeinternational.org/ . Satisfying and interesting job - visited 20 countries in the last few years and helped get a lot of change in legislation around the world, even in unlikely-seeming places like Korea. Some surreal moments, like when we were haggling with the Amazonas cattle-farming bloc of MPs in the Brazilian Parliament. In general, being a grey-haired former MP has been a big plus in opening Ministerial doors, as I'm obviously not a loony hippie out to give them grief, and in the smaller countries they've often seemed intrigued at the interest.Tabman said:
Mr Palmer how have you been occupying yourself since 2010?
It's much easier to get change in developing countries, as often they don't have much animal welfare legislation to start with, so are more open to ideas than our own dear Home Office, whose standard reaction is "Why should we do anything to change our current excellent regulations?"
0 -
No thanks - property prices are bad enough here as it is!!!JohnLilburne said:
That would lead to an extremely centralised England. I would then want to devolve most power down to some form of local unit, with the national parliament in Oxford keeping a few strategic functions. I see no reason why Hampshire can't run health, transport and schools, for example. It is after all bigger than the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg which does all those and more.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. JEO, thou crazed mongoose!
Regional assemblies are demented. Leaving aside the fact that a 'North' Assembly would take about six seconds to be riven by a War of the Roses, they guarantee England gets a raw deal.
Here's why:
1) Scotland has devolution, which will only increase
2) English equality demand that England retains competence over devolved areas [for England, of course]
3) If England is carved into rubbish regions, this is impossible, because:
4) Could we really have varying education, transport, and fiscal policies between Yorkshire and Kent? Between Dover and Bristol? Would income tax [due to be devolved to Holyrood] ever credibly be varied within England?
5) Therefore an England-wide political body is required for England to have parity with Scotland. We could call it:
6) An English Parliament.0 -
That, unfortunately, is normally not particularly practical for me because of time commitments. But I may get the opportunity today.isam said:
Shops!antifrank said:
Coral allowed me £25 yesterday and have barred me from staking any more today.isam said:£400 at 1.89 queuing to back UKIP in S Thanet on Betfair.. anyone not on the Even money w Coral must be mad, literally mad as a punter to be allowing the annual inflow of thousands of pounds into other peoples bank accounts
My mate managed to get £400 on in his local0 -
"Only the Tories can stop Labour gaining Ilford North!"AndyJS said:
Harrow East, Enfield Southgate, Ilford North, Finchley & Golders Green are the best examples of seats Labour could win with a much bigger than average swing. I can't think of many outside London though.Nemtynakht said:
I think both are fair shouts from whAt I understand. In Halifax I think there was a central office late appointment for th Labour PPC.AndyJS said:Don't know whether this has been discussed already, but I was just thinking that it may be the case that because Labour aren't going to win an overall majority some of their voters are going to be a bit disillusioned and won't bother voting in the same numbers as they would have done had they thought they had a chance of doing so, which most of them probably did believe just a few months ago (no matter how unlikely it was even then).
That might create an opening for the Tories to make one or two gains in places like Southampton Itchen, Halifax, etc. Unlikely but not as unlikely as it used to be, maybe.
In South Itchen the Labour candidate is a privately educated oxford ppe graduate and the Tory is a local councillor with a forces background who is a local hero after foiling a shooting in 2011.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-13022096
It's just as likely Labour will win some surprise seats as well. Despite the SNP strengths in Scotland Labour are bound to win a few as the swing against will not be uniform.
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/5880255674270433300 -
I think Southgate is out of reach, even with a bigger than average swing in London.AndyJS said:
Harrow East, Enfield Southgate, Ilford North, Finchley & Golders Green are the best examples of seats Labour could win with a much bigger than average swing. I can't think of many outside London though.Nemtynakht said:
I think both are fair shouts from whAt I understand. In Halifax I think there was a central office late appointment for th Labour PPC.AndyJS said:Don't know whether this has been discussed already, but I was just thinking that it may be the case that because Labour aren't going to win an overall majority some of their voters are going to be a bit disillusioned and won't bother voting in the same numbers as they would have done had they thought they had a chance of doing so, which most of them probably did believe just a few months ago (no matter how unlikely it was even then).
That might create an opening for the Tories to make one or two gains in places like Southampton Itchen, Halifax, etc. Unlikely but not as unlikely as it used to be, maybe.
In South Itchen the Labour candidate is a privately educated oxford ppe graduate and the Tory is a local councillor with a forces background who is a local hero after foiling a shooting in 2011.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-13022096
It's just as likely Labour will win some surprise seats as well. Despite the SNP strengths in Scotland Labour are bound to win a few as the swing against will not be uniform.0 -
I've got punts on both the reading seats, Reading East at 16-1 in the Ladbrokes "Labour seat bomb" market (Where I've backed Bristol West at 16-1 further down the list) and a bit of cash on Reading West.AndyJS said:
Harrow East, Enfield Southgate, Ilford North, Finchley & Golders Green are the best examples of seats Labour could win with a much bigger than average swing. I can't think of many outside London though.Nemtynakht said:
I think both are fair shouts from whAt I understand. In Halifax I think there was a central office late appointment for th Labour PPC.AndyJS said:Don't know whether this has been discussed already, but I was just thinking that it may be the case that because Labour aren't going to win an overall majority some of their voters are going to be a bit disillusioned and won't bother voting in the same numbers as they would have done had they thought they had a chance of doing so, which most of them probably did believe just a few months ago (no matter how unlikely it was even then).
That might create an opening for the Tories to make one or two gains in places like Southampton Itchen, Halifax, etc. Unlikely but not as unlikely as it used to be, maybe.
In South Itchen the Labour candidate is a privately educated oxford ppe graduate and the Tory is a local councillor with a forces background who is a local hero after foiling a shooting in 2011.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-13022096
It's just as likely Labour will win some surprise seats as well. Despite the SNP strengths in Scotland Labour are bound to win a few as the swing against will not be uniform.0 -
Paddy Power Politics @pppolitics 16m16 minutes ago
Tories leading in South Thanet on latest Ashcroft, cut from 9/4 to 6/4. UKIP on the drift at 8/11. #GE20150 -
Agreed, it will get very complicated very quickly.Slackbladder said:
This can get very complicated very quickly....Sandpit said:
.Slackbladder said:
Cameron could call Milibands bluff, resign, then he would be forced to make it work..SeanT said:
In that situation, I wonder if Miliband's party would allow him to form a government, given its clear suicidality for Labour.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Sandpit, could be atrocious.
Imagine it: opposition leader loses seats, gets wiped out in Scotland, is a clear second in England, and contrives to become PM by allying with a party committed to the destruction of the UK.
I guess Miliband would also try screwing the English with crappy little regional assemblies as well, to spike the guns of English devolution by buggering it up horrendously.
So Ed's personal ambitions might be in opposition to Labour's wider interests.
In fact that would be a smart move by the tories, and I expect Cameron wouldn't want to hang around in that situation.
Being in government at the moment does give you some advantages.
The only way i can see Cameron staying it is if we have a second election, and the either labour or tory majority might be possible.
But, that can only happen if Cameron resigns as PM, but remains leader of the tories, but i think thats unlikely.
If Ed gets a chance to be PM, he'll HAVE to try to make it work, and I can't see how labour could remove him.
If the Queen calls you to be PM, you have to follow it through.
If Dave can't get a coalition together by - let's be generous - Saturday afternoon, he'll be making his appointment to see HM first thing Monday morning. This is exactly what Brown did on Tuesday last time.
This will serve the twin purposes of dropping Ed in it from a massive height and allowing his own party to regroup around a new leader, because there WILL be a second election a few months down the line.0 -
Hats off to you, Nick - a very worthwhile causeNickPalmer said:
Director of Policy for http://crueltyfreeinternational.org/ . Satisfying and interesting job - visited 20 countries in the last few years and helped get a lot of change in legislation around the world, even in unlikely-seeming places like Korea. Some surreal moments, like when we were haggling with the Amazonas cattle-farming bloc of MPs in the Brazilian Parliament. In general, being a grey-haired former MP has been a big plus in opening Ministerial doors, as I'm obviously not a loony hippie out to give them grief, and in the smaller countries they've often seemed intrigued at the interest.Tabman said:
Mr Palmer how have you been occupying yourself since 2010?
It's much easier to get change in developing countries, as often they don't have much animal welfare legislation to start with, so are more open to ideas than our own dear Home Office, whose standard reaction is "Why should we do anything to change our current excellent regulations?"0 -
Mr. JEO, varying matters such as income tax within England would institutionalise regional divisions and all but guarantee the future break-up of the country.
England must be kept whole. Scotland has shown how from 'killing nationalism stone dead' less than two decades was needed for potentially every seat to fall to nationalism.0 -
Reeling in the mugsTGOHF said:Paddy Power Politics @pppolitics 16m16 minutes ago
Tories leading in South Thanet on latest Ashcroft, cut from 9/4 to 6/4. UKIP on the drift at 8/11. #GE2015
Look at Betfair exchange for the true picture not bookies adverts0 -
The Heptarchy!GeoffH said:If England is to have regional parliaments, then they should be aligned with the ancient kingdoms of Mercia, Wessex, Northumbria etc.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/Anglo-Saxon_Heptarchy.jpg0 -
No desire for an English parliament here in Newcastle from me. We have more in common with Edinburgh than we do London.0
-
It does sound interesting and challenging ... the big question being why you'd want to jack it all in for Westminster again?NickPalmer said:
Director of Policy for http://crueltyfreeinternational.org/ . Satisfying and interesting job - visited 20 countries in the last few years and helped get a lot of change in legislation around the world, even in unlikely-seeming places like Korea. Some surreal moments, like when we were haggling with the Amazonas cattle-farming bloc of MPs in the Brazilian Parliament. In general, being a grey-haired former MP has been a big plus in opening Ministerial doors, as I'm obviously not a loony hippie out to give them grief, and in the smaller countries they've often seemed intrigued at the interest.Tabman said:
Mr Palmer how have you been occupying yourself since 2010?
It's much easier to get change in developing countries, as often they don't have much animal welfare legislation to start with, so are more open to ideas than our own dear Home Office, whose standard reaction is "Why should we do anything to change our current excellent regulations?"
0 -
You mean instead of Auchentennach Castle????JackW said:
England should be ruled by the Grand Duchy of Rutland with parliament sitting at Oakham Castle.GeoffH said:If England is to have regional parliaments, then they should be aligned with the ancient kingdoms of Mercia, Wessex, Northumbria etc.
0 -
More homes are being built. I live in a new build (on what was brownfield land) that we bought from the developer when our whole part of the estate was just mud and grass and we had to use our imagination as to what it would look like. We were the first to move into our street and it took years until every house (there are many hundreds in our new estate) was built and sold in the estate. The developers covered the estate until they finished with adverts for Help To Buy - in other areas it may stoke prices but where developers can build it doesn't just stoke prices it helped give people the confidence to build and the confidence to buy.Casino_Royale said:
Without more homes, I'm afraid it just stokes prices. We have too many people chasing too few homes.Philip_Thompson said:
Until someone is willing to tackle what has become a British Third Rail of planning permission and the green belt it's always going to be tinkering at the edges.Casino_Royale said:
I think it's terrible. I have a lot of sympathy with the under 30s trying to get on now.Sean_F said:
The decline in home ownership is really disturbing.MaxPB said:
Without taking a massive risk like I did it is basically impossible if you live in London. The bank lent us 5.5x our gross joint income and we came in with just 10% on the deposit. Under today' rules there is no way we would have qualified for the mortgage, and I'm thankful we did having seen how insane property prices have become since 2013.AndyJS said:
I'm slightly older than that age range but I feel exactly the same. No chance of owning a home in the foreseable future.SouthamObserver said:My eldest boy is voting Green. He was very adamant about it last night. He said none of the major parties are telling the truth, so why bother with them? He doesn't expect anything from the Greens, but likes the fact that they are interested in saving the planet - whatever that means. He fully expects never to be able to buy his own home or to enjoy the lifestyle and opportunities his Mum and Dad have enjoyed. He is probably right about that - until we snuff it. My guess is that his views are to a greater or lesser extent shared by many under-30s.
What on earth do they do? This is a real long-term problem for the Tories.
I do think the Help To Buy ISA is a great innovation though. My wife and I bought our first home last Parliament, hardest thing as a then-20something was saving for the deposit. Helping people get into the habit of saving is a step on the right direction.
Realistically the biggest problem stopping developers from building is land and the requirement to build on brownfield.0 -
Racking up votes in no hope seats. This is the success of anti politics. Like an anti-lib dem strategy.manfrom said:
Agree. I know it's unscientific, but here in a VERY safe NE urban seat, hearing a lot of support for UKIP. From the weirdest quarters too - a primary school head whose school has 65% EAL kids, a police officer, Iranian man who runs cafe. This of course is very unlikely to convert to seats, but I think UKIP will do very well in constituencies where people "know" that labour will win anyway.AndyJS said:My guess is UKIP are going to be squeezed very hard in the marginals. But in the safe seats they could still put in some unexpectedly good showings, especially safe Labour seats in places like Yorkshire and the North East.
I am sure that th lib dems would go down to 5% in the polls if that translate into a winning number of votes in 30 seats.0 -
I wouldn't be betting on Reading. Huge drops in those registered to vote....Pulpstar said:
I've got punts on both the reading seats, Reading East at 16-1 in the Ladbrokes "Labour seat bomb" market (Where I've backed Bristol West at 16-1 further down the list) and a bit of cash on Reading West.AndyJS said:
Harrow East, Enfield Southgate, Ilford North, Finchley & Golders Green are the best examples of seats Labour could win with a much bigger than average swing. I can't think of many outside London though.Nemtynakht said:
I think both are fair shouts from whAt I understand. In Halifax I think there was a central office late appointment for th Labour PPC.AndyJS said:Don't know whether this has been discussed already, but I was just thinking that it may be the case that because Labour aren't going to win an overall majority some of their voters are going to be a bit disillusioned and won't bother voting in the same numbers as they would have done had they thought they had a chance of doing so, which most of them probably did believe just a few months ago (no matter how unlikely it was even then).
That might create an opening for the Tories to make one or two gains in places like Southampton Itchen, Halifax, etc. Unlikely but not as unlikely as it used to be, maybe.
In South Itchen the Labour candidate is a privately educated oxford ppe graduate and the Tory is a local councillor with a forces background who is a local hero after foiling a shooting in 2011.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-13022096
It's just as likely Labour will win some surprise seats as well. Despite the SNP strengths in Scotland Labour are bound to win a few as the swing against will not be uniform.0 -
But the Labour turnout in 2010 was actually better than expected. For example in Hackney North it was only 2% lower than the national average. In 1992 it was 15% lower. That was true for quite a number of safe Labour seats IIRC.OblitusSumMe said:
There are always lots of reasons for a poor Labour turnout, and we always see lower turnout in Labour seats than Tory ones - but will the Labour turnout be worse this time than in 2010?AndyJS said:Don't know whether this has been discussed already, but I was just thinking that it may be the case that because Labour aren't going to win an overall majority some of their voters are going to be a bit disillusioned and won't bother voting in the same numbers as they would have done had they thought they had a chance of doing so, which most of them probably did believe just a few months ago (no matter how unlikely it was even then).
That might create an opening for the Tories to make one or two gains in places like Southampton Itchen, Halifax, etc. Unlikely but not as unlikely as it used to be, maybe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hackney_North_and_Stoke_Newington_(UK_Parliament_constituency)0 -
Vote Nigel - get Ed!Sunil_Prasannan said:
"Only the Tories can stop Labour gaining Ilford North!"AndyJS said:
Harrow East, Enfield Southgate, Ilford North, Finchley & Golders Green are the best examples of seats Labour could win with a much bigger than average swing. I can't think of many outside London though.Nemtynakht said:
I think both are fair shouts from whAt I understand. In Halifax I think there was a central office late appointment for th Labour PPC.AndyJS said:Don't know whether this has been discussed already, but I was just thinking that it may be the case that because Labour aren't going to win an overall majority some of their voters are going to be a bit disillusioned and won't bother voting in the same numbers as they would have done had they thought they had a chance of doing so, which most of them probably did believe just a few months ago (no matter how unlikely it was even then).
That might create an opening for the Tories to make one or two gains in places like Southampton Itchen, Halifax, etc. Unlikely but not as unlikely as it used to be, maybe.
In South Itchen the Labour candidate is a privately educated oxford ppe graduate and the Tory is a local councillor with a forces background who is a local hero after foiling a shooting in 2011.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-13022096
It's just as likely Labour will win some surprise seats as well. Despite the SNP strengths in Scotland Labour are bound to win a few as the swing against will not be uniform.
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/5880255674270433300 -
I met the brother-in-law of the Lab candidate in F&GG last weekend, old friend from uni. He said she thinks she will lose narrowly.AndyJS said:
Harrow East, Enfield Southgate, Ilford North, Finchley & Golders Green are the best examples of seats Labour could win with a much bigger than average swing. I can't think of many outside London though.Nemtynakht said:
I think both are fair shouts from whAt I understand. In Halifax I think there was a central office late appointment for th Labour PPC.AndyJS said:Don't know whether this has been discussed already, but I was just thinking that it may be the case that because Labour aren't going to win an overall majority some of their voters are going to be a bit disillusioned and won't bother voting in the same numbers as they would have done had they thought they had a chance of doing so, which most of them probably did believe just a few months ago (no matter how unlikely it was even then).
That might create an opening for the Tories to make one or two gains in places like Southampton Itchen, Halifax, etc. Unlikely but not as unlikely as it used to be, maybe.
In South Itchen the Labour candidate is a privately educated oxford ppe graduate and the Tory is a local councillor with a forces background who is a local hero after foiling a shooting in 2011.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-13022096
It's just as likely Labour will win some surprise seats as well. Despite the SNP strengths in Scotland Labour are bound to win a few as the swing against will not be uniform.
He also said she didn't campaign on Saturdays as she would inevitably encounter some Orthodox jews and "writing things down would break the sabbath". I was sure I had misheard but a quick google the next day told me that my school RE lessons were woefully inadequate. Extraordinary...but all space-wizard based belief systems are nonsense to me so will refrain from further comment!0 -
I suppose the interesting thing will be if there are former very safe LAB seats that become LAB/UKIP marginals next time round; especially if there is another election this year.Nemtynakht said:
Racking up votes in no hope seats. This is the success of anti politics. Like an anti-lib dem strategy.manfrom said:
Agree. I know it's unscientific, but here in a VERY safe NE urban seat, hearing a lot of support for UKIP. From the weirdest quarters too - a primary school head whose school has 65% EAL kids, a police officer, Iranian man who runs cafe. This of course is very unlikely to convert to seats, but I think UKIP will do very well in constituencies where people "know" that labour will win anyway.AndyJS said:My guess is UKIP are going to be squeezed very hard in the marginals. But in the safe seats they could still put in some unexpectedly good showings, especially safe Labour seats in places like Yorkshire and the North East.
I am sure that th lib dems would go down to 5% in the polls if that translate into a winning number of votes in 30 seats.0 -
What if he's going for a minority government instead of a coalition? The Queen's Speech isn't scheduled until May 27th, it could be three weeks until anyone even gets to vote on it...Sandpit said:
Agreed, it will get very complicated very quickly.Slackbladder said:
This can get very complicated very quickly....Sandpit said:
.Slackbladder said:
Cameron could call Milibands bluff, resign, then he would be forced to make it work..SeanT said:
In that situation, I wonder if Miliband's party would allow him to form a government, given its clear suicidality for Labour.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Sandpit, could be atrocious.
Imagine it: opposition leader loses seats, gets wiped out in Scotland, is a clear second in England, and contrives to become PM by allying with a party committed to the destruction of the UK.
I guess Miliband would also try screwing the English with crappy little regional assemblies as well, to spike the guns of English devolution by buggering it up horrendously.
So Ed's personal ambitions might be in opposition to Labour's wider interests.
In fact that would be a smart move by the tories, and I expect Cameron wouldn't want to hang around in that situation.
Being in government at the moment does give you some advantages.
The only way i can see Cameron staying it is if we have a second election, and the either labour or tory majority might be possible.
But, that can only happen if Cameron resigns as PM, but remains leader of the tories, but i think thats unlikely.
If Ed gets a chance to be PM, he'll HAVE to try to make it work, and I can't see how labour could remove him.
If the Queen calls you to be PM, you have to follow it through.
If Dave can't get a coalition together by - let's be generous - Saturday afternoon, he'll be making his appointment to see HM first thing Monday morning. This is exactly what Brown did on Tuesday last time.
This will serve the twin purposes of dropping Ed in it from a massive height and allowing his own party to regroup around a new leader, because there WILL be a second election a few months down the line.0 -
Those examples do not surprise me at all. I've met a lot of teachers while canvassing who are very sympathetic to immigration arguments. They know the difficulty having a majority EAL class causes. They usually vote Labour for other reasons, but the immigration message is more effective with them than it is for professional business types. It's the same case with people working in local government. They know full well that areas with high immigration are under more strain because they have to deal with the issues directly. Right now they're voting Labour because of the austerity issue, but as that fades into the background after 2020 I worry a lot will be having a look at UKIP. UKIP are also catering to them on the austerity issue by promising a "middle way" and messaging on refocusing international aid/EU contributions towards alleviating austerity.manfrom said:
Agree. I know it's unscientific, but here in a VERY safe NE urban seat, hearing a lot of support for UKIP. From the weirdest quarters too - a primary school head whose school has 65% EAL kids, a police officer, Iranian man who runs cafe. This of course is very unlikely to convert to seats, but I think UKIP will do very well in constituencies where people "know" that labour will win anyway.AndyJS said:My guess is UKIP are going to be squeezed very hard in the marginals. But in the safe seats they could still put in some unexpectedly good showings, especially safe Labour seats in places like Yorkshire and the North East.
0 -
Agreed, but I would also devolve a lot to the Counties, for example business taxes and rates, with Country raised taxes being much more closely related to County spending. Counties need to be able to compete with each other to be attractive to business, especially new and small businesses, in a way that doesn't happen now.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Sandpit, an English Parliament is essential. If there's further devolution to counties, fine, but an English Parliament must come first otherwise England cannot have equality with Scotland.
0 -
I see Nick Clegg's constituency just falls inside Mercia. But in GE877 would it be a LD hold or a Viking gain?Sunil_Prasannan said:
The Heptarchy!GeoffH said:If England is to have regional parliaments, then they should be aligned with the ancient kingdoms of Mercia, Wessex, Northumbria etc.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/Anglo-Saxon_Heptarchy.jpg0 -
English and Scottish borders have historically been one region.Gallowgate said:No desire for an English parliament here in Newcastle from me. We have more in common with Edinburgh than we do London.
0 -
I am - but as I'm exclusively in Vauxhall I'm not sure how useful it is... I can tell you that Kate Hoey is more popular than the local Labour council (shock horror), and that people appear interested in what I am saying standing as a Pirate candidate. Don't really see how that helps anyone's betting though...MarqueeMark said:Can I ask - who on here is actually going out canvassing and meeting a wide swathe of the voters? There seem to be a lot of folks here who are happy to bet solely on what the polls are saying.....
0 -
Miliband, understandably, will do all he can to become PM next Friday - regardless of the consequences.Sandpit said:
Agreed, it will get very complicated very quickly.Slackbladder said:
This can get very complicated very quickly....Sandpit said:
.Slackbladder said:
Cameron could call Milibands bluff, resign, then he would be forced to make it work..SeanT said:
In that situation, I wonder if Miliband's party would allow him to form a government, given its clear suicidality for Labour.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Sandpit, could be atrocious.
Imagine it: opposition leader loses seats, gets wiped out in Scotland, is a clear second in England, and contrives to become PM by allying with a party committed to the destruction of the UK.
I guess Miliband would also try screwing the English with crappy little regional assemblies as well, to spike the guns of English devolution by buggering it up horrendously.
So Ed's personal ambitions might be in opposition to Labour's wider interests.
In fact that would be a smart move by the tories, and I expect Cameron wouldn't want to hang around in that situation.
Being in government at the moment does give you some advantages.
The only way i can see Cameron staying it is if we have a second election, and the either labour or tory majority might be possible.
But, that can only happen if Cameron resigns as PM, but remains leader of the tories, but i think thats unlikely.
If Ed gets a chance to be PM, he'll HAVE to try to make it work, and I can't see how labour could remove him.
If the Queen calls you to be PM, you have to follow it through.
If Dave can't get a coalition together by - let's be generous - Saturday afternoon, he'll be making his appointment to see HM first thing Monday morning. This is exactly what Brown did on Tuesday last time.
This will serve the twin purposes of dropping Ed in it from a massive height and allowing his own party to regroup around a new leader, because there WILL be a second election a few months down the line.
Even if the maths isn't with him, he has to give it all he can to forge a government. If he can get in front of the Queen and put forward a plausible government, he will have fulfilled his dream of becoming PM. It's the only chance he'll ever get and he is clearly confident enough in his own abilities to believe he can be a successful PM in a minority govt.
Next Friday morning he will be like Dr Elsa Schneider in the Last Crusade. He'll know that reaching out for the Holy Grail could bring the walls crashing down but the temptation will be too much to bear.
0 -
£20 @ 11-4 West; £10 @ 16-1 East - bet loses if Kettering goes red.MarqueeMark said:
I wouldn't be betting on Reading. Huge drops in those registered to vote....Pulpstar said:
I've got punts on both the reading seats, Reading East at 16-1 in the Ladbrokes "Labour seat bomb" market (Where I've backed Bristol West at 16-1 further down the list) and a bit of cash on Reading West.AndyJS said:
Harrow East, Enfield Southgate, Ilford North, Finchley & Golders Green are the best examples of seats Labour could win with a much bigger than average swing. I can't think of many outside London though.Nemtynakht said:
I think both are fair shouts from whAt I understand. In Halifax I think there was a central office late appointment for th Labour PPC.AndyJS said:Don't know whether this has been discussed already, but I was just thinking that it may be the case that because Labour aren't going to win an overall majority some of their voters are going to be a bit disillusioned and won't bother voting in the same numbers as they would have done had they thought they had a chance of doing so, which most of them probably did believe just a few months ago (no matter how unlikely it was even then).
That might create an opening for the Tories to make one or two gains in places like Southampton Itchen, Halifax, etc. Unlikely but not as unlikely as it used to be, maybe.
In South Itchen the Labour candidate is a privately educated oxford ppe graduate and the Tory is a local councillor with a forces background who is a local hero after foiling a shooting in 2011.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-13022096
It's just as likely Labour will win some surprise seats as well. Despite the SNP strengths in Scotland Labour are bound to win a few as the swing against will not be uniform.0 -
It does, but the marginal extra information from a poll from a new firm is pretty low for a variety of reasons, including sample variation and lack of calibration to election results.Pong said:
The trick is not to completely discount any poll. All of them have their uses - even the new kid on the block "BPG" or whatever - their actual % figures can be pretty much disregarded - but if they're showing a headline change between polls, that tells us *something* doesn't it?OblitusSumMe said:
Angus Reid happened.Nemtynakht said:Can anyone remember to before the last election, the mantra was to take the best figure for the Tories and the worst for Labour across the polls. Was this disproved?
0 -
Ipsos-MORI....
0 -
Isn't Hallam north of Dore, placing it just inside Northumbria?Casino_Royale said:
I see Nick Clegg's constituency just falls inside Mercia. But in GE877 would it be a LD hold or a Viking gain?Sunil_Prasannan said:
The Heptarchy!GeoffH said:If England is to have regional parliaments, then they should be aligned with the ancient kingdoms of Mercia, Wessex, Northumbria etc.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/Anglo-Saxon_Heptarchy.jpg0 -
Agreed - let's move the border down to the Tees.Gallowgate said:No desire for an English parliament here in Newcastle from me. We have more in common with Edinburgh than we do London.
0 -
Were the BBC wrong to give the turnout last time as 73.2%? I wish they'd make an effort to give accurate data.NickPalmer said:Final electorate figures for Broxtowe in case anyone is interested - 71764 (virtually unchanged), of whom 13246 are postal voters (of whom most voted last week). Last time, the winning mark was just over 20,000 - with fewer LDs but more UKIP this time, I expect it'll be somewhere similar, but perhaps a bit higher since there's really a lot of interest - turnout will probably be 55000 or so (71% last time). If we can get 75% of the promise out, we should be OK.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/election2010/results/constituency/a78.stm0 -
Where are you from?manfrom said:
Agree. I know it's unscientific, but here in a VERY safe NE urban seat, hearing a lot of support for UKIP. From the weirdest quarters too - a primary school head whose school has 65% EAL kids, a police officer, Iranian man who runs cafe. This of course is very unlikely to convert to seats, but I think UKIP will do very well in constituencies where people "know" that labour will win anyway.AndyJS said:My guess is UKIP are going to be squeezed very hard in the marginals. But in the safe seats they could still put in some unexpectedly good showings, especially safe Labour seats in places like Yorkshire and the North East.
0 -
A strong leader and whips office would have the lot of them deselected if they actually voted against the leadership in the Commons?Slackbladder said:
I would have thought so, but then if they can gather 20-30 likeminded individuals they could collectively make the call for new elections rather than a C+S arrangement.Sandpit said:
Surely the very definition of a three line whip is a vote on the first Queen's speech following a hung Parliament? Anyone not there must surely be fired by their party?edmundintokyo said:dyedwoolie said:
Yes.Nemtynakht said:Can anyone remember to before the last election, the mantra was to take the best figure for the Tories and the worst for Labour across the polls. Was this disproved?
Which specific Labour MPs do you think will be standing up and voting for a Tory Queen's Speech, or letting people say they got a Tory government because they couldn't be arsed to show up for the vote?PeterC said:
I suspect that the party will be split and it will not be able to whip its full strength against the Queen's speech. You are right: it's a political suicide vest.SeanT said:
In that situation, I wonder if Miliband's party would allow him to form a government, given its clear suicidality for Labour.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Sandpit, could be atrocious.
Imagine it: opposition leader loses seats, gets wiped out in Scotland, is a clear second in England, and contrives to become PM by allying with a party committed to the destruction of the UK.
I guess Miliband would also try screwing the English with crappy little regional assemblies as well, to spike the guns of English devolution by buggering it up horrendously.
Labour's best interest (not Ed's) would be in sitting back, and letting Cameron flail around, trying to form a minority government, which would soon fall (over the EU ref?). Meanwhile Labour get rid of their loser leader, and find someone with more charm for the swiftly ensuing 2nd election.
Result: Labour win, as the Tories fight over Europe or whatever.
So Ed's personal ambitions might be in opposition to Labour's wider interests.0 -
Mr. Fenster, I caught Last Crusade the other day as well. Cracking film.
Miliband's more like Donovan. Desperate for a sip of power, and Sturgeon's on hand to pick out his cup.0 -
At a personal level I don't really care whether I win or not as both options will be interesting. But being part of the labour movement comes first, always has.Tabman said:
It does sound interesting and challenging ... the big question being why you'd want to jack it all in for Westminster again?0 -
Ipsos MORI, actuallyRobD said:Ipsos-MORI....
0 -
As per my comments on Swindon yesterday I understand employment levels high and Tories lead within the 25 million private sector employees by 7%. Reading does not come across as somewhere that will go Labour unless there is a significant local personality or issue, or problem with Tory candidate/ strength of Labour candidate.Pulpstar said:
I've got punts on both the reading seats, Reading East at 16-1 in the Ladbrokes "Labour seat bomb" market (Where I've backed Bristol West at 16-1 further down the list) and a bit of cash on Reading West.AndyJS said:
Harrow East, Enfield Southgate, Ilford North, Finchley & Golders Green are the best examples of seats Labour could win with a much bigger than average swing. I can't think of many outside London though.Nemtynakht said:
I think both are fair shouts from whAt I understand. In Halifax I think there was a central office late appointment for th Labour PPC.AndyJS said:Don't know whether this has been discussed already, but I was just thinking that it may be the case that because Labour aren't going to win an overall majority some of their voters are going to be a bit disillusioned and won't bother voting in the same numbers as they would have done had they thought they had a chance of doing so, which most of them probably did believe just a few months ago (no matter how unlikely it was even then).
That might create an opening for the Tories to make one or two gains in places like Southampton Itchen, Halifax, etc. Unlikely but not as unlikely as it used to be, maybe.
In South Itchen the Labour candidate is a privately educated oxford ppe graduate and the Tory is a local councillor with a forces background who is a local hero after foiling a shooting in 2011.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-13022096
It's just as likely Labour will win some surprise seats as well. Despite the SNP strengths in Scotland Labour are bound to win a few as the swing against will not be uniform.
0 -
I'm doing no such thing.isam said:
You seem to be extrapolating national shares from your own take on what's happening in TorbayMarqueeMark said:Can I ask - who on here is actually going out canvassing and meeting a wide swathe of the voters? There seem to be a lot of folks here who are happy to bet solely on what the polls are saying.....
I'm asking - who on here is canvassing? Are you? Or are you too busy with your spread sheets?0
