politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How many of these ten will fail to become MPs next week?
Comments
-
Yebbut not all the "Phonesters" poll each week...TheScreamingEagles said:
Can we have an ELBOW comparing the phone pollsters vs the online ones.Sunil_Prasannan said:** CROSSOVER ALERT ** CROSSOVER ALERT **
Cons now 0.3% ahead in part-ELBOW inc. Ipsos MORI AND all the YouGovs!
This breaks down to a 0.7% Labour lead when only including YouGov
and...PB Tories will like this!...
a 1.4% CON lead in the non-YouGov polls!0 -
Yep thats a great one too, keeping my UKIP book where it is with a nice hill profile/peak at 3-4 seats thoisam said:
Coral Ukip over 2.5 at 5/6Pulpstar said:
Farage at Evens has to be the best bet out there at the momentJungleland said:I have got a little q and a in an upcoming racing post for anyone interested, just 5 questions on the election, think a few other bookies will be taking part too. My best of the election was UKIP over 100 2nd places at 2/1 with Paddies but seems they have completely taken down the market now.
0 -
You'd be shocked at the figure we found for UKIP 2nd places, a few of us got on last night but they were pretty quick suspending to be fair. I noticed the market a few weeks ago but didnt really do much research into it, i had a hunch but my far superior colleague looked into it further, i cant say much as we will be doing it for spreads but if you've back it already, well done.isam said:
Coral Ukip over 2.5 at 5/6Pulpstar said:
Farage at Evens has to be the best bet out there at the momentJungleland said:I have got a little q and a in an upcoming racing post for anyone interested, just 5 questions on the election, think a few other bookies will be taking part too. My best of the election was UKIP over 100 2nd places at 2/1 with Paddies but seems they have completely taken down the market now.
0 -
It's definitely plausible that the SNP will say that they will vote against a Tory QS, and then when Ed is asked to open negotiations, say they will abstain. The final move is probably Labour and the Tories looking at a grand coalition which you feel would ultimately fall over due to the inability to agree who PM and Chancellor would be (realistically leaders of the larger and smaller parties respectively, assuming that neither Cameron nor Miliband would be acceptable by that stage - Osborne and Balls is probably the only duo that has even a crumb of plausibility).edmundintokyo said:
Well, the SNP would vote own Cameron because supporting a Tory government would be unpopular in Scotland, then they might vote down Miliband because he wasn't offering the concessions they thought they deserved.RodCrosby said:However, Miliband only gets to that stage if Labour and the minor parties combine to vote down Cameron, and the minor parties then don't support Miliband....
Why the F would they do that?
OK, the latter isn't hugely likely as the SNP would probably want to preserve the parliamentary situation where they had a lot of theoretical leverage, but you never know, especially if abstaining was enough to block Miliband and they didn't actually have to vote against.
Assuming the grand coalition doesn't happen, it's GE v2. If it produces materially the same maths, then some kind of grand coalition/national unity government becomes inevitable. It would be seen as unacceptable for Labour and Tories to refuse to work together.
Actually, the Cameron and Blairite factions would probably quite like it.0 -
Startling findings from the TES. No shock that academics are lefties but the scale is mind-boggling:
https://twitter.com/timeshighered/status/5936982865460920320 -
Holy CowTissue_Price said:
Startling findings from the TES. No shock that academics are lefties but the scale is mind-boggling:
https://twitter.com/timeshighered/status/5936982865460920320 -
Which are the "Phonesters"?TheScreamingEagles said:
Can we have an ELBOW comparing the phone pollsters vs the online ones.Sunil_Prasannan said:** CROSSOVER ALERT ** CROSSOVER ALERT **
Cons now 0.3% ahead in part-ELBOW inc. Ipsos MORI AND all the YouGovs!
This breaks down to a 0.7% Labour lead when only including YouGov
and...PB Tories will like this!...
a 1.4% CON lead in the non-YouGov polls!
I've got down:
ICM
Ipsos MORI
Ashcroft
ComRes (Mail, was Independent)0 -
Near me UKIP 2nds I'd expect:Jungleland said:
You'd be shocked at the figure we found for UKIP 2nd places, a few of us got on last night but they were pretty quick suspending to be fair. I noticed the market a few weeks ago but didnt really do much research into it, i had a hunch but my far superior colleague looked into it further, i cant say much as we will be doing it for spreads but if you've back it already, well done.isam said:
Coral Ukip over 2.5 at 5/6Pulpstar said:
Farage at Evens has to be the best bet out there at the momentJungleland said:I have got a little q and a in an upcoming racing post for anyone interested, just 5 questions on the election, think a few other bookies will be taking part too. My best of the election was UKIP over 100 2nd places at 2/1 with Paddies but seems they have completely taken down the market now.
Sheffield Hilsborough & Brightside
Rother Valley
Rotherham
Sheffield Heeley
Others too...
0 -
Mr Kitchencabinet
Excellent post, I pretty much agree with every word.0 -
If a grand coalition took place I think it would be extremely limited in scope and probably just include a radical change to the make up and structure of the HoC, HoL, constituency boundaries, and voting method.Polruan said:
It's definitely plausible that the SNP will say that they will vote against a Tory QS, and then when Ed is asked to open negotiations, say they will abstain. The final move is probably Labour and the Tories looking at a grand coalition which you feel would ultimately fall over due to the inability to agree who PM and Chancellor would be (realistically leaders of the larger and smaller parties respectively, assuming that neither Cameron nor Miliband would be acceptable by that stage - Osborne and Balls is probably the only duo that has even a crumb of plausibility).edmundintokyo said:
Well, the SNP would vote own Cameron because supporting a Tory government would be unpopular in Scotland, then they might vote down Miliband because he wasn't offering the concessions they thought they deserved.RodCrosby said:However, Miliband only gets to that stage if Labour and the minor parties combine to vote down Cameron, and the minor parties then don't support Miliband....
Why the F would they do that?
OK, the latter isn't hugely likely as the SNP would probably want to preserve the parliamentary situation where they had a lot of theoretical leverage, but you never know, especially if abstaining was enough to block Miliband and they didn't actually have to vote against.
Assuming the grand coalition doesn't happen, it's GE v2. If it produces materially the same maths, then some kind of grand coalition/national unity government becomes inevitable. It would be seen as unacceptable for Labour and Tories to refuse to work together.
Actually, the Cameron and Blairite factions would probably quite like it.0 -
That explains a lot.Tissue_Price said:Startling findings from the TES. No shock that academics are lefties but the scale is mind-boggling:
https://twitter.com/timeshighered/status/593698286546092032
0 -
"Yes, I'd drink to that, PfP. (OSH, of course.)
As a matter of fact, I'd been getting a little worried about you recently. I thought I'd detected a slight leftish inclination in some of your betting suggestions. Whilst it is all well and good that The Two Towers do lean in a bit occasionally, one does not want them meeting in the middle.
A healthy distance is what is required, at all times.
Atb, and enjoy the election. Will you be at The Finboro? I'm afraid I can't make it."
Don't worry about me PtP, if someone else hadn't got there first, I'd have taken the name Dyedinthewoolblue on here or something similar. As regards any left-leaning inclinations to which you refer, this would only ever apply to my betting strategies, where we both know that head must rule heart at all times ..... btw let me know what you think of my latest BOTW I've just posted on here.
Sorry you can't make the GE night bun fight in the Earls Court hostelry. It's only around 2-3 miles from my home, so I might just make the effort, although sadly Mine Host, who I made it my business to interview beforehand, doesn't stock OSH. However a variety of perfectly acceptable alternative brews are on hand.
Hopefully, nearer the big day, OGH or the aforementioned Jeff Bell (aka "Stonch") will publish a list on here of those expecting to attend.
I expect you'll be travelling up to wildest Notts to commiserate celebrate with Nick "Huntley &" Palmer. Enjoy the day whatever.0 -
The problem with Harmanworld is that they don't seem to understand the difference between a regretful drunken shag and a street ambush and sexual assault.MattW said:
Agree entirely.Philip_Thompson said:
And it is no defence if the drunk man is equally or more drunk to the woman he hooks up with (or in Harmanland rapes).MattW said:
These days that is likely to be termed, or described as, "rape".Alanbrooke said:
I nag Brooke junior about going out and getting pissed at Uni and waking up with strange women whose names he can't remember - but can I get him to do it ?
A drunk woman is deemed unable to consent under Harriet Harman law.
Bloody patronising of her, of you ask me.
Rape is a serious and horrific offence that shouldn't be equated to drunken sex.
That is most of the problem in Harmanworld.
Rape rhetoric undermines the seriousness of the crime.
Try this one, for example. Both drunk, both consented, she is a victim, he is a rapist.
http://reason.com/blog/2014/06/04/occidental-expels-student-for-rape-under0 -
FT for the Tories!!!
0 -
As well as The Economist? What's going on??Scrapheap_as_was said:
FT for the Tories!!!
0 -
There was a similar finding in the USA. The suggestion was that group think is enforced in the hiring/publishing process.Tissue_Price said:Startling findings from the TES. No shock that academics are lefties but the scale is mind-boggling:
https://twitter.com/timeshighered/status/593698286546092032
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/213087/campus-bias-ridhancock0 -
Harry Cole @MrHarryCole 5m5 minutes ago
FT ouchy: Miliband "appears to be fighting his campaign in the style of France’s François Hollande in 2012."0 -
Creative arts lol.....chestnut said:
That explains a lot.Tissue_Price said:Startling findings from the TES. No shock that academics are lefties but the scale is mind-boggling:
https://twitter.com/timeshighered/status/5936982865460920320 -
In no discipline does left wing support fall below 60%.Tissue_Price said:Startling findings from the TES. No shock that academics are lefties but the scale is mind-boggling:
https://twitter.com/timeshighered/status/5936982865460920320 -
Wow..thats a big one.. they were always very pro Brown/BlairScrapheap_as_was said:FT for the Tories!!!
0 -
So over 100 at 2/1 is obviously value in your eyes?Jungleland said:
You'd be shocked at the figure we found for UKIP 2nd places, a few of us got on last night but they were pretty quick suspending to be fair. I noticed the market a few weeks ago but didnt really do much research into it, i had a hunch but my far superior colleague looked into it further, i cant say much as we will be doing it for spreads but if you've back it already, well done.isam said:
Coral Ukip over 2.5 at 5/6Pulpstar said:
Farage at Evens has to be the best bet out there at the momentJungleland said:I have got a little q and a in an upcoming racing post for anyone interested, just 5 questions on the election, think a few other bookies will be taking part too. My best of the election was UKIP over 100 2nd places at 2/1 with Paddies but seems they have completely taken down the market now.
0 -
Slackbladder said:
Wow..thats a big one.. they were always very pro Brown/BlairScrapheap_as_was said:FT for the Tories!!!
so much for the Labour line about the EU referendum threat used on them..0 -
I knew they were a buy at the figures quoted on here but never really looked into the exact pricing to be honest... Well done for getting on though.Jungleland said:
You'd be shocked at the figure we found for UKIP 2nd places, a few of us got on last night but they were pretty quick suspending to be fair. I noticed the market a few weeks ago but didnt really do much research into it, i had a hunch but my far superior colleague looked into it further, i cant say much as we will be doing it for spreads but if you've back it already, well done.isam said:
Coral Ukip over 2.5 at 5/6Pulpstar said:
Farage at Evens has to be the best bet out there at the momentJungleland said:I have got a little q and a in an upcoming racing post for anyone interested, just 5 questions on the election, think a few other bookies will be taking part too. My best of the election was UKIP over 100 2nd places at 2/1 with Paddies but seems they have completely taken down the market now.
0 -
Thanks Taffys...you might even have persuaded me to post another long e-mail...taffys said:Mr Kitchencabinet
Excellent post, I pretty much agree with every word.0 -
Yes, its quite interesting looking at the vastly different areas UKIP are appealing too.Pulpstar said:
Near me UKIP 2nds I'd expect:Jungleland said:
You'd be shocked at the figure we found for UKIP 2nd places, a few of us got on last night but they were pretty quick suspending to be fair. I noticed the market a few weeks ago but didnt really do much research into it, i had a hunch but my far superior colleague looked into it further, i cant say much as we will be doing it for spreads but if you've back it already, well done.isam said:
Coral Ukip over 2.5 at 5/6Pulpstar said:
Farage at Evens has to be the best bet out there at the momentJungleland said:I have got a little q and a in an upcoming racing post for anyone interested, just 5 questions on the election, think a few other bookies will be taking part too. My best of the election was UKIP over 100 2nd places at 2/1 with Paddies but seems they have completely taken down the market now.
Sheffield Hilsborough & Brightside
Rother Valley
Rotherham
Sheffield Heeley
Others too...0 -
Two decent endorsements from some of the only publications whose allegiance was in doubt. Be interested to see what the Indy say.Plato said:As well as The Economist? What's going on??
Scrapheap_as_was said:FT for the Tories!!!
0 -
I guess I count as being in the second group in from the left.Tissue_Price said:Startling findings from the TES. No shock that academics are lefties but the scale is mind-boggling:
https://twitter.com/timeshighered/status/5936982865460920320 -
If Cameron as is likely, has the biggest vote and seats, and can get past the Queens Speech hurdle, with a minimum change statement, once the Tories are in office, do they actually need many laws to be changed to govern effectively?
If a minister says "don't spend more than x" to his department, you can create savings.
They don't need any legislation to carry on opening free schools or to renew Trident etc.
It would be pretty manageable, a continuation of what's in place today and will work fine. The impact of policy will be a little more hidden, but as they are the minsters with the Civil Service at hand, they can deliver a lot without changing laws.0 -
At The Other Place I frequently arrived 7-10 days before term started, and left a similar time after. Basically 6 weeks a year of debauchery with no work to spoil it. Ahhhhh...Tabman said:
At Fen Poly we didn't have time to go home at weekends - 8 week terms and the worry you'd be missing out saw to that.FrancisUrquhart said:Stereotomy said:
It's not just about alcohol. This generation has to be incredibly business-minded about things like education and careers from an early age. It's partially (though by no means completely) tuition fees. Generally there just isn't any feeling you can relax, take a few years to find yourself, make the odd mistake, and still end up on a decent career path with a decent home.JEO said:
Is this a function of growing up in an age of austerity? Are the social mores of Islam spreading to non-Muslims through proximity and friendships?SeanT said:
This is absolutely true from my observation. A sober generation arises. Compared to my cohort they are saints.AndyJS said:
The problem with people aged 18-25 these days is they're too sensible. For example they hardly drink at all compared to older age-groups.SeanT said:Anecdotage
My niece's boyfriend (age 22) is a first time voter.
She asked him which way he was voting, and he said
"Well, I quite like the Conservatories"
It's also probably partly a backlash against hippyism in the parents' and grandparents' generation. There's a really strong strain of very naive, extreme libertarianism (especially among the nerdy internet types), which I think is largely motivated by a misguided notion of hardheadedness and rationality.
Also, the rise in the strange phenomenon (that I don't really know the reason for), kids going home at weekends or several times a term. Makes weekends a lot quieter on campuses.
It was much more common at the campus University I went to for my postgrad work (25 years ago), the hall I was a warden for was less busy at weekends. A lot more seemed to have pre-existing boy/girlfriends to go home for, and of course there was always the washing to do. Oxbridge students didn't have significant others from school days; they were too busy getting three As (in the days when that was a relatively difficult achievement)0 -
I think Miliband's flirting with Brand-esque politics and his rhetoric about standing up to the USA has got the establishment a bit jittery. Neither of these endorsements surprise me.Plato said:As well as The Economist? What's going on??
Scrapheap_as_was said:FT for the Tories!!!
0 -
Fair point
Harry Cole@MrHarryCole·3 mins3 minutes ago
Sun, Speccie, FT and Economist back Tories in last 24 hours. Labour barely managed the Staggers.0 -
Well that’s a turn up for the books. I thought it came from the same stable as the Guardian.Scrapheap_as_was said:FT for the Tories!!!
0 -
Scrapheap_as_was said:Fair point
Harry Cole@MrHarryCole·3 mins3 minutes ago
Sun, Speccie, FT and Economist back Tories in last 24 hours. Labour barely managed the Staggers.0 -
It does seem that the Labour lawsuit put a muzzle on the whole thing. A far cry from when Farage was in Rotherham earlier this year talking about it and getting harangued by the UAF lot. If I were them I'd have continued banging away about Rotherham, it's a big issue and it would be a shame if nothing really got done about it. Having said that it is not my reputation or money at stake!anotherDave said:
Their Rotherham candidate made a big point of it. Labour are suing her.Brom said:
Without wishing to sound like I've spent too long at the National Front Disco I'm really surprised UKIP haven't brought the Dolphin Square/Elm House/Rotherham et all grooming gangs to the fore in this election campaign. I think there might be a fair few major party voters who are uncomfortable with the idea of an establishment cover up, and though it might put Farage on dodgy legal ground there could be some traction in bringing these issues to national attention.Flightpath1 said:
Morrissey picks and chooses who is allowed to like his music. He need not worry about me.tyson said:isam said:Panic on the streets of Rotherham, Panic on the streets in Birmingham, I wonder to myself...
"Child Sexual Exploitation: We force West Midlands Police to release secret report which confirms 'significant similarities' with Rotherham scandal
Problem profile reveals truth about grooming gangs in region, including 'majority of offenders are typically Asian, of Pakistani origin'"
http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/child-sexual-exploitation-force-west-9151006
Isam- I don't think Morrissey would be too annoyed you pinching his lines. The last I read about him he is a borderline kipper.
From Irish Blood, English Heart
"I've been dreaming of a time when
the English are sick to death
of Labour, and Tories
and spit upon the name Oliver Cromwell
I can forgive Morrissey for being a kipper. "Meat is Murder" is sublime, and "How Soon is Now" fed my teenage angst.
And the Smiths are Cameron's favourite band.
I suppose it's a fine line in terms of sounding a bit conspiracy theorist nutjob and fighting the dark side.
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/election-politics/politics-and-election-news/ukip-mep-handed-high-court-papers-as-labour-sues-over-abuse-claims-1-7046534
------
Alison Pearson wrote a good piece tying Mr Miliband's 'islamophobia' law proposal to Rotherham.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11570745/The-price-that-Ed-Miliband-is-prepared-to-pay-to-win-the-Muslim-vote.html
0 -
Thought you would! Might we still win back Sean_F at the 11th hour? .... Probably not, even so one can but hope.Casino_Royale said:
I recognise that.MikeL said:Anecdote alert - friend, voted Con in 2010 - hates Cameron - spent last 2 years telling me she's definitely voting UKIP - I've tried persuading her differently - wouldn't listen to me - last saw her a few weeks ago and "100% definitely" voting UKIP.
Received a brief email from her within the last hour - she's voting Con. No mention of UKIP in her message.0 -
I would have Rotherham and Rother Valley as surprise UKIP wins: I know Labour has been working Rotherham hard but there will be a good number of people telling them they will vote Labour to their face and then will vote UKIP. What happened there is one of those events that people will just not look beyond.Jungleland said:
Yes, its quite interesting looking at the vastly different areas UKIP are appealing too.Pulpstar said:
Near me UKIP 2nds I'd expect:Jungleland said:
You'd be shocked at the figure we found for UKIP 2nd places, a few of us got on last night but they were pretty quick suspending to be fair. I noticed the market a few weeks ago but didnt really do much research into it, i had a hunch but my far superior colleague looked into it further, i cant say much as we will be doing it for spreads but if you've back it already, well done.isam said:
Coral Ukip over 2.5 at 5/6Pulpstar said:
Farage at Evens has to be the best bet out there at the momentJungleland said:I have got a little q and a in an upcoming racing post for anyone interested, just 5 questions on the election, think a few other bookies will be taking part too. My best of the election was UKIP over 100 2nd places at 2/1 with Paddies but seems they have completely taken down the market now.
Sheffield Hilsborough & Brightside
Rother Valley
Rotherham
Sheffield Heeley
Others too...0 -
That seems incredibly unlikely, given that the GC would be made up of two parties for whom FPTP continues to be relatively beneficial.Blue_rog said:
If a grand coalition took place I think it would be extremely limited in scope and probably just include a radical change to the make up and structure of the HoC, HoL, constituency boundaries, and voting method.Polruan said:
It's definitely plausible that the SNP will say that they will vote against a Tory QS, and then when Ed is asked to open negotiations, say they will abstain. The final move is probably Labour and the Tories looking at a grand coalition which you feel would ultimately fall over due to the inability to agree who PM and Chancellor would be (realistically leaders of the larger and smaller parties respectively, assuming that neither Cameron nor Miliband would be acceptable by that stage - Osborne and Balls is probably the only duo that has even a crumb of plausibility).edmundintokyo said:
Well, the SNP would vote own Cameron because supporting a Tory government would be unpopular in Scotland, then they might vote down Miliband because he wasn't offering the concessions they thought they deserved.RodCrosby said:However, Miliband only gets to that stage if Labour and the minor parties combine to vote down Cameron, and the minor parties then don't support Miliband....
Why the F would they do that?
OK, the latter isn't hugely likely as the SNP would probably want to preserve the parliamentary situation where they had a lot of theoretical leverage, but you never know, especially if abstaining was enough to block Miliband and they didn't actually have to vote against.
Assuming the grand coalition doesn't happen, it's GE v2. If it produces materially the same maths, then some kind of grand coalition/national unity government becomes inevitable. It would be seen as unacceptable for Labour and Tories to refuse to work together.
Actually, the Cameron and Blairite factions would probably quite like it.0 -
Rother Valley would be nice to come in but I think a decent second is more likely.TheKitchenCabinet said:
I would have Rotherham and Rother Valley as surprise UKIP wins: I know Labour has been working Rotherham hard but there will be a good number of people telling them they will vote Labour to their face and then will vote UKIP. What happened there is one of those events that people will just not look beyond.Jungleland said:
Yes, its quite interesting looking at the vastly different areas UKIP are appealing too.Pulpstar said:
Near me UKIP 2nds I'd expect:Jungleland said:
You'd be shocked at the figure we found for UKIP 2nd places, a few of us got on last night but they were pretty quick suspending to be fair. I noticed the market a few weeks ago but didnt really do much research into it, i had a hunch but my far superior colleague looked into it further, i cant say much as we will be doing it for spreads but if you've back it already, well done.isam said:
Coral Ukip over 2.5 at 5/6Pulpstar said:
Farage at Evens has to be the best bet out there at the momentJungleland said:I have got a little q and a in an upcoming racing post for anyone interested, just 5 questions on the election, think a few other bookies will be taking part too. My best of the election was UKIP over 100 2nd places at 2/1 with Paddies but seems they have completely taken down the market now.
Sheffield Hilsborough & Brightside
Rother Valley
Rotherham
Sheffield Heeley
Others too...
Backed UKIP at 8s here and Labour at 1-6.
In trouble if the Blues get 450 seats
0 -
The danger for the SNP is they would be seen to be mere wreckers (even in Scotland) and the outcome of the immediate second election would be highly uncertain. The Scots could return to Labour, or the English could overwhelmingly vote Tory, or both.edmundintokyo said:
Well, the SNP would vote own Cameron because supporting a Tory government would be unpopular in Scotland, then they might vote down Miliband because he wasn't offering the concessions they thought they deserved.RodCrosby said:However, Miliband only gets to that stage if Labour and the minor parties combine to vote down Cameron, and the minor parties then don't support Miliband....
Why the F would they do that?
OK, the latter isn't hugely likely as the SNP would probably want to preserve the parliamentary situation where they had a lot of theoretical leverage, but you never know, especially if abstaining was enough to block Miliband and they didn't actually have to vote against.
Far more logical would be for the SNP to install a weak Miliband, from whom they can extract their concessions at leisure...0 -
FT backed Tories in 2010.SimonStClare said:
Well that’s a turn up for the books. I thought it came from the same stable as the Guardian.Scrapheap_as_was said:FT for the Tories!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_United_Kingdom_general_election,_20100 -
Yes, this is because everyone sort of pretends that the Queen can choose whoever she wants to be Prime Minister. Thus a PM is appointed by the Sovereign and not by a vote in Parliament. If she reads PB and was impressed by your posts, you too could be appointed PM and gain all that royal prerogative power.edmundintokyo said:FTP Procedural question: Say Cameron doesn't have the votes, but Ed Miliband may be able to cobble together some unholy coalition. Am I right in assuming nobody can vote on Ed Miliband's government until Cameron resigns and suggests to the Queen that she ask him to have a go? At that point does Cameron move out of Downing Street and Miliband become PM, even though nobody knows yet whether he'll be able to pass a Queen's Speech? If so can Miliband move into Number 10 and fire off nuclear weapons at people and do other Prime Ministerish things?
However, in practice, Monarchs have learnt that appointing a PM who does not have the confidence of Parliament makes them very unpopular, very quickly, and so now they insist that the resigning PM tells them who to appoint - or (before the FTPA) to hold an election if there is no suitable candidate.
In the event that Miliband does not have a formal agreement of support from the SNP & others the situation is really messy, as he'll only be able to demonstrate that he has the votes by holding a vote in the Commons. This is different to 2010, because the Coalition Agreement between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats meant that everyone could see that Cameron had the votes. I'm not sure that an informal arrangement has the same credibility.
Therefore, I think that Cameron would be doing Her Majesty a favour if he sat tight in Number Ten if the Tories have more seats than Labour, and forces Miliband to prove that Cameron no longer has the confidence of the House by voting with the SNP against him. This also has the advantage of starting the 14-day countdown in the FTPA, forcing PM Miliband to win his own confidence motion in that time frame.
Otherwise you could have HMQ appointing Miliband as PM only for him to lose his first vote in the House if the SNP throw a strop, and with 14 days to wait before Parliament can be dissolved for another election. It wouldn't look good for Lizzie to have appointed the leader of the second-largest party and for him not to have the confidence of the House anyway.0 -
In fairness, Sean_F has already said that if he was in a Tory/Lab marginal then he would be voting Blue.peter_from_putney said:
Thought you would! Might we still win back Sean_F at the 11th hour? .... Probably not, even so one can but hope.Casino_Royale said:
I recognise that.MikeL said:Anecdote alert - friend, voted Con in 2010 - hates Cameron - spent last 2 years telling me she's definitely voting UKIP - I've tried persuading her differently - wouldn't listen to me - last saw her a few weeks ago and "100% definitely" voting UKIP.
Received a brief email from her within the last hour - she's voting Con. No mention of UKIP in her message.0 -
'It does seem that the Labour lawsuit put a muzzle on the whole thing.''
True, but the downside for labour is they have no idea how many people who say they will vote for them are telling the truth. That must be a problem for pollsters too.
0 -
Heard the SNP candidate the other day and she was very good , GMS and Labour tried to give her a hard time but she was well fit for them and came across really well, hard to believe still a student.dyedwoolie said:Who will suffer the biggest defeat?
I think it might be wee Dougie0 -
Oh do be quiet, Sweetie.Peter_the_Punter said:
Believe it or not, PfP, I'm already on that.peter_from_putney said:***** BETTING POST *****
My penultimate GE Bet of the Week seeks to achieve the near impossible, by identifying a market which might just about appeal to both Bob Sykes as well as JackW (if not quite Mike Smithson also).
I give you, ta - dah ..... drum roll, Wm. Hills' Conservative 276 - 300 seat band which they have on offer at 2.1 decimal, or 11/10 in old money. This equates to a probability of 47.6%, whereas I make it at least a 60%, shot particularly in the light of those improving polls for the Blues.
Sidney, their political guru, would only allow me to stake £45 to win £50, but those nice people at Bet365 are offering similar odds of 2.05.
DYOR.
Are you sure we're not getting too close?0 -
Yes, i know Heywood and Middleton very well-did some teacher training there and in Rochdale which has similar issues to Rotheram, i think the shy kipper theory is definitely valid in the north where the issues are really apart of your everyday life rather than in ukip seats down south.TheKitchenCabinet said:
I would have Rotherham and Rother Valley as surprise UKIP wins: I know Labour has been working Rotherham hard but there will be a good number of people telling them they will vote Labour to their face and then will vote UKIP. What happened there is one of those events that people will just not look beyond.Jungleland said:
Yes, its quite interesting looking at the vastly different areas UKIP are appealing too.Pulpstar said:
Near me UKIP 2nds I'd expect:Jungleland said:
You'd be shocked at the figure we found for UKIP 2nd places, a few of us got on last night but they were pretty quick suspending to be fair. I noticed the market a few weeks ago but didnt really do much research into it, i had a hunch but my far superior colleague looked into it further, i cant say much as we will be doing it for spreads but if you've back it already, well done.isam said:
Coral Ukip over 2.5 at 5/6Pulpstar said:
Farage at Evens has to be the best bet out there at the momentJungleland said:I have got a little q and a in an upcoming racing post for anyone interested, just 5 questions on the election, think a few other bookies will be taking part too. My best of the election was UKIP over 100 2nd places at 2/1 with Paddies but seems they have completely taken down the market now.
Sheffield Hilsborough & Brightside
Rother Valley
Rotherham
Sheffield Heeley
Others too...0 -
30% of "Engineering and Technical" staff intend to vote Green. Mind-boggling. I can understand that in the "Creative Arts", but I though Engineers had a clue.Tissue_Price said:Startling findings from the TES. No shock that academics are lefties but the scale is mind-boggling:
https://twitter.com/timeshighered/status/5936982865460920320 -
When term ended, my college opened its doors to an American summer school. They may have been dumb as bricks but my word, it cheered the place up.Anorak said:
At The Other Place I frequently arrived 7-10 days before term started, and left a similar time after. Basically 6 weeks a year of debauchery with no work to spoil it. Ahhhhh...Tabman said:
At Fen Poly we didn't have time to go home at weekends - 8 week terms and the worry you'd be missing out saw to that.FrancisUrquhart said:Stereotomy said:
It's not just about alcohol. This generation has to be incredibly business-minded about things like education and careers from an early age. It's partially (though by no means completely) tuition fees. Generally there just isn't any feeling you can relax, take a few years to find yourself, make the odd mistake, and still end up on a decent career path with a decent home.JEO said:
Is this a function of growing up in an age of austerity? Are the social mores of Islam spreading to non-Muslims through proximity and friendships?SeanT said:
This is absolutely true from my observation. A sober generation arises. Compared to my cohort they are saints.AndyJS said:
The problem with people aged 18-25 these days is they're too sensible. For example they hardly drink at all compared to older age-groups.SeanT said:Anecdotage
My niece's boyfriend (age 22) is a first time voter.
She asked him which way he was voting, and he said
"Well, I quite like the Conservatories"
It's also probably partly a backlash against hippyism in the parents' and grandparents' generation. There's a really strong strain of very naive, extreme libertarianism (especially among the nerdy internet types), which I think is largely motivated by a misguided notion of hardheadedness and rationality.
Also, the rise in the strange phenomenon (that I don't really know the reason for), kids going home at weekends or several times a term. Makes weekends a lot quieter on campuses.
It was much more common at the campus University I went to for my postgrad work (25 years ago), the hall I was a warden for was less busy at weekends. A lot more seemed to have pre-existing boy/girlfriends to go home for, and of course there was always the washing to do. Oxbridge students didn't have significant others from school days; they were too busy getting three As (in the days when that was a relatively difficult achievement)0 -
Maybe if we turned up with pitchforks...?Polruan said:
That seems incredibly unlikely, given that the GC would be made up of two parties for whom FPTP continues to be relatively beneficial.Blue_rog said:
If a grand coalition took place I think it would be extremely limited in scope and probably just include a radical change to the make up and structure of the HoC, HoL, constituency boundaries, and voting method.Polruan said:
It's definitely plausible that the SNP will say that they will vote against a Tory QS, and then when Ed is asked to open negotiations, say they will abstain. The final move is probably Labour and the Tories looking at a grand coalition which you feel would ultimately fall over due to the inability to agree who PM and Chancellor would be (realistically leaders of the larger and smaller parties respectively, assuming that neither Cameron nor Miliband would be acceptable by that stage - Osborne and Balls is probably the only duo that has even a crumb of plausibility).edmundintokyo said:
Well, the SNP would vote own Cameron because supporting a Tory government would be unpopular in Scotland, then they might vote down Miliband because he wasn't offering the concessions they thought they deserved.RodCrosby said:However, Miliband only gets to that stage if Labour and the minor parties combine to vote down Cameron, and the minor parties then don't support Miliband....
Why the F would they do that?
OK, the latter isn't hugely likely as the SNP would probably want to preserve the parliamentary situation where they had a lot of theoretical leverage, but you never know, especially if abstaining was enough to block Miliband and they didn't actually have to vote against.
Assuming the grand coalition doesn't happen, it's GE v2. If it produces materially the same maths, then some kind of grand coalition/national unity government becomes inevitable. It would be seen as unacceptable for Labour and Tories to refuse to work together.
Actually, the Cameron and Blairite factions would probably quite like it.0 -
Is this really that surprising?Sean_F said:
In no discipline does left wing support fall below 60%.Tissue_Price said:Startling findings from the TES. No shock that academics are lefties but the scale is mind-boggling:
https://twitter.com/timeshighered/status/593698286546092032
(i) don't bite the hand that feeds you
(ii) right wing types don't go into research; they go off to earn the corporate dollar
0 -
-
Both the FT and the Economist backed the Tories at the last election. So it's no huge surprise that they back the continuance of the coalition this time around, is it?0
-
Luton South looks safe for Labour. The majority was 1,800 last time, but the Conservatives have written the seat off (according to the Times) and are fighting a nominal campaign, here. If the Conservatives start pushing their lead back up to 7% or so, then I'll reconsider, but for now, I plan to vote UKIP. I'll be voting for both Conservative council candidates in my ward, however.Lennon said:
In fairness, Sean_F has already said that if he was in a Tory/Lab marginal then he would be voting Blue.peter_from_putney said:
Thought you would! Might we still win back Sean_F at the 11th hour? .... Probably not, even so one can but hope.Casino_Royale said:
I recognise that.MikeL said:Anecdote alert - friend, voted Con in 2010 - hates Cameron - spent last 2 years telling me she's definitely voting UKIP - I've tried persuading her differently - wouldn't listen to me - last saw her a few weeks ago and "100% definitely" voting UKIP.
Received a brief email from her within the last hour - she's voting Con. No mention of UKIP in her message.0 -
Anecdotal - Not a single General Election poster up for Labour or UKIP in my VERY strong Labour/UKIP 2nd ward in NE Derbyshire. Driving through Rother Valley not a peep either.Jungleland said:
Yes, i know Heywood and Middleton very well-did some teacher training there and in Rochdale which has similar issues to Rotheram, i think the shy kipper theory is definitely valid in the north where the issues are really apart of your everyday life rather than in ukip seats down south.TheKitchenCabinet said:
I would have Rotherham and Rother Valley as surprise UKIP wins: I know Labour has been working Rotherham hard but there will be a good number of people telling them they will vote Labour to their face and then will vote UKIP. What happened there is one of those events that people will just not look beyond.Jungleland said:
Yes, its quite interesting looking at the vastly different areas UKIP are appealing too.Pulpstar said:
Near me UKIP 2nds I'd expect:Jungleland said:
You'd be shocked at the figure we found for UKIP 2nd places, a few of us got on last night but they were pretty quick suspending to be fair. I noticed the market a few weeks ago but didnt really do much research into it, i had a hunch but my far superior colleague looked into it further, i cant say much as we will be doing it for spreads but if you've back it already, well done.isam said:
Coral Ukip over 2.5 at 5/6Pulpstar said:
Farage at Evens has to be the best bet out there at the momentJungleland said:I have got a little q and a in an upcoming racing post for anyone interested, just 5 questions on the election, think a few other bookies will be taking part too. My best of the election was UKIP over 100 2nd places at 2/1 with Paddies but seems they have completely taken down the market now.
Sheffield Hilsborough & Brightside
Rother Valley
Rotherham
Sheffield Heeley
Others too...0 -
Works about as well as 2m marching against a war, probably.logical_song said:
Maybe if we turned up with pitchforks...?Polruan said:
That seems incredibly unlikely, given that the GC would be made up of two parties for whom FPTP continues to be relatively beneficial.Blue_rog said:
If a grand coalition took place I think it would be extremely limited in scope and probably just include a radical change to the make up and structure of the HoC, HoL, constituency boundaries, and voting method.Polruan said:
It's definitely plausible that the SNP will say that they will vote against a Tory QS, and then when Ed is asked to open negotiations, say they will abstain. The final move is probably Labour and the Tories looking at a grand coalition which you feel would ultimately fall over due to the inability to agree who PM and Chancellor would be (realistically leaders of the larger and smaller parties respectively, assuming that neither Cameron nor Miliband would be acceptable by that stage - Osborne and Balls is probably the only duo that has even a crumb of plausibility).edmundintokyo said:
Well, the SNP would vote own Cameron because supporting a Tory government would be unpopular in Scotland, then they might vote down Miliband because he wasn't offering the concessions they thought they deserved.RodCrosby said:However, Miliband only gets to that stage if Labour and the minor parties combine to vote down Cameron, and the minor parties then don't support Miliband....
Why the F would they do that?
OK, the latter isn't hugely likely as the SNP would probably want to preserve the parliamentary situation where they had a lot of theoretical leverage, but you never know, especially if abstaining was enough to block Miliband and they didn't actually have to vote against.
Assuming the grand coalition doesn't happen, it's GE v2. If it produces materially the same maths, then some kind of grand coalition/national unity government becomes inevitable. It would be seen as unacceptable for Labour and Tories to refuse to work together.
Actually, the Cameron and Blairite factions would probably quite like it.0 -
Yeah but in 2010 not even the Guardian (FFS!) backed Labour. They were that bad.logical_song said:
FT backed Tories in 2010.SimonStClare said:
Well that’s a turn up for the books. I thought it came from the same stable as the Guardian.Scrapheap_as_was said:FT for the Tories!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_United_Kingdom_general_election,_20100 -
Exactly, I think that Lizzie would have to ask Cameron to remain as PM (in a quiet way) until Miliband could make some kind of assurance that he could surivie at least one vote as PM.OblitusSumMe said:
Yes, this is because everyone sort of pretends that the Queen can choose whoever she wants to be Prime Minister. Thus a PM is appointed by the Sovereign and not by a vote in Parliament. If she reads PB and was impressed by your posts, you too could be appointed PM and gain all that royal prerogative power.edmundintokyo said:FTP Procedural question: Say Cameron doesn't have the votes, but Ed Miliband may be able to cobble together some unholy coalition. Am I right in assuming nobody can vote on Ed Miliband's government until Cameron resigns and suggests to the Queen that she ask him to have a go? At that point does Cameron move out of Downing Street and Miliband become PM, even though nobody knows yet whether he'll be able to pass a Queen's Speech? If so can Miliband move into Number 10 and fire off nuclear weapons at people and do other Prime Ministerish things?
However, in practice, Monarchs have learnt that appointing a PM who does not have the confidence of Parliament makes them very unpopular, very quickly, and so now they insist that the resigning PM tells them who to appoint - or (before the FTPA) to hold an election if there is no suitable candidate.
In the event that Miliband does not have a formal agreement of support from the SNP & others the situation is really messy, as he'll only be able to demonstrate that he has the votes by holding a vote in the Commons. This is different to 2010, because the Coalition Agreement between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats meant that everyone could see that Cameron had the votes. I'm not sure that an informal arrangement has the same credibility.
Therefore, I think that Cameron would be doing Her Majesty a favour if he sat tight in Number Ten if the Tories have more seats than Labour, and forces Miliband to prove that Cameron no longer has the confidence of the House by voting with the SNP against him. This also has the advantage of starting the 14-day countdown in the FTPA, forcing PM Miliband to win his own confidence motion in that time frame.
Otherwise you could have HMQ appointing Miliband as PM only for him to lose his first vote in the House if the SNP throw a strop, and with 14 days to wait before Parliament can be dissolved for another election. It wouldn't look good for Lizzie to have appointed the leader of the second-largest party and for him not to have the confidence of the House anyway.
Otherwise it would very silly, and very damaging to our constitution that Miliband was asked to be PM without actually being able to be PM.
all very quietly and behind closed doors of course.0 -
Is it really that surprising that the Tories have been endorsed by FT, The Economist, The Sun, and the Spectator? 3 out 4 of those are fairly centre-right publications anyway, particularly the Spectator, and the FT endorsed the Tories in 2010, too I think. Only the Guardian, the New Statesmen, and Mirrow (maybe the Indy and the I) will endorse Labour. I don't think newspaper endorsements matter much these in terms of influencing the public, like they once did.0
-
I'd like to think so, but it's hard to look beyond the tribalism of voters. Families that have voted Labour for generations. The SNP situation and Heywood by election gives me some optimism but I expect them to fall a few thousand short in both Heywood and Rotherham.Jungleland said:
Yes, i know Heywood and Middleton very well-did some teacher training there and in Rochdale which has similar issues to Rotheram, i think the shy kipper theory is definitely valid in the north where the issues are really apart of your everyday life rather than in ukip seats down south.TheKitchenCabinet said:
I would have Rotherham and Rother Valley as surprise UKIP wins: I know Labour has been working Rotherham hard but there will be a good number of people telling them they will vote Labour to their face and then will vote UKIP. What happened there is one of those events that people will just not look beyond.Jungleland said:
Yes, its quite interesting looking at the vastly different areas UKIP are appealing too.Pulpstar said:
Near me UKIP 2nds I'd expect:Jungleland said:
You'd be shocked at the figure we found for UKIP 2nd places, a few of us got on last night but they were pretty quick suspending to be fair. I noticed the market a few weeks ago but didnt really do much research into it, i had a hunch but my far superior colleague looked into it further, i cant say much as we will be doing it for spreads but if you've back it already, well done.isam said:
Coral Ukip over 2.5 at 5/6Pulpstar said:
Farage at Evens has to be the best bet out there at the momentJungleland said:I have got a little q and a in an upcoming racing post for anyone interested, just 5 questions on the election, think a few other bookies will be taking part too. My best of the election was UKIP over 100 2nd places at 2/1 with Paddies but seems they have completely taken down the market now.
Sheffield Hilsborough & Brightside
Rother Valley
Rotherham
Sheffield Heeley
Others too...
0 -
We had the same gig ... ah, the joys of Kings Bar out of Term.Anorak said:
At The Other Place I frequently arrived 7-10 days before term started, and left a similar time after. Basically 6 weeks a year of debauchery with no work to spoil it. Ahhhhh...Tabman said:
At Fen Poly we didn't have time to go home at weekends - 8 week terms and the worry you'd be missing out saw to that.FrancisUrquhart said:Stereotomy said:
It's not just about alcohol. This generation has to be incredibly business-minded about things like education and careers from an early age. It's partially (though by no means completely) tuition fees. Generally there just isn't any feeling you can relax, take a few years to find yourself, make the odd mistake, and still end up on a decent career path with a decent home.JEO said:
Is this a function of growing up in an age of austerity? Are the social mores of Islam spreading to non-Muslims through proximity and friendships?SeanT said:
This is absolutely true from my observation. A sober generation arises. Compared to my cohort they are saints.AndyJS said:
The problem with people aged 18-25 these days is they're too sensible. For example they hardly drink at all compared to older age-groups.SeanT said:Anecdotage
My niece's boyfriend (age 22) is a first time voter.
She asked him which way he was voting, and he said
"Well, I quite like the Conservatories"
It's also probably partly a backlash against hippyism in the parents' and grandparents' generation. There's a really strong strain of very naive, extreme libertarianism (especially among the nerdy internet types), which I think is largely motivated by a misguided notion of hardheadedness and rationality.
Also, the rise in the strange phenomenon (that I don't really know the reason for), kids going home at weekends or several times a term. Makes weekends a lot quieter on campuses.
It was much more common at the campus University I went to for my postgrad work (25 years ago), the hall I was a warden for was less busy at weekends. A lot more seemed to have pre-existing boy/girlfriends to go home for, and of course there was always the washing to do. Oxbridge students didn't have significant others from school days; they were too busy getting three As (in the days when that was a relatively difficult achievement)
Although I did rather pity you DBS in the way your Easter Term had exams intruding on things. Ours ran as follows;
Exams until the middle Tuesday in June
May Bumps Wednesday to Saturday (obligatory BCD)
Suicide Sunday
May Week0 -
the FT is the main one. It was very pro- New labour, and very pro-europe..The_Apocalypse said:Is it really that surprising that the Tories have been endorsed by FT, The Economist, The Sun, and the Spectator? 3 out 4 of those are fairly centre-right publications anyway, particularly the Spectator, and the FT endorsed the Tories in 2010, too I think. Only the Guardian, the New Statesmen, and Mirrow (maybe the Indy and the I) will endorse Labour. I don't think newspaper endorsements matter much these in terms of influencing the public, like they once did.
0 -
I really can't see the economist's support as a surprise, considering their general coverage of british politics over this parliament.0
-
Worth a go at the band, he can always go back to banking and money is not everything. Better to go and enjoy himself rather than regret it.Schards said:
Could I ask some advice from the PB masses?SeanT said:
This is absolutely true from my observation. A sober generation arises. Compared to my cohort they are saints.AndyJS said:
The problem with people aged 18-25 these days is they're too sensible. For example they hardly drink at all compared to older age-groups.SeanT said:Anecdotage
My niece's boyfriend (age 22) is a first time voter.
She asked him which way he was voting, and he said
"Well, I quite like the Conservatories"
My eldest son is 23 and left Uni a year ago, he's got a one year contract with an investment bank and they've offered to make it permanent. He's told me he's turning it down as the band he joined at uni are doing well, have been signed up with an agency and are getting so many gigs/tours he will be unlikely to hold the full time job much longer. If he takes full time he has to give 3 months notice.
His band are good and there is definitely a buzz about them but how many pop musicians make a full time career? 1/1000?
My gut feeling is I can't deny him following his dream but am worried he won't thank me later if it all peters out.
So what would you do and what would you advise?
If mods feel this isn't appropriate for this site, feel free to delete but the only other site I post regularly on (Reading FC) he does too.0 -
That survey of academics et al, wonder if it covered attitudes to profits from spin offs from University 'research'.0
-
''Anecdotal - Not a single General Election poster up for Labour or UKIP in my VERY strong Labour/UKIP 2nd ward in NE Derbyshire. Driving through Rother Valley not a peep either. ''
I have my own reasons for why that may be. But like the voters of the region, I'll keep them to myself.0 -
I'm unfamiliar with Suicide Sunday. Sounds like a blastTabman said:
We had the same gig ... ah, the joys of Kings Bar out of Term.Anorak said:
At The Other Place I frequently arrived 7-10 days before term started, and left a similar time after. Basically 6 weeks a year of debauchery with no work to spoil it. Ahhhhh...Tabman said:
It was much more common at the campus University I went to for my postgrad work (25 years ago), the hall I was a warden for was less busy at weekends. A lot more seemed to have pre-existing boy/girlfriends to go home for, and of course there was always the washing to do. Oxbridge students didn't have significant others from school days; they were too busy getting three As (in the days when that was a relatively difficult achievement)FrancisUrquhart said:Stereotomy said:JEO said:
Is this a function of growing up in an age of austerity? Are the social mores of Islam spreading to non-Muslims through proximity and friendships?SeanT said:
This is absolutely true from my observation. A sober generation arises. Compared to my cohort they are saints.AndyJS said:
The problem with people aged 18-25 these days is they're too sensible. For example they hardly drink at all compared to older age-groups.SeanT said:Anecdotage
My niece's boyfriend (age 22) is a first time voter.
She asked him which way he was voting, and he said
"Well, I quite like the Conservatories"
It's also probably partly a backlash against hippyism in the parents' and grandparents' generation. There's a really strong strain of very naive, extreme libertarianism (especially among the nerdy internet types), which I think is largely motivated by a misguided notion of hardheadedness and rationality.
Also, the rise in the strange phenomenon (that I don't really know the reason for), kids going home at weekends or several times a term. Makes weekends a lot quieter on campuses.
Although I did rather pity you DBS in the way your Easter Term had exams intruding on things. Ours ran as follows;
Exams until the middle Tuesday in June
May Bumps Wednesday to Saturday (obligatory BCD)
Suicide Sunday
May Week
0 -
We'll see on polling day what the truth is !taffys said:''Anecdotal - Not a single General Election poster up for Labour or UKIP in my VERY strong Labour/UKIP 2nd ward in NE Derbyshire. Driving through Rother Valley not a peep either. ''
I have my own reasons for why that may be. But like the voters of the region, I'll keep them to myself.
Remember UKIP got massively understated in H&M by Ashcroft. So I certainly wouldn't go putting the house on a naked Rother Valley Labour bet.0 -
What a pompous to%%er you are. Your pathetic attempt is not risk it ii just a guaranteed donation whilst you feel all smug and keep your own money in your pocket. How about the same bet but I take SNP to get at least 45 , anything above that you donate. Let us see how smug you are on that.franklyn said:
Most amusing...none of you cybernats are willing to back up all your shouting by risking your own money! You only want to spend money if it's someone else's, I presumefranklyn said:Do people on this site really believe that the SNP will produce a clean sweep in the 59 Scottish seats? would anyone like to have a charity bet (i.e they believe they will, I believe they won't). Loser to pay £50 to the charity of the winner's choice. Must be a UK wide charity (not a Scottish only or English only one) and not a religious charity.
First person to accept publicly on PB is on (one bet only). My nominated charity (should I win) is the Cure Parkinsons Trust, which supports research done into Parkinsons disease. Anyone who wants to support the charity but not take the bet can go onto www.justgiving.com/Anna-Monk1
Please accept this post in the sporting spirit in which it was intended, even if you have disagreed with previous posts that I have made, and please consider a donation to this worthy charity even if you don't want to bet.0 -
Given Cameron's ideology is not far off Blairism, I'm not too surprised by that. But I don't really see the FT's endorsement as surprise, or that significant tbh - they were never going to support Miliband.Slackbladder said:
the FT is the main one. It was very pro- New labour, and very pro-europe..The_Apocalypse said:Is it really that surprising that the Tories have been endorsed by FT, The Economist, The Sun, and the Spectator? 3 out 4 of those are fairly centre-right publications anyway, particularly the Spectator, and the FT endorsed the Tories in 2010, too I think. Only the Guardian, the New Statesmen, and The Mirror (maybe the Indy and the I) will endorse Labour. I don't think newspaper endorsements matter much these in terms of influencing the public, like they once did.
0 -
"If you can remember it, you weren't thereAnorak said:
I'm unfamiliar with Suicide Sunday. Sounds like a blastTabman said:
We had the same gig ... ah, the joys of Kings Bar out of Term.Anorak said:
At The Other Place I frequently arrived 7-10 days before term started, and left a similar time after. Basically 6 weeks a year of debauchery with no work to spoil it. Ahhhhh...Tabman said:
It was much more common at the campus University I went to for my postgrad work (25 years ago), the hall I was a warden for was less busy at weekends. A lot more seemed to have pre-existing boy/girlfriends to go home for, and of course there was always the washing to do. Oxbridge students didn't have significant others from school days; they were too busy getting three As (in the days when that was a relatively difficult achievement)FrancisUrquhart said:Stereotomy said:JEO said:
Is this a function of growing up in an age of austerity? Are the social mores of Islam spreading to non-Muslims through proximity and friendships?SeanT said:
This is absolutely true from my observation. A sober generation arises. Compared to my cohort they are saints.AndyJS said:
The problem with people aged 18-25 these days is they're too sensible. For example they hardly drink at all compared to older age-groups.SeanT said:Anecdotage
My niece's boyfriend (age 22) is a first time voter.
She asked him which way he was voting, and he said
"Well, I quite like the Conservatories"
It's also probably partly a backlash against hippyism in the parents' and grandparents' generation. There's a really strong strain of very naive, extreme libertarianism (especially among the nerdy internet types), which I think is largely motivated by a misguided notion of hardheadedness and rationality.
Also, the rise in the strange phenomenon (that I don't really know the reason for), kids going home at weekends or several times a term. Makes weekends a lot quieter on campuses.
Although I did rather pity you DBS in the way your Easter Term had exams intruding on things. Ours ran as follows;
Exams until the middle Tuesday in June
May Bumps Wednesday to Saturday (obligatory BCD)
Suicide Sunday
May Week" 0 -
Don't know much about former, but it was certainly the FT's very pro EU stance over the past few years that made me question who'd they eventually end up supporting.Slackbladder said:
the FT is the main one. It was very pro- New labour, and very pro-europe..The_Apocalypse said:Is it really that surprising that the Tories have been endorsed by FT, The Economist, The Sun, and the Spectator? 3 out 4 of those are fairly centre-right publications anyway, particularly the Spectator, and the FT endorsed the Tories in 2010, too I think. Only the Guardian, the New Statesmen, and Mirrow (maybe the Indy and the I) will endorse Labour. I don't think newspaper endorsements matter much these in terms of influencing the public, like they once did.
0 -
Looks in mirror. Looks at bank balance. Sighs.Tabman said:
Is this really that surprising?Sean_F said:
In no discipline does left wing support fall below 60%.Tissue_Price said:Startling findings from the TES. No shock that academics are lefties but the scale is mind-boggling:
https://twitter.com/timeshighered/status/593698286546092032
(i) don't bite the hand that feeds you
(ii) right wing types don't go into research; they go off to earn the corporate dollar
0 -
They supported Kinnock over Major though.The_Apocalypse said:
Given Cameron's ideology is not far off Blairism, I'm not too surprised by that. But I don't really see the FT's endorsement as surprise, or that significant tbh - they were never going to support Miliband.Slackbladder said:
the FT is the main one. It was very pro- New labour, and very pro-europe..The_Apocalypse said:Is it really that surprising that the Tories have been endorsed by FT, The Economist, The Sun, and the Spectator? 3 out 4 of those are fairly centre-right publications anyway, particularly the Spectator, and the FT endorsed the Tories in 2010, too I think. Only the Guardian, the New Statesmen, and The Mirror (maybe the Indy and the I) will endorse Labour. I don't think newspaper endorsements matter much these in terms of influencing the public, like they once did.
0 -
Yes Mr Shouty , only way he took the bet otherwise he would have pee**d his pants.Carnyx said:
Indeed. In the runup for the indyref one of the unionist posters managed to get a similar bet with one of the pro-indy folk but then crowed about being able to offset his bet with the better odds available at a betting company for the same thing.Pulpstar said:
Sorry but why would anyone take this bet when the SNP are still 9-2 in Orkney and Shetland ?franklyn said:
Most amusing...none of you cybernats are willing to back up all your shouting by risking your own money! You only want to spend money if it's someone else's, I presumefranklyn said:Do people on this site really believe that the SNP will produce a clean sweep in the 59 Scottish seats? would anyone like to have a charity bet (i.e they believe they will, I believe they won't). Loser to pay £50 to the charity of the winner's choice. Must be a UK wide charity (not a Scottish only or English only one) and not a religious charity.
First person to accept publicly on PB is on (one bet only). My nominated charity (should I win) is the Cure Parkinsons Trust, which supports research done into Parkinsons disease. Anyone who wants to support the charity but not take the bet can go onto www.justgiving.com/Anna-Monk1
Please accept this post in the sporting spirit in which it was intended, even if you have disagreed with previous posts that I have made, and please consider a donation to this worthy charity even if you don't want to bet.0 -
The outgoing PM is under no duty to recommend to the Queen his successor. In fact they usually only do so when there is no possibility of them being wrong, e.g. fait accompli situations like Wilson-Callaghan 1976, or a majority election result.OblitusSumMe said:Yes, this is because everyone sort of pretends that the Queen can choose whoever she wants to be Prime Minister. Thus a PM is appointed by the Sovereign and not by a vote in Parliament. If she reads PB and was impressed by your posts, you too could be appointed PM and gain all that royal prerogative power.
However, in practice, Monarchs have learnt that appointing a PM who does not have the confidence of Parliament makes them very unpopular, very quickly, and so now they insist that the resigning PM tells them who to appoint - or (before the FTPA) to hold an election if there is no suitable candidate.
In the event that Miliband does not have a formal agreement of support from the SNP & others the situation is really messy, as he'll only be able to demonstrate that he has the votes by holding a vote in the Commons. This is different to 2010, because the Coalition Agreement between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats meant that everyone could see that Cameron had the votes. I'm not sure that an informal arrangement has the same credibility.
Therefore, I think that Cameron would be doing Her Majesty a favour if he sat tight in Number Ten if the Tories have more seats than Labour, and forces Miliband to prove that Cameron no longer has the confidence of the House by voting with the SNP against him. This also has the advantage of starting the 14-day countdown in the FTPA, forcing PM Miliband to win his own confidence motion in that time frame.
Otherwise you could have HMQ appointing Miliband as PM only for him to lose his first vote in the House if the SNP throw a strop, and with 14 days to wait before Parliament can be dissolved for another election. It wouldn't look good for Lizzie to have appointed the leader of the second-largest party and for him not to have the confidence of the House anyway.
In 1924, the scenario most close to the one envisaged today, Baldwin specifically did not advise George V, and the Labour party, with less than a third of the seats in Parliament had publicly said they would go it alone.
'The National Executive Committee resolved on 12 December 1923 that the “Parliamentary Party should at once accept full responsibility for the Government of the country without compromising itself with any form of coalition”': The Times: 14 December 1923.
When Baldwin lost an amendment against the Address the following month, the King sent for MacDonald, even though everyone knew his government would probably not last long.0 -
I feel you....BannedInParis said:
Looks in mirror. Looks at bank balance. Sighs.Tabman said:
Is this really that surprising?Sean_F said:
In no discipline does left wing support fall below 60%.Tissue_Price said:Startling findings from the TES. No shock that academics are lefties but the scale is mind-boggling:
https://twitter.com/timeshighered/status/593698286546092032
(i) don't bite the hand that feeds you
(ii) right wing types don't go into research; they go off to earn the corporate dollar0 -
@PickardJE: Focus group: Miliband is “berk” “geek” “weak” “puppet” & worse than brother. “Imagine him going into crisis talks?!" http://t.co/8uEwTGmDH10
-
Tory MPs have an end-of-term sweep-stake on how many seats they will get at the election. I shall spare his blushes, but the same MP has won this the last two elections.peter_from_putney said:***** BETTING POST *****
My penultimate GE Bet of the Week seeks to achieve the near impossible, by identifying a market which might just about appeal to both Bob Sykes as well as JackW (if not quite Mike Smithson also).
I give you, ta - dah ..... drum roll, Wm. Hills' Conservative 276 - 300 seat band which they have on offer at 2.1 decimal, or 11/10 in old money. This equates to a probability of 47.6%, whereas I make it at least a 60%, shot particularly in the light of those improving polls for the Blues.
Sidney, their political guru, would only allow me to stake £45 to win £50, but those nice people at Bet365 are offering similar odds of 2.05.
DYOR.
His bet this time? 294...0 -
Actually, the FT has been pretty critical of the Tories throughout the last couple of weeks' editorials, and made some noises in favour of more interventionist economic policies as espoused by Ed (compulsory purchase and land value taxation in particular). So that one wasn't a slam-dunk - never going to be pro-Labour, but could have been more neutral.The_Apocalypse said:Is it really that surprising that the Tories have been endorsed by FT, The Economist, The Sun, and the Spectator? 3 out 4 of those are fairly centre-right publications anyway, particularly the Spectator, and the FT endorsed the Tories in 2010, too I think. Only the Guardian, the New Statesmen, and Mirrow (maybe the Indy and the I) will endorse Labour. I don't think newspaper endorsements matter much these in terms of influencing the public, like they once did.
0 -
File this under 'Questions to which the answer is no"?
"Has the Tory crossover in the polls finally arrived?"
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/sebastian-payne/2015/04/has-the-tory-crossover-in-the-polls-finally-arrived/0 -
Apparently the title of PM doesnt really exist
http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/prime-minister/0 -
Neither does OGH but he runs the website...noisywinter said:Apparently the title of PM doesnt really exist
http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/prime-minister/0 -
Shall we put you guys down as a maybe then....hell yeah...at least I tried...Scott_P said:@PickardJE: Focus group: Miliband is “berk” “geek” “weak” “puppet” & worse than brother. “Imagine him going into crisis talks?!" http://t.co/8uEwTGmDH1
0 -
Times have changed since 1924.RodCrosby said:
The outgoing PM is under no duty to recommend to the Queen his successor. In fact they usually only do so when there is no possibility of them being wrong, e.g. fait accompli situations like Wilson-Callaghan 1976, or a majority election result.OblitusSumMe said:Yes, this is because everyone sort of pretends that the Queen can choose whoever she wants to be Prime Minister. Thus a PM is appointed by the Sovereign and not by a vote in Parliament. If she reads PB and was impressed by your posts, you too could be appointed PM and gain all that royal prerogative power.
However, in practice, Monarchs have learnt that appointing a PM who does not have the confidence of Parliament makes them very unpopular, very quickly, and so now they insist that the resigning PM tells them who to appoint - or (before the FTPA) to hold an election if there is no suitable candidate.
In the event that Miliband does not have a formal agreement of support from the SNP & others the situation is really messy, as he'll only be able to demonstrate that he has the votes by holding a vote in the Commons. This is different to 2010, because the Coalition Agreement between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats meant that everyone could see that Cameron had the votes. I'm not sure that an informal arrangement has the same credibility.
Therefore, I think that Cameron would be doing Her Majesty a favour if he sat tight in Number Ten if the Tories have more seats than Labour, and forces Miliband to prove that Cameron no longer has the confidence of the House by voting with the SNP against him. This also has the advantage of starting the 14-day countdown in the FTPA, forcing PM Miliband to win his own confidence motion in that time frame.
Otherwise you could have HMQ appointing Miliband as PM only for him to lose his first vote in the House if the SNP throw a strop, and with 14 days to wait before Parliament can be dissolved for another election. It wouldn't look good for Lizzie to have appointed the leader of the second-largest party and for him not to have the confidence of the House anyway.
In 1924, the scenario most close to the one envisaged today, Baldwin specifically did not advise George V, and the Labour party, with less than a third of the seats in Parliament had publicly said they would go it alone.
'The National Executive Committee resolved on 12 December 1923 that the “Parliamentary Party should at once accept full responsibility for the Government of the country without compromising itself with any form of coalition”': The Times: 14 December 1923.
When Baldwin lost an amendment against the Address the following month, the King sent for MacDonald, even though everyone knew his government would probably not last long.0 -
Did you manage to get out of the Lab seats market with your shirt intact ^^; Or still in ?noisywinter said:Apparently the title of PM doesnt really exist
http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/prime-minister/0 -
If you have faith in the phone polls then "yes"KentRising said:File this under 'Questions to which the answer is no"?
"Has the Tory crossover in the polls finally arrived?"
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/sebastian-payne/2015/04/has-the-tory-crossover-in-the-polls-finally-arrived/0 -
When, if ever, did the Economist not support or at least tacitly endorse the Tories? I would guess that 1997 must have been a close call for them.William_H said:I really can't see the economist's support as a surprise, considering their general coverage of british politics over this parliament.
0 -
@jameschappers: .@FT focus group: 'A clip of Miliband being interviewed by Russell Brand did not go down well... [one] watched with hands over her face'FrancisUrquhart said:
Shall we put you guys down as a maybe then....hell yeah...at least I tried...0 -
Ah, that reminds me, can someone tell me what "OGH" stands for? Its been bugging me!Flightpath1 said:
Neither does OGH but he runs the website...noisywinter said:Apparently the title of PM doesnt really exist
http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/prime-minister/0 -
Shirt well and truly destroyed! About 3.3k down on Tories most seats.Pulpstar said:
Did you manage to get out of the Lab seats market with your shirt intact ^^; Or still in ?noisywinter said:Apparently the title of PM doesnt really exist
http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/prime-minister/
Still I estimate the difference in my equities portfolio value should pretty much compensate if we have a Tory government...0 -
Good luck Pulpstar!Pulpstar said:
Rother Valley would be nice to come in but I think a decent second is more likely.TheKitchenCabinet said:
I would have Rotherham and Rother Valley as surprise UKIP wins: I know Labour has been working Rotherham hard but there will be a good number of people telling them they will vote Labour to their face and then will vote UKIP. What happened there is one of those events that people will just not look beyond.Jungleland said:
Yes, its quite interesting looking at the vastly different areas UKIP are appealing too.Pulpstar said:
Near me UKIP 2nds I'd expect:Jungleland said:
You'd be shocked at the figure we found for UKIP 2nd places, a few of us got on last night but they were pretty quick suspending to be fair. I noticed the market a few weeks ago but didnt really do much research into it, i had a hunch but my far superior colleague looked into it further, i cant say much as we will be doing it for spreads but if you've back it already, well done.isam said:
Coral Ukip over 2.5 at 5/6Pulpstar said:
Farage at Evens has to be the best bet out there at the momentJungleland said:I have got a little q and a in an upcoming racing post for anyone interested, just 5 questions on the election, think a few other bookies will be taking part too. My best of the election was UKIP over 100 2nd places at 2/1 with Paddies but seems they have completely taken down the market now.
Sheffield Hilsborough & Brightside
Rother Valley
Rotherham
Sheffield Heeley
Others too...
Backed UKIP at 8s here and Labour at 1-6.
In trouble if the Blues get 450 seats0 -
What do you mean...Scott_P said:
@jameschappers: .@FT focus group: 'A clip of Miliband being interviewed by Russell Brand did not go down well... [one] watched with hands over her face'FrancisUrquhart said:
Shall we put you guys down as a maybe then....hell yeah...at least I tried...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggA0vSzwRYo0 -
Our Genial Host, a phrase coined many years ago by I believe 'innocent abroad' of this parish.Razedabode said:
Ah, that reminds me, can someone tell me what "OGH" stands for? Its been bugging me!Flightpath1 said:
Neither does OGH but he runs the website...noisywinter said:Apparently the title of PM doesnt really exist
http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/prime-minister/
[edit] OGH is Mike Smithson.0 -
Indeed, but Constitutional principles and practice have not.OblitusSumMe said:Times have changed since 1924.
0 -
1964, 2001 and 2005 are the occasions they've backed Labourpeter_from_putney said:
When, if ever, did the Economist not support or at least tacitly endorse the Tories? I would guess that 1997 must have been a close call for them.William_H said:I really can't see the economist's support as a surprise, considering their general coverage of british politics over this parliament.
0 -
Test :-) 0
-
I wouldn't bet on it ....LOL! Expect to see the market down 5% - 10% if Labour wins well, at least that much if there is a real mess of a result. And a mild 2% - 4% down in relief should the Tories win well enough +/- the LibDems in coalition.noisywinter said:
Shirt well and truly destroyed! About 3.3k down on Tories most seats.Pulpstar said:
Did you manage to get out of the Lab seats market with your shirt intact ^^; Or still in ?noisywinter said:Apparently the title of PM doesnt really exist
http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/prime-minister/
Still I estimate the difference in my equities portfolio value should pretty much compensate if we have a Tory government...
In any event I expect the FTSE to be appreciably lower by the year end than it is currently, but good luck anyway.0 -
Apologies, second post-holiday thoughts on a slightly dated topic.
I know Dave has been getting some stick on his campaign but I actually thought it is going according to plan. Essentially, he is playing a variation of Blair's 1997 campaign: encourage your own supporters to get out (by talking up the threat of what Miliband would do) while not giving Labour voters anything that would motivate to come out en masse (one thing that gets missed about Blair is that his biggest success in 1997 was persuading Conservatives that he was safe enough that it was safe not to vote). Thus, talk up the threat of Miliband but give enough carrots to lower-and middle-income potential Labour voters where they think "oh, it is not too bad if Cameron does get re-elected". You do not need to be inspiring; you just need to motivate your own side and de-motivate the others.
He has undoubtedly got lucky with the SNP issue but, as they say, you make your own luck.
However - and this is where karma has well and truly kicked in - the big problem for Labour is not so much the SNP threat per se, but the public perception that someone who knifes his brother for the Labour leadership cannot be trusted when it comes to doing what it takes to become PM. If that perception was not so strong, the SNP issue would not be a problem - as others have said, Ed could merely dare the SNP to vote against him. But, because people see him as a combination of weak AND untrustworthy, he is in trouble.
0
