politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The big polling night continues with a Marf cartoon on Ed a

There are tribal party supporters around here?

News to me.

Night all.

tyson said:

RodCrosby said:

tyson said:

O/T- how old do you look.

Try this link

http://how-old.net

Bullguard is telling me it's a malicious site...

My wife took it from the Daily Mail lead site. That probably makes it highly malicious.

It's owned by Microsoft.

The_Woodpecker said:

foxinsoxuk said:

EPG said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I know this is heavy stuff for a Friday night.

But would I be wrong to write in a thread to

1) Call Éamon de Valera a terrorist?

2) Compare Alex Salmond to Éamon de Valera?

A terrorist uses terror. I doubt anyone was ever terrified of either man.

I thought that de Valeras faction of the IRA waged the Irish Civil War sortly arfter independence and murdered Michael Collins amongst others.

For all his faults Salmond is a better man.

foxinsoxuk said:

EPG said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I know this is heavy stuff for a Friday night.

But would I be wrong to write in a thread to

1) Call Éamon de Valera a terrorist?

2) Compare Alex Salmond to Éamon de Valera?

A terrorist uses terror. I doubt anyone was ever terrified of either man.

I thought that de Valeras faction of the IRA waged the Irish Civil War sortly arfter independence and murdered Michael Collins amongst others.

For all his faults Salmond is a better man.

And I thought that Dev more or less kept out of the fighting. Wasn't he regarded as a liability at the Easter Rising?

He is a surprisingly forgotten figure in Ireland today.

There are two schools of thought about Dev's contribution to Easter 1916. Then there were two sides in the later Civil War. Seeing as Dev was elected leader of the independence movement after 1916 I think it's more likely he was an effective leader of the troops in Boland's Mills (but I'm no historian).

Dev is most certainly not forgotten today. He must be the most controversial figure in the history of the Free State / Republic.

Baltimore - the State's Attorney who brought the charges against the 6 cops is married to a city councilman, who represents the ward that was torched. The defense attorney is one of the biggest contributors to her election campaign.

The mayor has her own problems, from Monday: she ordered the police to stand down and not to engage the protesters, also ordered they not wear their riot gear - which resulted in over 100 getting hurt mainly from thrown rocks, several seriously. She also said "Let them riot - it's only property".

She also waited way to long to request a state of emergency from the governor, who publicly wondered why she wasn't asking for one.

She is the third most important person on the Democratic National Committee, which may be why she has yet to answer any questions about this, even to the extent of having Al Sharpton protect her from the press last night. She clearly has much more ambition than being mayor of Baltimore, so will try to maintain silence in the hope that folks forget.

Tissue_Price said:

Con Maj 8.0-8.2

Yet Most Seats is static.

Why does one move but not the other?

foxinsoxuk said:

sarissa said:

SeanT said:

Jonathan said:

Wondering if a minoriy govt might introduce PR before a second poll.

They'd have to win a referendum first (especially as no such proposal was in anyone's manifesto). We had a referendum on AV, so the principle is established - a change to the voting system requires explicit voter consent (and fair enough).

And I speak as a convert to the idea of PR. We need it. FPTP is now producing quite perverse results. It is bad for the UK.

But...but...but wasn't it a once in a generation shot?

The AV referendum is a good example of why referenda are a bad form of decision making. The question was not well drafted (I would have supported STV or even a Holyrood type system, but not AV). The campaign rapidly evolved into two camps who were attempting to turn it into a stick for short term advantage. The Yes campaign was basically "you will never have another Con government" and the No campaign was "punish the LibDems for their treachery".

There was little of the intelligent discussion that we sometimes get in parliament. A Brexit referendum will be the same. More heat than light and voting would depend more on the midterm popularity of Cameron than the merits or otherwise of the EU.

I agree with you about the AV referendum, particularly the utterly depressing quality of the respective campaigns. I also reckon that binary decision making in general is rarely the best way forward and this is a serious flaw of referendums in general.

I suspect that an EU referendum would actually have more "on topic" political discussion than the AV one did, though. (Not a hard achievement.) But even there the in/out thing seems a bit silly. As the only large West European country that is clearly not fated, in the medium term, to participate in the most "eurofederal" arrangements such as the single currency, and the current member state that is likely to have the largest population and largest economy later in this century, it would surprise me if Britain can't reach a kind of sui generis arrangement with the rest of the EU. If we were to leave the EU then I am sure we still participate in very many aspects of European integration. If we were to stay in, then I am sure there would still be many aspects of European integration that we will not participate in. The relationship with the EU is bound to be semi-detached and we will at some point have to reach a settlement that recognises this fact. The "in/out" decision is not actually such a big deal - it may determine whether or not we continue to have British MEPs voting in the European parliament, but it's not going to transport us across the Atlantic or catapult us into the Euro.

RodCrosby said:

foxinsoxuk said:

sarissa said:

SeanT said:

Jonathan said:

Wondering if a minoriy govt might introduce PR before a second poll.

They'd have to win a referendum first (especially as no such proposal was in anyone's manifesto). We had a referendum on AV, so the principle is established - a change to the voting system requires explicit voter consent (and fair enough).

And I speak as a convert to the idea of PR. We need it. FPTP is now producing quite perverse results. It is bad for the UK.

But...but...but wasn't it a once in a generation shot?

The AV referendum is a good example of why referenda are a bad form of decision making. The question was not well drafted (I would have supported STV or even a Holyrood type system, but not AV). The campaign rapidly evolved into two camps who were attempting to turn it into a stick for short term advantage. The Yes campaign was basically "you will never have another Con government" and the No campaign was "punish the LibDems for their treachery".

There was little of the intelligent discussion that we sometimes get in parliament. A Brexit referendum will be the same. More heat than light and voting would depend more on the midterm popularity of Cameron than the merits or otherwise of the EU.

We could have a referendum, without specifying a system, asking the electorate the following questions

A. Do you want a system which produces a majority

i) always, however few votes the leading party has
ii) sometimes, if a party has a clear lead and significant support
iii) rarely, unless a party managed to get 50% of the votes

B. Do you want a system in which

i) you have a choice of candidate both within and between parties
ii) you have to vote for the one candidate your party nominates (or a fixed list of candidates)

maybe a couple more questions.

Then the psephologists could go away and design a system...

That's not entirely helpful - producing a list that have multiple outcomes and then asking people to come up with a solution that might violate the options you present.

MyBurningEars said:

foxinsoxuk said:

sarissa said:

SeanT said:

Jonathan said:

Wondering if a minoriy govt might introduce PR before a second poll.

They'd have to win a referendum first (especially as no such proposal was in anyone's manifesto). We had a referendum on AV, so the principle is established - a change to the voting system requires explicit voter consent (and fair enough).

And I speak as a convert to the idea of PR. We need it. FPTP is now producing quite perverse results. It is bad for the UK.

But...but...but wasn't it a once in a generation shot?

The AV referendum is a good example of why referenda are a bad form of decision making. The question was not well drafted (I would have supported STV or even a Holyrood type system, but not AV). The campaign rapidly evolved into two camps who were attempting to turn it into a stick for short term advantage. The Yes campaign was basically "you will never have another Con government" and the No campaign was "punish the LibDems for their treachery".

There was little of the intelligent discussion that we sometimes get in parliament. A Brexit referendum will be the same. More heat than light and voting would depend more on the midterm popularity of Cameron than the merits or otherwise of the EU.

I agree with you about the AV referendum, particularly the utterly depressing quality of the respective campaigns. I also reckon that binary decision making in general is rarely the best way forward and this is a serious flaw of referendums in general.

I suspect that an EU referendum would actually have more "on topic" political discussion than the AV one did, though. (Not a hard achievement.) But even there the in/out thing seems a bit silly. As the only large West European country that is clearly not fated, in the medium term, to participate in the most "eurofederal" arrangements such as the single currency, and the current member state that is likely to have the largest population and largest economy later in this century, it would surprise me if Britain can't reach a kind of sui generis arrangement with the rest of the EU. If we were to leave the EU then I am sure we still participate in very many aspects of European integration. If we were to stay in, then I am sure there would still be many aspects of European integration that we will not participate in. The relationship with the EU is bound to be semi-detached and we will at some point have to reach a settlement that recognises this fact. The "in/out" decision is not actually such a big deal - it may determine whether or not we continue to have British MEPs voting in the European parliament, but it's not going to transport us across the Atlantic or catapult us into the Euro.

you talk too much

RodCrosby said:

We could have a referendum, without specifying a system, asking the electorate the following questions

A. Do you want a system which produces a majority

i) always, however few votes the leading party has
ii) sometimes, if a party has a clear lead and significant support
iii) rarely, unless a party managed to get 50% of the votes

B. Do you want a system in which

i) you have a choice of candidate both within and between parties
ii) you have to vote for the one candidate your party nominates (or a fixed list of candidates)

maybe a couple more questions.

Then the psephologists could go away and design a system...

That's a biased question system.

Better would be : -

What level of support do you believe a party should need to form a Majority Government : -

A - less than 35%
B - over 36%
C - over 41%
D - over 46%
E - over 51%

Should the candidates a party offers be decided by : -

A - Voters
B - Parties
C - No Preference

Should geographic areas have a representative : -

A - Yes
B - No
C - No Preference

Maybe some others but you get the gist. Avoid bias in leading questions.

Sunil it is elected by STV by elected state and territorial legislatures, but indirectly or not it is still elected by PR and not by FPTP

Neil said:

Tim_B said:

She clearly has much more ambition than being mayor of Baltimore

Sadly, as my man Martin O'Malley is finding out, being Mayor of Baltimore might be a good stepping stone to Governor of Maryland but perhaps not for higher office.

I thought the State's Attorney for Baltimore city swatted away the conflict of interest questions most effectively.

Good to see you here, have to catch up soon. G

Even stranger than the Tories' sudden dip in to 8.2 is why "Any Other Party Majority" is as low as 380. I simply cannot conceive of circumstances that bring around for majority for anyone that isn't the Tories of Labour, it should be many thousands to one.

MikeL said:

Tissue_Price said:

MikeL said:

Tissue_Price said:

Con Maj 8.0-8.2

Yet Most Seats is static.

Why does one move but not the other?

It's money that moves it first. The arbitrage (or "model arbitrage", if you like) comes later.

Sure. But if someone is confident enough in Con success to drive Con Maj down, why aren't they also driving Con Most Seats down?

Maybe they just want to move the price - they could, for example, be hoping to get a really big bet down on NOM with the bookies

notme said:

Dair said:

MikeL said:

SeanT said:

MikeL said:

I actually don't think Miliband will do deals with the SNP.

Think how closely the media will be looking at him. They'll jump on anytime they even see Lab speaking to the SNP.

If Lab introduces a policy in line with SNP rather than Lab manifesto, media will go beserk. Not just the Murdoch papers - all media, including TV.

So I think Miliband will just play it very, very straight. He'll follow the Lab manifesto precisely and dare the SNP to vote against. Which they won't.

No, the SNP will amend legislation to make it more "progressive" (and more favourable to Scotland) and then when Labour refuse, they'll vote it down.

So Miliband will be forced to reach an accommodation, or, if you like, a "deal".

Why would Con support the SNP amendment?

OK, they might try and cause a bit of trouble but I suspect the result will be that only straightforward stuff goes through.

Remember even if a Bill is lost, the Government won't fall.

One example - Trident.

SNP amendment calls for the new boats to be built on the Clyde and Devonport. Tory and SNP support passes amendment. Labour now have a Trident bill which will kill them in Barrow.

Ive heard Barrow has turned very interesting.... The SNP / Trident thing is making some bums very squeaky.

And that's without a vote being cast, just think how "fun" it gets for Labour after the election. Ed would be better cutting a deal with the SNP now, announcing 2 boats will be built in Barrow guaranteed with the other 2 on the Clyde.

HYUFD said:

Sunil it is elected by STV by elected state and territorial legislatures, but indirectly or not it is still elected by PR and not by FPTP

HYUFD India's 1 billion electorate have no direct say in that process, they are stuck with electing 543 members of their Lower House by FPTP.

There's a bit of movement on the next PM market, Ed has drifted out to 1.91. I'm not entirely sure why, I don't see any basis in published polling.

I wonder if we're starting to see some profit taking in the market?

asjohnstone said:

There's a bit of movement on the next PM market, Ed has drifted out to 1.91. I'm not entirely sure why, I don't see any basis in published polling.

I wonder if we're starting to see some profit taking in the market?

There is so little liquidity on these markets at the minute so a few squiggles one way or t'other can have a dramatic effect. For instance I moved 300 greenies out of Ed PM and into the Tory Minority today and shifted the odds a tad.

[Alan] Carr urged him to give Mr Miliband a 'bloody chance'. 'Look at his little face, how can you say that?,' said the host.

'Because he is a f**king communist,' [Noel] Gallagher replied.


That will be a Definitely Maybe, erh NOT then...

trublue said:

Tissue_Price said:

Con Maj 8.0-8.2

My guess is someone with a fairly large position used the cash out button and it triggered some fairly dramatic moves. There's so little liquidity to provide resistance now it doesn't take much to move these Betfair markets. SPIN hasn't moved at all. Other Betfair markets haven't moved.

I think Con majority will be back in the 9.6-9.8 range by tomorrow afternoon. I hope I'm wrong though and there's some other reason why the price is moving.

No, it moved in stages. And there's £1200 waiting at 9.2 too. The cash out button does get you matched at some fantastic prices on multi-way markets though.

Basic rule - don't use the cash-out button. An exception would be a 2-way market with liquidity if you genuinely want to square off.

https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/594283810881216512

ElectionForecast puts Con + LD + DUP + UKIP on 316, 7 short of the target.

Con 280, Lab 269, SNP 50, LD 26, DUP 9, PC 4, SDLP 2, UKIP 1, Green 1.

http://www.electionforecast.co.uk/

Sunil_Prasannan said:

UKIP down to lowest level in ELBOW since its inception in August 2014 = 12.9%

https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/594287322776080385

Peak kipper? Looks like a peak to me

Tissue_Price said:

No, it moved in stages. And there's £1200 waiting at 9.2 too. The cash out button does get you matched at some fantastic prices on multi-way markets though.

I still think it's more likely to be cash out driven for the reasons you give. Maybe one large cash out caused someone else to panic and do something similar and then a few more quid followed from speculators/momentum traders thinking they were witnessing some inside money driving the price down. I think it hit 8.2 and now it's gradually moving back up again. I hope I'm wrong. But at this time of night on a Friday I'm skeptical anyone has suddenly become privy to stunning information that may mean a shock majority outcome next Thursday.

rullko said:

SMukesh said:

And if Jim Murphy is coming through,then it is likely Douglas Alexander is likely to survive as his seat is a lot less marginal than Murphy and he is a more popular local MP than Murphy.

"A lot less marginal"? Murphy actually had a slightly bigger majority over the SNP in 2010 than Alexander.

Also the two seats are very different in character. Paisley South is mostly working-class whereas East Renfrewshire is one of the wealthiest seats in Scotland.

AndyJS said:

rullko said:

SMukesh said:

And if Jim Murphy is coming through,then it is likely Douglas Alexander is likely to survive as his seat is a lot less marginal than Murphy and he is a more popular local MP than Murphy.

"A lot less marginal"? Murphy actually had a slightly bigger majority over the SNP in 2010 than Alexander.

Also the two seats are very different in character. Paisley South is mostly working-class whereas East Renfrewshire is one of the wealthiest seats in Scotland.

Eastwood is the real wealthy part of East Renfrew. McIntosh has Eastwood at Holyrood. It was why Murphy wanted to swap with McIntosh or so I hear but McIntosh wasn't having any of it. Safer seat

The other day I was polled by phone Populus in the Croydon Central poll. I think I was also polled a few months ago for an earlier constituency-specific poll. It makes me wonder about phone polls generally: How do they get a balanced sample frame? How do they know that the phone number they are dialling is in the right constituency? How do they know that the sample of people they are phoning and polling is a balanced representative sample of the electorate as a whole?

RodCrosby said:

With the frenzied interest in deals, no deals, and non deals, before we even reach polling day, can I request that AndyJS put up the video of Dennis Skinner's post-mortem on the 1992 campaign?

Always good for a laugh...

Speaking of AndyJS' videos.. I hope the BBC revert back to their old election theme music ...

youtu.be/sf3NxCCSz3Y

RodCrosby said:

With the frenzied interest in deals, no deals, and non deals, before we even reach polling day, can I request that AndyJS put up the video of Dennis Skinner's post-mortem on the 1992 campaign?

Always good for a laugh...

I think it is on YouTube albeit with horribly out of sync audio.

I'm pleased with the Croydon Central poll putting the Tories ahead because I've been predicting a narrow Con hold there for a while and this is the first evidence that it might happen.

New thread

RodCrosby said:

With the frenzied interest in deals, no deals, and non deals, before we even reach polling day, can I request that AndyJS put up the video of Dennis Skinner's post-mortem on the 1992 campaign?

Always good for a laugh...