politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Your sortable & searchable PB guide to Labour’s top 80 CON

Saltire said:

GIN1138 said:

Presumably the exit poll result has been handed to the media and the parties now?

I thought that the BBC only found about 10-15 minutes before going on air for their election program. Indeed I'm sure John Curtice talked about the pressures of getting it done in time for it going on air.

"A final one will come in at 9.15pm, just half an hour before the exit poll has to be released to broadcasters,"

http://www.may2015.com/featured/election-2015-what-is-the-exit-poll-and-how-does-it-work/

So yes, 9.45pm to broadcasters.

Chameleon said:

Cyclefree said:

Scott_P said:

@IsabelHardman: Has Ed Miliband got something big and clever planned for tomorrow? http://t.co/282bOWot8w

Is it too much to ask that such promises / policies are aired before we vote rather than after?

That's rather the point of having an election. That we get to choose who we prefer based on their manifestos and record.

I really don't like the contempt for the voter implied by all this post-election promising.

I'm with you on this - something as massive as that needs to be promised pre-election.

If AV warranted a referendum, surely constitutional change this wide ranging would too...

Cyclefree said:

Ghedebrav said:

Re. Child benefit. My wife and I were talking about this the other day. We're middle-income working parents; the extra dough is welcome, especially with little one being preschool, but realistically we'd get by without it. Better would be to scrap it above a certain (low-ish) household income and use some of the savings to help subsidise childcare up to school age.

The savings need to be used to pay off the deficit. Just moving the money into another spending bucket does not help.

Once we as a nation have started earning more than we spend then we can start thinking about what our spending priorities should be. One of those priorities will be to pay down (or start the process) of paying off debt. Because that debt incurs interest and money spent on paying interest is money which cannot be spent on other "nicer" things.

The Tories should have been hammering this point home for the last 5 years instead of going on a spending spree promise in the last few weeks. Whatever the result they risk trashing their USP and disappointing their voters.

I was thinking more along the lines of supporting those who wish to work with childcare, as opposed to a free-for-all handout with no broader economic benefit.

Beverley_C said:

Floater said:

Beverley_C said:

surbiton said:

Many of your MPs won because we voted for you lot

My lot? You have no idea which parties I voted for today. There were two elections here and I voted differently in each

surbiton said:

Now it is our turn to put the boot in.

Revenge politics? Hardly admirable

Labour do so love to hate.

It does seem to be a Labour / Leftist thing. I have yet to come across anyone from the centre ground or centre-right calling lefties "Labour scum" or "Vermin", etc etc. My own view is that their intolerance is caused by socialism really being little more than a secularised religion where the works of the prophet Marx and his disciple Lenin are beyond criticism. Their rightness and righteousness is self-evident and anything contray is heresy.

It is why I stick to shoes (makes me happy) and food (makes others happy). My foodist-shoeist religion increases happiness, sharing, love and friendship. It is better than politics.

It's easier to hate when you feel that the other side has all the millionaires, bankers and press moguls against you; harder to hate when the people your policies hurt are weak and unthreatening, or when you believe that your policies won't hurt anyone. Perhaps you disagree, but when they read the Sun and Times that's how they see it.

MikeK said:

MaxPB said:

I think I am going to do one thing if the Tories lose today, I'll join the party, hopefully I can do some good, I'm not particularly interested in being an MP, but I do think a strong Conservative party is important for the country and hopefully I could help.

Will you try and make it a true conservative party and not as it is now, a near duplicate of Labour? However, you'd be better off in UKIP.

Make it a proper Tory party, not this idiotic rich man's club they have created over the last few years.

kle4 said:

FrankBooth said:

Pleased I got on Labour most seats at 5.3 yesterday. The fact that it's now at 4.4 concerns me a little though. Why haven't the polls shifted it more. The Tories are only 8 ahead in terms of seats prediction but massive odds on favourite for most seats. Why???

It seems crazy to me. It can't all be overly optimistic types can it? What are they seeing that I'm not? Wasted lab votes in the south doesn't seem enough.

As for wasted Labour voters in the south, I'm not sure. OGH has shown more than once I think that the yellow>red swing is much bigger in the marginals than elsewhere. I don't know if any more has been said about Maidstone since yesterday but I can believe that we may see a return to anti-Toy tactical voting. If so then the Labour vote will likely be more efficient.

I actually suspect that the swing in the marginals won't be quite as big as the national one. But a 5% England swing and 4% in the marginals may be enough to see Cameron off.

Ghedebrav said:

Cyclefree said:

Ghedebrav said:

Re. Child benefit. My wife and I were talking about this the other day. We're middle-income working parents; the extra dough is welcome, especially with little one being preschool, but realistically we'd get by without it. Better would be to scrap it above a certain (low-ish) household income and use some of the savings to help subsidise childcare up to school age.

The savings need to be used to pay off the deficit. Just moving the money into another spending bucket does not help.

Once we as a nation have started earning more than we spend then we can start thinking about what our spending priorities should be. One of those priorities will be to pay down (or start the process) of paying off debt. Because that debt incurs interest and money spent on paying interest is money which cannot be spent on other "nicer" things.

The Tories should have been hammering this point home for the last 5 years instead of going on a spending spree promise in the last few weeks. Whatever the result they risk trashing their USP and disappointing their voters.

I was thinking more along the lines of supporting those who wish to work with childcare, as opposed to a free-for-all handout with no broader economic benefit.

If they have to be subsidised in order to make work pay for them, then there is an argument that the country would be better off with them not working or doing a different job

MaxPB said:

MikeK said:

MaxPB said:

I think I am going to do one thing if the Tories lose today, I'll join the party, hopefully I can do some good, I'm not particularly interested in being an MP, but I do think a strong Conservative party is important for the country and hopefully I could help.

Will you try and make it a true conservative party and not as it is now, a near duplicate of Labour? However, you'd be better off in UKIP.

Make it a proper Tory party, not this idiotic rich man's club they have created over the last few years.

spot on

Cyclefree said:

Polruan said:

Cyclefree said:

Ghedebrav said:

The savings need to be used to pay off the deficit. Just moving the money into another spending bucket does not help.

Once we as a nation have started earning more than we spend then we can start thinking about what our spending priorities should be. One of those priorities will be to pay down (or start the process) of paying off debt. Because that debt incurs interest and money spent on paying interest is money which cannot be spent on other "nicer" things.

The Tories should have been hammering this point home for the last 5 years instead of going on a spending spree promise in the last few weeks. Whatever the result they risk trashing their USP and disappointing their voters.

Don't necessarily disagree on child benefit... but paying interest is only bad if your return on the borrowed money is less than the cost of your interest. Borrowing for a holiday means fewer holidays in the long term, but borrowing to buy a car to get to work means a nicer car (and more holidays) in the long term.

Their aren't many businesses that grow without increasing their debt, and it's generally reasonable to assume they would have fewer "nicer things" if they slowed their growth rate by limiting their access to cash.

Agree in general terms. But we as a nation have been borrowing to buy tat and spend on nights out rather than borrowing to spend the money wisely. Most politicians don't seem to understand the difference.

I think there's genuine uncertainty about how to get back from here. Cos the other bit of the picture, which means that a business is a woefully inadequate metaphor (though not as tragically so as a household budget) is that reducing state spending makes things worse - in the sense of slowing the economy so that tax receipts become depressed more quickly than spending is reduced. It's what did the second phase of damage to Greece, and it's why Osborne gave up on austerity proper after the 2010-12 experiment.

One way or another you need to increase productivity in the economy and deflate the asset price bubbles - otherwise it's just seeing how long it takes to reach a zero-spend zero-income state. The problem of course is that the moderately well off focus more on how much this hurts them relative to the poor, rather than how much it benefits them relative to the really rich. Which is why the middle classes vote for policies that make the rich richer and themselves poorer (which I think is kind of where you started on this point).

FrancisUrquhart said:

Saltire said:

GIN1138 said:

Presumably the exit poll result has been handed to the media and the parties now?

I thought that the BBC only found about 10-15 minutes before going on air for their election program. Indeed I'm sure John Curtice talked about the pressures of getting it done in time for it going on air.

"A final one will come in at 9.15pm, just half an hour before the exit poll has to be released to broadcasters,"

http://www.may2015.com/featured/election-2015-what-is-the-exit-poll-and-how-does-it-work/

So yes, 9.45pm to broadcasters.

Thank you for this link, very informative

I'm be glad when this GE is over, so my twitter feed isn't full of constant tweets and retweets of "facts" that are at best half-truths and at worst outright lies.

Cyclefree said:

Ghedebrav said:

Re. Child benefit. My wife and I were talking about this the other day. We're middle-income working parents; the extra dough is welcome, especially with little one being preschool, but realistically we'd get by without it. Better would be to scrap it above a certain (low-ish) household income and use some of the savings to help subsidise childcare up to school age.

The savings need to be used to pay off the deficit. Just moving the money into another spending bucket does not help.

Once we as a nation have started earning more than we spend then we can start thinking about what our spending priorities should be. One of those priorities will be to pay down (or start the process) of paying off debt. Because that debt incurs interest and money spent on paying interest is money which cannot be spent on other "nicer" things.

The Tories should have been hammering this point home for the last 5 years instead of going on a spending spree promise in the last few weeks. Whatever the result they risk trashing their USP and disappointing their voters.

I actually think that if the Coalition had refrained from giving away any sweeties - no increase in the personal allowance, no cuts in Corporation Tax, Fuel Duty, etc - and just repeated the mantra that there was no money left, we had to stop adding to the debt pile and start paying it back, that they would be more popular now than they are.

It was when they started favouring one group over another that they undermined their own message. If there is money enough for a cut in fuel duty, or whatever, then you can't blame the voter for thinking that there is money enough for whatever else that voter wants.

not_on_fire said:

Thought experiment: what would happen if no one voted in a constituency election? Do the rules provide for this?

The returning officer then votes.

midwinter said:

surbiton said:

Chameleon said:

surbiton said:

Chameleon said:

kle4 said:

Judging by the way predictions and markets seem slow on the uptake I'm guessing the exit poll will show Tories narrowly most seats, which is slowly proven wrong through the night.

I'm confidently back on Con most seats after realising one thing that I don't think has been factored in: the Lib Dem collapse in favour of Lab in the South (excl. London). I've just been doing a map of second places (http://i.gyazo.com/be87e23c6294ce419ab334a40a90c5f3.png) and it's occurred to me that in each place where the Lib Dems are second - they could lose 20% of the vote and it to go to Labour without Labour actually gaining (m)any seats. This means that the massive swings in the south which will result in few seats going to the Tories are distorting the overall picture. Up to 4% of the nationwide vote (from Lab) could be wasted with no gains if this happens in the South.

Wishful thinking ends in exactly 2hours:08 minutes !

Even you have to agree that the massive LD -> Lab swings in the South will cause lots more Lab wasted votes for few seats, and that for every 1% of new wasted votes for Lab gives the Tories a 1% advantage where it matters - and visa versa.

You are forgetting UKIP will be taking 10-15% votes in the South, mainly from you.

Surely ukip taking 15% is irrelevant to whether labour votes are wasted.

It could take Labour over the line in some places unexpected.

Charles said:

Sandpit said:

Nemtynakht said:

Sandpit said:

Casino_Royale said:

Looking at some the hysterical fact-denying comments I've seen on social media today about why people aren't voting Tory, the problem seems much more deep-seated than that.

There's about to be a massive dose of reality coming for the social media generation of lefties, most of whom think that only 1% of the population need to pay any more in taxes in order for everyone else to have more sweeties.

Just the bankers and billionaires will pay more tax. What happens when we have a French style exodus of the entrepreneurs.

Well, 'Relative' poverty will fall, innit? Just like it did in 2009.

France has demonstrated exactly what will happen. All the entrepreneurs in London will say hello to (in order of longitude) Monaco, Switzerland, Dubai, Singapore, Hong Kong, Tokyo, New York, Caribbean - all of these are financial centres with generally lower personal and corporate taxes than London.

Bollox. Just my professional opinion.

Monaco - sunny place for shady people
Switzerland - you'll die of boredom
Dubai - you bin there?
Singapore - dreary as hell
Hong Kong - expat community seriously weird and limited
Tokyo - they don't like rich foreigners much. Or any foreigners, really.
New York - taxes similar to London
Caribbean - very niche appeal

The reality is that Miliband probably could put taxes up to 50-60%. Not much more than that, though. The French effect was so dramatic because South Ken was just a train ride away.

Okay, I'll bite!

I've spent quite a bit of time in Singapore, HK and Dubai (hence the name!), been to Switzerland and NY, know people based in the others.

Yes there are reasons for locating in specific jurisdictions, and it's not just taxes. The France effect was as dramatic as it was because of the close distance.

However, when companies like HSBC are thinking seriously about relocating back to HK, they not only take a lot of high earners with them but a lot of support staff and auxiliary industry.

I do however think that the mood music of the government is important - Miliband has given every impression of hating successful businesses and wanting to increase tax rates on the better off for no reason other than to spite their wealth.

https://twitter.com/bypost/status/596369694715707392

Franklin said:

Eh_ehm_a_eh said:

hamiltonace said:

Only 53% turnout so far in Lanarkshire based on 2 polling booths. This is heading for 65% turnout which means 20% of voters who said they would vote in the pollls are not going to. Who are those voters. My hunch the young and the poor as ever. Probably bad for SNP.

Postal votes are not counted at the polling station dear chap.

I was first in our Polling Station this morning - but quite a few of the names were crossed off the register. I believe they were people who had returned postal votes.

They have not voted at the polling station. You are the first to be counted as a voter at that station.

MarkHopkins said:

https://twitter.com/bypost/status/596369694715707392

Their depictions of previous attempts by Tories to eat them, perhaps?

richardDodd said:

Harry Cole reporting that Lucy Powell has been pulled from BBC tonight by the LABOUR PARTY

I'd have thought they were confident enough that it wouldn't matter if she had a clanger. She must be excellent at organisation or policy stuff, as she is terrible in the media.

heseltine said:

LibDems are in a spot of bother in some of the SW london seats.
The fact that Clegg and Cable refused to rule out a possible coalition with Labour is causing a lot of soft Tories who would have normally voted for the incumbent LD to switch back to Conservative.
We will have to see the effect but it's real I assure you..

I think they'll Carshalton and one other...

Just as well this is election day or the MSM would have had a field day with this:

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/ge2015/6444611/Clot-red-handed-Labour-Jims-last-push-as-fan-pops-question-to-Nicola.html

Murphy's researchers are clearly not on their game as the red hand is a significant logo for Unionism - see link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_Volunteer_Force

surbiton said:

OblitusSumMe said:

Cyclefree said:

Ghedebrav said:

Re. Child benefit. My wife and I were talking about this the other day. We're middle-income working parents; the extra dough is welcome, especially with little one being preschool, but realistically we'd get by without it. Better would be to scrap it above a certain (low-ish) household income and use some of the savings to help subsidise childcare up to school age.

The savings need to be used to pay off the deficit. Just moving the money into another spending bucket does not help.

Once we as a nation have started earning more than we spend then we can start thinking about what our spending priorities should be. One of those priorities will be to pay down (or start the process) of paying off debt. Because that debt incurs interest and money spent on paying interest is money which cannot be spent on other "nicer" things.

The Tories should have been hammering this point home for the last 5 years instead of going on a spending spree promise in the last few weeks. Whatever the result they risk trashing their USP and disappointing their voters.

I actually think that if the Coalition had refrained from giving away any sweeties - no increase in the personal allowance, no cuts in Corporation Tax, Fuel Duty, etc - and just repeated the mantra that there was no money left, we had to stop adding to the debt pile and start paying it back, that they would be more popular now than they are.

It was when they started favouring one group over another that they undermined their own message. If there is money enough for a cut in fuel duty, or whatever, then you can't blame the voter for thinking that there is money enough for whatever else that voter wants.

Stop moaning. You lost in 2012 with the Budget. The 5% cut to top earners showed only one thing. For all their talk, money is always found for the mega rich who needs the least. They have never recovered since then.

I think he pretty much said that.

They are probably worried that she will rule something in or out that she shouldn't.

kle4 said:

richardDodd said:

Harry Cole reporting that Lucy Powell has been pulled from BBC tonight by the LABOUR PARTY

I'd have thought they were confident enough that it wouldn't matter if she had a clanger. She must be excellent at organisation or policy stuff, as she is terrible in the media.

She may be both, she's definitely one.

surbiton said:

midwinter said:

surbiton said:

Chameleon said:

surbiton said:

Chameleon said:

kle4 said:

Judging by the way predictions and markets seem slow on the uptake I'm guessing the exit poll will show Tories narrowly most seats, which is slowly proven wrong through the night.

I'm confidently back on Con most seats after realising one thing that I don't think has been factored in: the Lib Dem collapse in favour of Lab in the South (excl. London). I've just been doing a map of second places (http://i.gyazo.com/be87e23c6294ce419ab334a40a90c5f3.png) and it's occurred to me that in each place where the Lib Dems are second - they could lose 20% of the vote and it to go to Labour without Labour actually gaining (m)any seats. This means that the massive swings in the south which will result in few seats going to the Tories are distorting the overall picture. Up to 4% of the nationwide vote (from Lab) could be wasted with no gains if this happens in the South.

Wishful thinking ends in exactly 2hours:08 minutes !

Even you have to agree that the massive LD -> Lab swings in the South will cause lots more Lab wasted votes for few seats, and that for every 1% of new wasted votes for Lab gives the Tories a 1% advantage where it matters - and visa versa.

You are forgetting UKIP will be taking 10-15% votes in the South, mainly from you.

Surely ukip taking 15% is irrelevant to whether labour votes are wasted.

Enough to let Labour come through the middle. 24 seats in Eastern, South East, South West and London.

Is that how many have majorities of sub 15%? What's the figure for 10%?

MaxPB said:

MikeK said:

MaxPB said:

I think I am going to do one thing if the Tories lose today, I'll join the party, hopefully I can do some good, I'm not particularly interested in being an MP, but I do think a strong Conservative party is important for the country and hopefully I could help.

Will you try and make it a true conservative party and not as it is now, a near duplicate of Labour? However, you'd be better off in UKIP.

Make it a proper Tory party, not this idiotic rich man's club they have created over the last few years.

Right. Cos Cameron has been such a drag on the conservative vote hasn't he....

Charles said:

Ghedebrav said:

I was thinking more along the lines of supporting those who wish to work with childcare, as opposed to a free-for-all handout with no broader economic benefit.

If they have to be subsidised in order to make work pay for them, then there is an argument that the country would be better off with them not working or doing a different job

That was Thatcher's argument against the Nationalised Industries. I guess when it's Tory backers getting the money and sharing it with their Tory friends this stops being a problem.

At least voting SNP, you know your representative (probably) can't be bought. You cannot say that about Labour or the Tories or the Liberals or the Kippers. LibLabConKip will do what it takes to keep their snouts in the trough.

As PB's editor for the next few hours, any suggestions for threads, I don't think there's much happening tonight.

Is it a good night to publish my thread on AV?

DaemonBarber said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

I'm be glad when this GE is over, so my twitter feed isn't full of constant tweets and retweets of "facts" that are at best half-truths and at worst outright lies.

Fat chance. Twitter is full of it on a permanent basis.

Maybe thats just the people you follow :-)

Mine is not normally too bad, but the past week it was initially tedious, now it is just terrible i.e. my timeline is clogged up with constant BS and the non-GE views of people I am interested in are lost in the sea of infographics / posters.

OblitusSumMe said:

Cyclefree said:

Ghedebrav said:

Re.

The Tories should have been hammering this point home for the last 5 years instead of going on a spending spree promise in the last few weeks. Whatever the result they risk trashing their USP and disappointing their voters.

I actually think that if the Coalition had refrained from giving away any sweeties - no increase in the personal allowance, no cuts in Corporation Tax, Fuel Duty, etc - and just repeated the mantra that there was no money left, we had to stop adding to the debt pile and start paying it back, that they would be more popular now than they are.

It was when they started favouring one group over another that they undermined their own message. If there is money enough for a cut in fuel duty, or whatever, then you can't blame the voter for thinking that there is money enough for whatever else that voter wants.

Yes - as did the cut in the 50p tax rate. Plus they should have applied the cuts across the board as Canada did - no exceptions.

It would have been tough and they would have needed iron discipline and even then might not have worked.

Before 2010 the Tories had not really done enough hard thinking about what a Conservative party should be. Too much of the debate was - and still is - couched in Thatcherite terms. But Thatcher is dead, her time has passed and rather than define yourself around an old totem pole the Tories should have learnt the real message of Thatcher: namely, analyse what has gone wrong and have a clear idea of what you are going to do to put it right and relentlessly communicate that simple tale. That's never really been done. It really is not clear what Conservatism means now.

Similarly, Labour have not IMO done the hard-thinking about what it means to be a social democratic party of the left now. So even if they form the government I expect problems because if you don't have an inner core, a default political/moral compass, how will you know what to do when the unexpected happens or when you have to make a choice?

A party's sense of itself and of the country is more than a collection of policies. I hate the idea - and the reality - of mission statements. But something like this - but real - not empty platitudes is needed.

Whatever one thought of Thatcher she was the last leader who clearly articulated what she was trying to do and which people understood, whether they supported her or not.

That lack of clarity is one reason why the main parties are so pants.

DanSmith said:

By this time in 2010, journalists were hinting that the Tories were doing very well.

I don't think anyone has much of a clue what's going on out there! I could quite easily see this being anything from shock 40 Tory seat lead to comfortable Labour plurality. There's just too much unknown now.

TheScreamingEagles said:

As PB's editor for the next few hours, any suggestions for threads, I don't think there's much happening tonight.

Is it a good night to publish my thread on AV?

Hell Yes!

RobD said:

MarkHopkins said:

https://twitter.com/bypost/status/596369694715707392

Their depictions of previous attempts by Tories to eat them, perhaps?

Demands for the free milk that still remains as part of their class consciousness a generation on,

TheScreamingEagles said:

As PB's editor for the next few hours, any suggestions for threads, I don't think there's much happening tonight.

Is it a good night to publish my thread on AV?

I dunno, I was hoping for some in-depth analysis of obscure legal precedents set in the 19th century for electoral outcomes which aren't going to happen

Polruan said:

FrankBooth said:

heseltine said:

LibDems are in a spot of bother in some of the SW london seats.
The fact that Clegg and Cable refused to rule out a possible coalition with Labour is causing a lot of soft Tories who would have normally voted for the incumbent LD to switch back to Conservative.
We will have to see the effect but it's real I assure you..

I'm not sure I get this. The Lib Dems didn't rule out a deal with Labour in 2010 and did okay in SW London. Perhaps something has shifted since then but I'm not sure what.

The logic would be that soft 2010 blues who wanted Coalition 2.0 could plausibly vote yellow this time, thereby offsetting the unwind of significant numbers of Labour supporters who were 2010 yellows either for tactical reasons, or because they believed what the LDs tried to imply about being left of Labour. But the Tories have been put off this course of action due to the possibility that they'd just enable a Lib-Lab coalition.

Anyone who remembers 2010 campaign will recall the incessant shrieks of vote Lib Dem get Brown from the Conservatives .

FrancisUrquhart said:

DaemonBarber said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

I'm be glad when this GE is over, so my twitter feed isn't full of constant tweets and retweets of "facts" that are at best half-truths and at worst outright lies.

Fat chance. Twitter is full of it on a permanent basis.

Maybe thats just the people you follow :-)

Mine is not normally too bad, but the past week it was initially tedious, now it is just terrible i.e. my timeline is clogged up with constant BS and the non-GE views of people I am interested in are lost in the sea of infographics / posters.

Haha, yeah... I'm still to do the post indyref clear out. Agree that this past week especially has been full of mince.
KP has been entertaining though.

midwinter said:

MaxPB said:

MikeK said:

MaxPB said:

I think I am going to do one thing if the Tories lose today, I'll join the party, hopefully I can do some good, I'm not particularly interested in being an MP, but I do think a strong Conservative party is important for the country and hopefully I could help.

Will you try and make it a true conservative party and not as it is now, a near duplicate of Labour? However, you'd be better off in UKIP.

Make it a proper Tory party, not this idiotic rich man's club they have created over the last few years.

Right. Cos Cameron has been such a drag on the conservative vote hasn't he....

Such will be the refrain as the Tories tear themselves to pieces in 1-4 days (depending on whether he goes immediately as Ed has most seats, or it takes a few days for the Lab-SNP arrangement - not deal - to be formalised as much as is necessary).

History may be kinder to him and say that is unfair, but we'll hear it a lot shortly I am sure.

calum said:

Just as well this is election day or the MSM would have had a field day with this:

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/ge2015/6444611/Clot-red-handed-Labour-Jims-last-push-as-fan-pops-question-to-Nicola.html

Murphy's researchers are clearly not on their game as the red hand is a significant logo for Unionism - see link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_Volunteer_Force

Possible attempt to shore up votes from the Eastwood Newco Rangers supporters club?

surbiton said:

Tykejohnno said:

Fraser Nelson ‏@FraserNelson ·
AT 8.30pm, bets placed at Sporting Index suggest: Con286, Lab269, SNP46, LD26, Ukip 4, Others 4. Slid in Labour's favour throughout the day

Serious subject for a PhD thesis: Why are betting markets so slow in reacting ?

Because the evidence, data released and mood music points to what is being bet upon?

Edit - someone always knows, someone always tells. There will be a move that confirms this so,e point in the next 2 hours. No move and the market might have it near enough on - Tory plurality, Ed M is PM

https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/596399612811997184