Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » What the latest private LAB polling has done to the betting
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » What the latest private LAB polling has done to the betting
One of the great features now on the Betfair exchange for those who like trading is that with one click you can cash out and instantly get to a position where you are equal on all outcomes.
0
Comments
If this is true, Hillary now has a lot of explaining to do and the parallels to the Nixon tapes won't be far behind.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/28/the-missing-hillary-emails-no-one-can-explain.html
I know their strategy is to hunker down and let the storm pass over rather than engage, but leaving the field uncontested to you opponents and to speculation seems an extremely high risk strategy to me.
What an asinine bunch.
Assumption, multiple insults, group characterisation and patronisation in under 40 words.
JCWNBPOTUS
That may change if Corbyn does something stupid or Burnham or Cooper something to galvanise their campaign but you'd think that if the more experienced two had that kind of initiative up their sleeve, they'd have played it by now, not least because AV notwithstanding, neither can afford the race to become Corbyn vs the other. And Corbyn? Yes, he could do something stupid - his campaign has been guilt on speaking bluntly and with passion and there's clearly a risk in doing that - but he's avoided bearpits so far.
Short of that, all the polling points to him polling in the low- to mid-40s, which may well be enough on first preferences once non-transferable votes are excluded. It should certainly be enough with transfers: even if every vote were transferable, he'd still only need at most about a quarter of them - and they won't all be transferable.
Another factor working for him which is more of a variable but to be taken into consideration is that Burnham might finish third. If so, it's likely that JC would get a higher proportion of second round transfers (after Kendall) than if it had been Cooper eliminated. Indeed, if we think that Cooper will get the bulk of Kendall's transfers (and I do, both on sisterhood grounds and on political alignment), then Burnham is even more likely to be eliminated second.
http://www.newstatesman.com/helen-lewis/2015/07/echo-chamber-social-media-luring-left-cosy-delusion-and-dangerous-insularity
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Staggers: Which CLPs are nominating whom?
Jeremy Corbyn (121)
Andy Burnham (107)
Yvette Cooper (91)
Liz Kendall (14)
Someone mentioned here Burnham was inching forward, well, he’s just taken two steps back.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/07/which-clps-are-nominating-who-labour-leadership-contest
Looking at Mikes Chart and the polling (pisspoor as it is) there still seems to be value in backing Corbyn and laying Burnham. Whatever else this contest has been, it has been good for betting.
All he could offer was looking backwards instead of having an agenda for the 2020s. He kept reiterating Labour Values without ever defining them, at a time when a definition is required. JC is very happily streets ahead of him there and not being opposed by Burnham or Cooper.
Even worse was the performance by the 3 new MPs supporting Burham, Cooper and Kendal. (One was invited for JC but did not appear). The lady from Sheffield supporting Burnham was as clueless as him and just parroted his phrases whilst saying how thrilled she was to be supporting him - but did not look at all thrilled - not a glimpse of joy on her face. The one supporting Cooper really said nothing of any importance to remember whilst the Kendall one was hardly questioned. A multiple car pile up - all should be taken to the breaker's yard for scrap and probably not worth much for spare parts.
1) Andrew Burnham is probably still slight favourite to win, despite the polls - there is still time, for example, for Corbyn to withdraw and back him, and neither of the female candidates seem likely to make it to the last stage but their votes would overwhelmingly go to Burnham, not Corbyn.
2) Burnham was placed fourth last time around. Although at the start of that campaign I thought he was probably the most interesting candidate, and the most potentially dangerous to the Conservatives, that was the right result. He ran a shockingly inept campaign and was badly scarred by the scandal at Mid Staffs (or at any rate, by the accusation that he had tried to cover it up). He was in fact, effectively last (if we accept that Diane Abbott was Labour's answer to the MRLP - there to liven things up, but not make a serious contribution).
3) The first three were Ed Miliband, David Miliband and Ed Balls. That was (and this is really going to be controversial) the right order as well. David Miliband was not - is not - a leader. He is a very efficient administrator, but he has neither the imagination nor the energy to give a strong lead. It is not hard to visualise that Labour would have been even less clearly defined and even more disunited under his ineffectual, vacillating style. Ed Balls thought (and presumably still thinks) that you borrow your way out of a debt crisis, a fundamental and disastrous misreading of our economic situation, made worse by the fact that he believes he is a brilliant economist. With all his faults, Ed Miliband understood that these were wrong and tried to address them. He failed because he simply was not up to the task of doing so.
Some other key stats:
1) Labour suffered its third-worst defeat in terms of seats in the age of universal suffrage (behind 1931 and 1983). It was its worst result in Scotland since 1900 - that is to say, its worst election result when it has actually contested any seats there.
2) Outside London, and excluding Scotland, Labour suffered a net loss of seats to the Conservatives. This was even true in Wales.
3) Labour received a lower share of the national vote in 2015 than John Major in 1997.
4) Labour has key areas of strength in the core citites group - London, Leeds/West Yorkshire, Manchester, Newcastle, Liverpool and Bristol. Outside those areas, which are insufficient to win a majority on their own, it is fast becoming a third, in places a fourth, party.
Continued in next comment.
He actually deserves to win, even if his ideas are bat-s*** crazy. The other's have been hugely poor.
A Tony Blair could overcome these problems (I was no fan, but he was undoubtedly a politician of rare talent) given time, but one is not on offer. Burnham can't campaign, Cooper can't think, Kendall has the courage but not the intellectual heft or personal charisma, and Corbyn doesn't have the requisite sense of self-awareness. Even allowing for a really major scandal and George Osborne as the next Prime Minister (both of which seem unlikely) I think the Conservatives would win in 2020 against any one of those four.
Therefore, if we are looking for potential Labour leaders who will ultimately become PM, we need to look elsewhere. But where? Ummuna doesn't have the necessary gumption, Tristram Hunt's judgement is appalling (in eight and a half words - 'we will cancel the proposed changes to A-levels' he did more damage to education in this country than Gove did in eight and a half years of very hard work) Chris Leslie is a makeweight at best, and Hilary Benn is too old and too boring.
That leaves us with the deputy leadership. And a really worrying thought. There are two very effective campaigners in the race - Rachel Reeves and Tom Watson. Rachel Reeves will never be Labour leader - she's not popular enough in the party itself, although she's popular outside (spot the irony). But I could just see Tom Watson becoming leader and under the right circumstances, Prime Minister. The fact that he's absolutely useless at everything but campaigning may just not matter if the Conservatives implode over Europe again (which is perfectly possible and even likely) even though a Watson premiership would be a disaster for Britain and probably for Labour as well.
The irony is of course that if Labour had the option of Tim Farron, they might just be favourites to win the next election. It will be interesting to see, if Corbyn does win, whether a Farron-led Liberal Democrat party can hive off the soft-left vote from Labour again, as it did in the 1980s.
In his first major interview since the general election, the Chancellor said that the “central attraction” of European Union membership is economic and this should be at the heart of the renegotiation.
He said that “fixing” the economic aspects of our relationship is the key to “convincing ourselves that it is right for Britain to remain in the EU”.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/11768231/
Overweight people could have benefits worth around £100 a week reduced or ended altogether if they refuse to lose weight, the Prime Minister will announce on Wednesday.
Under a major review of the sickness benefit system to be conducted by Prof Dame Carol Black, the chair of the Nuffield Trust, drink and drug addicts could be denied benefits if they refuse medical treatment.....
There are around 90,000 people who claim sickness benefits whose illness is primarily due to their drug or alcohol addiction.
It means that 25 per cent of alcoholics, and an estimated 80 per cent of heroin and crack users, claim benefits, according to figures released by Downing Street.
Another 1,800 people are entitled to sickness benefits as a result of conditions primarily caused by obesity. A quarter of adults and 15 per cent of children are thought to be obese.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11769531/
I think "virtue signalling" is a very snappy term and encapsulates exactly what it's about.
It's much easier feeling good by pointing out that some people are suffering rather than actually doing something. There are people sleeping rough every night. Have you joined the Salvation Army so that you can spend your evening delivering meals and giving them a kind word?
If you have, I apologise.
If not, do you get your satisfaction demanding that "somebody should do something"? Do you even think that the Salvation Army are people to be admired?
Sleep walking to oblivion.
(This is the best link I can find for it: http://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-independent/20150728/281487865051159/TextView)
There is however a real problem of accessing effective treatment programmes...
I expect him to allow himself to be talked into dropping out for the ''good of the Party ''
Furthermore , I expect cooper to eventually win as the compromise candidate who is the least objectionable to the most voters ...she is polished , confident and handles the Press with ease ; has 18yrs experience and an impressive resume
The L P are an idealistic Party that promotes women's rights and feminism , they are not going to miss the opportunity of electing their first female leader nearly 40yrs after the Tories .And let's face it , with Merkel , Helle Schmitt and Hillary , female leadership is very much in the zeitgeist !
I haven't heard a peep from Kendall in days [she gave an intv in the Times which was okay but can't imagine that shifted any votes]
Andy gave a speech yesterday which appeared to be a giant placard saying Vote Corbyn - I haven't seen any coverage of it bar a couple of paragraphs pre-event. He talked in soundbites and cliches about how people didn't like soundbite and cliche politicians. He even called his speech The Spirit Of 45. What a wally.
I haven't heard Cooper say A SINGLE THING.
They were running foodbanks before they were fashionable and will be running them long after they cease to be so.
Corbyn is just politics as a religious revival ...Corbyn is the messiah who has came to lead the faithful to the promised land , unfortunately it's all a fantasy as he is just an anachronistic and romantic old fool more suited to the General strike in 1926 then 2015
Monday night / Tuesday morning over1500 migrants attempted to storm the eurotunnel. Major damage to fences security overwhelmed. One person died in the attempt
Massive problems for freight and costing up to 1.5 million a day to local business.
COBRA meeting today PM chairing.
It's only a matter of time. ..........
What is so wrong with France they have to do this???
But I don't think you should have to, in order to complain about the activities of a government and its consequences on the world, or to campaign for a better alternative.
To suggest otherwise with such a moronic pseudo-intellectual catchphrase is just another milestone in the right's long history of intellectual cowardice, in the face of an inability to offer any convincing positive defence of their small-minded, self-serving, frankly delusional ideology.
See also: 'politics of envy' if you are poor and complain about injustice and inhumanity, 'champagne socialist' if you are rich and complain about injustice and inhumanity, 'hand-wringing guardianista lefty' if you are middle class and complain about injustice and inhumanity - and worst of all 'there is no alternative', the last resort of the powerful throughout the ages from feudal times through slavery and beyond in response to calls for progress, from those who either lack the capacity for or deliberately suppress the imagining of a better world.
Tl;Dr? I'm with the Johns K Galbraith and S Mill on this one.
============================================
That's right ; the more we see of Andy Burnham the less confidence we have in him ...he is a lousy campaigner and a political weather cock with zero leadership abilities ..in the last leadership election he came nearly last , even Ed Balls beat him and I can well understand why ...he isn't going to win anything
ANDY BURNHAM R I P
Something really has to be done, but what? Part of me just feels like we should accept the whole lot just to end things but of course more will come. Stopping them getting to France just shifts the problem somewhere else. Distressing.
Good day all.
I can't believe the problem is so large - just watched a docu on David Livingstone last week and what an interesting fellow he was/obsessed giant fibber. Glad I didn't know him if half of it is true.
"I agree. What's the use of a Tory Party that doesn't equate patriotism with homophobia and racism"
You may have missed this begging letter in the Independent yesterday.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/yvette-cooper-our-choice-is-years-of-tory-rule-under-jeremy-corbyn-or-a-return-to-a-labour-government-10422279.html
Why is it so difficult to understand? Parties at the fringe do not win elections in large, multifaceted democracies in the absence of an extreme situation.....
===============================
I don't think so ; If Burnham does finish third then his second preferences will go to Cooper as a way of stopping Corbyn ...I suspect that Cooper will then have the second preferences of both Kendall and Burnham and enough to win
The conservatives are a similarly fringe party at present, just exploiting a ridiculous electoral system.
@justin124 - yes, you're correct, my mistake. However, a key difference is that in 1935 and 1987 Labour gained seats after being in opposition. In 1983 and 1931, as in 2015, they lost seats despite being in opposition (only briefly in opposition in 1931, admittedly). This was also true, on a much smaller scale, in 1955 and 1959.
Tell Eurotunnel and the French authorities that tunnel closure will be enforced unless they get their collective acts into gear.
Are you a '76%er'? Sure sounds like it.
According to Electoral Calculus, they would gain 59 seats and the Tories would lose 46.
Labour would have 291 seats to the Tories 285.
This assumes Labour take no votes from the SNP.
Wow, just demonstrates how tricky their position is at present. Especially as love bombing the Greens will put off 80%ish of Lib Dems south of the Midlands... Given the changing rural demographics, I don't see the southern seats going Yellow or Red anytime soon...
And surely "virtue signalling" is an age old thing. Anthropologists (Kate Fox has written on this) have shown that complaints and criticism make up about 30% of human interactions in social contexts, establishing norms of behaviour in a non-official way. It is perhaps the modern equivalent of public religion, and equally often a cover for hypocracy. After all Lord Snorty was previously "Virtue Signalling" about what an upstanding member of society he was.
And perhaps for all its faults "virtue signalling" beats "lack-of-virtue signalling"!
'Virtue signalling' is a polite description.
Jezza wants a 70% tax rate for the rich. A good idea, and it would be nice if the rich were happy to pay it. Charlotte Church and Owen Jones agree, so being rich, you'd expect them to be sending cheques to HMRC on regular basis.
But what do we find? They are not just 'virtue signalling', they are being hypocrites. The 'somebody must do something' becomes 'somebody else must do something'.
Just how will this be achieved? CCS can be subject to the same technological problem arguments as fracking. How will it be financed - and if the answer is higher energy prices, then you can shut down a lot of the remaining bits of our industries.
She also says, "We have got to change the world." Just how? Is this easier than changing the EU?
They're not even voters, they're non-voters. If they can't be motivated to vote against the tories when Ed Miliband was in charge, they're not going to motivated full stop.
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/strongmodel.html
Electoral Calculus got the last election wrong like most others but that was because the polls were wrong. If you input the actual shares, it was almost spot on, so I think it is a good model.
Under what fantastical model would Corbyn win every LibDem vote. I think it far, far more likely that his election would revive the LibDems from the depths in an afternoon.
I haven't been bowled over by the government's response to this. It's been going on for weeks with very high profile news coverage and it's certainly something people are talking about 'in the office', with concern, and noting our lacklustre response.
So far it's been: buy and ship a bit more fencing, and send the French a bit more cash. That's just not going to cut it.
Why aren't there similar issues at Dunkirk, Caen or Boulogne? I haven't seen massive encampments of illegal immigrants at Cherbourg or Le Havre either.
The Tunnel is clearly the problem.
*virtue signalling, not waving*
That is why, again, Tom Watson might not be a bad bet as the leader to take Labour into the next election. God help British politics.
Speaking of which, the Guardian has an article today on that very subject.
Mary Dejevsky: - Vote for Jeremy Corbyn, and help raise the Lib Dems from the dead
[..] the Liberal Democrats should be rooting for Corbyn too. Not because a more leftwing Labour party would necessarily push Blairites in their direction, but because Corbyn-style clarity about what Labour stands for would help the Liberal Democrats to define themselves more clearly – and they could start by giving full meaning to both elements of their name.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/28/jeremy-corbyn-liberal-democrats-dead-labour-party
It's not going to happen, and won't happen.
https://twitter.com/GerryHassan/status/626164937036034048