Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Steve Fisher’s model finds betting markets more pro-CON and an
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Steve Fisher’s model finds betting markets more pro-CON and anti-LAB than other projections
Elections Etc
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
SouthamObserver said:
May and the Tories are to be unreservedly applauded for making this a prominent issue. It's a shame it was not done years ago, but Labour learned a Death Tax lesson in 2010 and the Tories made a rod for their own back in deploying the term - so May's move is undoubtedly brave, if made a whole lot easier by the fact that she is facing Jeremy Corbyn. He really is a political game-changer.
The debate should now be about whether the duty of care and payment should be placed entirely on the family concerned, or whether a pooling approach is a better one. I favour the latter, because any one of us might be affected by this and dementia is an illness just as much as any other; but I can understand why others might take the opposite view. Once the general election is out of the way we may just get a grown-up conversation going, which would be extraordinary, but also very positive. My guess is that the policy as currently set out by the Tories will not be the one that makes it to the statute books.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/jeremy-corbyns-election-leaflets-show-how-he-has?utm_term=.awEKPg9E2#.qel7lokGx
Agree with all that.
Partisan politics wise this now feels to me like the opposite of a budget cock up, where things look great for 24 hours and then it all falls apart; it looked lunatic at first, and the sense in it is just beginning to sink in.
Even Mr. Bercow seems to think the labour front bench is too toxic for his own constituency?
2001, 2005, 2010, 2015 and then 2017.
Assuming Labour lose seats. If we're returning to two party politics we may see some weird results [although I do expect Labour to lose seats, and a fair number].
On-topic: interesting forecast. I'd prefer the Lib Dems to do a little worse, to be honest (purely for betting reasons).
I think it more likely the Tories believe they have to do something like this in the next parliament, and since they believe they will win the grey vote, figure better to take a hit now at the cost of a smaller majority, than spring it as a surprise.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/19/british-voters-rejecting-santa-embracing-scrooge-labour-popularity
Edit - mean to say I can also see why that might not be the same outside of the London commuter belt. This is complex.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but contrary to OGH's assertion, I thought Prof. Fisher was just about as wrong as everyone else in 2015, although iirc he was spot on in 2010.
anyone following Irish politics betting? Leo Varadkar is 1/25 to be the next leader of Fine Gael and as I understand it will then almost certainly be elected Taoiseach. Betstars have him at 5/4 to be next Taoiseach behind Michael Martin at 8/11. these odds are inline with Paddys and Boylesports but their market is for Taoiseach after the next election.
I could be missing something and there's a chance your bet might be palped but the wording of their market is pretty clear. Could be an opportunity there but DYOR.
TBH I found the Conservative manifesto deeply uninspiring - it was a document which provided very little hope that we as a country can progress to a better future.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-mueller-idUSKCN18F2KK
Within hours of Mueller's appointment on Wednesday, the White House began reviewing the Code of Federal Regulations, which restricts newly hired government lawyers from investigating their prior law firm’s clients for one year after their hiring, the sources said.
An executive order signed by Trump in January extended that period to two years.
Mueller's former law firm, WilmerHale, represents Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, who met with a Russian bank executive in December, and the president's former campaign manager Paul Manafort, who is a subject of a federal investigation.
Legal experts said the ethics rule can be waived by the Justice Department, which appointed Mueller. He did not represent Kushner or Manafort directly at his former law firm.
If the department did not grant a waiver, Mueller would be barred from investigating Kushner or Manafort, and this could greatly diminish the scope of the probe, experts said...
But the alternative is Corbyn. I'd probably even vote Green before him.
Central forecast: Con short of a majority by 38
i WAS WRONG ie He was wrong
As has been said earlier labour find themselves in the ridiculous position of backing the wealthy against the ordinary taxpayer. McDonnell was just jaw dropping when he said he uses the £200 to pay his fuel bill while earning £100,000
It seems May is more in touch with the voter than any of these so called socialists
This week's ELBOW should be "interesting"
Still not convinced it's not "brave" from TM's viewpoint to drag all this out from the longest of long grass three weeks before a GE (according to the FT it was inserted at the last moment at the behest of Nick Timothy in her office over the objections of others at the last minute - so was it road tested? He might go down in Tory party infamy if it is received very badly). Agree final law will have all kinds of tweaks and amendments to it - if TM gets a majority to implement it.
Still the debate is now live, and that's good for the country.
In any case 'I'm a Labour member but I'm not voting for the Jezaster' is probably going to be a very common theme in this election. Heck, look at Richmond!
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/health-and-care/social-care/news/86104/tory-candidates-slam-theresa-mays-‘dementia-tax’
As far as I can see she just happens to be someone's sister. And that's it?
Social care, winter fuel allowance and end of the triple lock are some bold policies against their own core vote I did not expect Theresa 'U-turn on NI rise' May to include, and I think the party deserves credit for that.
Universal free school meals I'm unclear on, it seems like a decent policy on the face of it, but I know a chap with a lot of government and policy experience, and they claim the current policy is a dog's breakfast. But winter fuel and social care look like the Tories are willing to acknowledge things are more complicated than just spending more and more - even if like Southam I think it probable the policy on the latter will be tweaked, perhaps significantly, before it becomes law.
The Labour alternative is to lay the foundations of a national care service in their first term, so not even done before 2022, to be paid for by they don't know, but it could be a number of things. The LDs are saying the 1p income tax rise in order to fund more social care and bringing NHS and social care into one seamless service (their manifesto overall is better presented than the others, more restrained than Labour's but seeking more change than the Tories)
Are any of these truly inspiring?
As I noted yesterday, I don't believe the words Labour Party, opposition or Corbyn appear in the Tory manifesto, amazingly.
We support each other collectively if the person in need of care has assets of £100k or less. Above that level it is the role of the individual and the family.
That looks pretty reasonable and seems pretty fair when measured against average house prices in most of the country.
It's worth remembering that a third of the population have zero in real estate assets.
I would say most Leavers are quite happy to have state "interference" in domestic issues as long it is the state we voted for. That is why UKIP got nowhere when they went on about flat taxes and privatising the NHS, and 13% in a GE when they majored on immigration.
Cf. 19.4% w/ending 23rd April
I agree. Coverage of the royal family is fair enough. Don't care about the in-laws.
a) to carers and homes to jack up their costs, knowing that the taxpayer will have to pay for everything beyond a certain threshold.
b) to families to use the most expensive possible services.
In case anyone thinks this is fanciful, the Daily Mail had a piece back in 2014 on a luxury care home in Hampshire where the charges were a £1000-a-week. Dilnot would be exceeded within less than 9 months. Similarly the Guardian had a report last December of a care home in London where the charges were £3000-a-month. With a cap, a vast new subsidized care market would develop, completely unsustainable for any Government. That is one reason why I am so in favour of the Tories' courageous approach, which is both fair to the taxpayer and encourages personal responsibility.
That it is Left Wing to take a modest house off a life lottery loser.
I have explained 4 times on last thread why nearly all of these are worse off even before house is taken.
Meanwhile...
https://twitter.com/PollingDigest/status/865944060959358976
If Labour really are going to poll somewhere around 35% of the popular vote, then it's not just Ukip and the Greens that will have been bled white to get the extra support. Poor, tragic Timothy.
That subsidy might be being part paid by people working on minimum wage living in a rented bedsit.
The gainers (I hesitate to say winners) in this proposal are those receiving long-term residential care, the unlucky one sixth.
The losers are those receiving care at home (who have less protection, as BJO has articulated).
Well I'm not makifng the case that Labour or the LDs are offering anything inspiring (although I'd prefer a National Social Care service to the Conservative policy). I've been highly critical of Labour in the past, and even on this thread I've stated that I'm not voting for a party that is not Labour. As much I liked aspects of Labour's manifesto, I saw it overall as a milk and honey manifesto which presented a highly unrealistic vision. I doubt Corbyn can negotiate a good Brexit deal while being all things to all people, not in the least because Labour have conceded the end of freedom of movement, which is likely to cost us economically. Furthermore, I have my own doubts about Corbyn and his team competence with the exception of figures such as Rayner.
But ultimately, Corbyn's manifesto is less relevant than May's because of the fact that this election has already been decided - the Conservatives are going to win on June 8th. Therefore I'm expecting at least some kind of vision of progress from them, and to my mind there was very little in the manifesto to indicate that. I'm concerned about how Winter Fuel allowance would be means tested. From what I recall of the IFS report/statement on the Triple Lock changes, they don't really go that far, and that's one aspect of where baby boomers benefit that I wanted to see significant changes. I am pro universal free school meals. I think their policy re the immigration target to be highly unrealistic and one which is bad economically.
But, this care policy is boldly right.
I'm afraid OGH has got his facts quite wrong this time.
The example I used was that 10years of social care for someone with less than £50k of cash currently costs them £20k. The equivalent in the example I used would be all their cash and half of their £200k house in 7.5 years
I think pooling is the right way forward
Personally as I've often said I've never voted Tory, but there's been some real hysteria (a lot from their own side, on tactical grounds) over a rare attempt to be open and honest, not denying solutions to the problem will be difficult even for those who usually vote for them, such that I am considering doing so. I find the approach refreshing, even a little inspiring, in its own way. I think the main reason it may not be for most is that it is offering more of the same, by and large, as a message.
A good day to all.