politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Independence Referendum turnout betting

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Independence Referendum turnout betting

That said, given the epochal nature of the upcoming referendum, I can see the arguments for turnout being higher than the 2010 General election turnout.

Read the full story here

Ishmael_X

The effect of the referendum is surely "UK wide". I'd expect higher turnout than 2010.

TheScreamingEagles

Apologies to Scot Nats, I know turnout is a sore point, given the disgrace of 1979

TheScreamingEagles

Ishmael_X said:

The effect of the referendum is surely "UK wide". I'd expect higher turnout than 2010.

But the voters are Scotland only.

Sunil_Prasannan

Interesting that the AV referendum of 2011 had a greater turnout than the Holyrood election the same year.

surbiton

FPT:

surbiton said:

» show previous quotes
Neil said:
surbiton said:
When a party is doing well in the polls, detractors usually point out that a poll is not real votes. When a party does well in real elections, detractors say............[ type in whatever you fancy ]

Labour's not doing that well in real elections. 29% projected national vote share in May wasnt fantastic.
Can you please tell us how the 100% were made up then ?
Tories c. 25%
UKIP c. 22%
Lib Dems c. 14%
---------

So, you forgot to say, a 6% swing to Labour from 2010 enough for an absolute majority.

Morris_Dancer

Damned new thread!

Betting Post

Backed Hamilton for the win at 3.9, hedged at 1.5: http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/belgium-pre-race.html

TheScreamingEagles

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Interesting that the AV referendum of 2011 had a greater turnout than the Holyrood election the same year.

Figures released by the Electoral Commission showed that Scotland recorded the highest turnout of voters - 50.7% - for the referendum in the UK.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-13305522

TheScreamingEagles

MSF confirms Syria 'chemical deaths'

Breaking news

Medecins Sans Frontieres says it treated about 3,600 patients with 'neurotoxic symptoms' in Syria, of whom 355 died

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23827950

Neil

surbiton said:

FPT:

surbiton said:

» show previous quotes
Neil said:
surbiton said:
When a party is doing well in the polls, detractors usually point out that a poll is not real votes. When a party does well in real elections, detractors say............[ type in whatever you fancy ]

Labour's not doing that well in real elections. 29% projected national vote share in May wasnt fantastic.
Can you please tell us how the 100% were made up then ?
Tories c. 25%
UKIP c. 22%
Lib Dems c. 14%
---------

So, you forgot to say, a 6% swing to Labour from 2010 enough for an absolute majority.

No, I didnt forget to say anything, I simply said it wasnt a fantastic performance. Which is obviously true. If you think a 6% swing from a GE to a midterm local election is the kind of performance that absolute majorities are built on then I'm sure you'll be happy with the 29% projected vote share.

Plato

If you missed it

When he volunteered as judge at a charity dog show he probably didn't count on the contestants taking his comments personally.

But animal loving former MP Lembit Opik found himself needing medical attention after an irate sausage dog launched itself at him and bit his privates.

Good humoured Mr Opik, who was once engaged to Cheeky Girl Gabriella Irimia laughed off the encounter but friends claim it left him in pain and struggling to walk.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2401356/Ex-MP-Lembit-Opik-bitten-GROIN-sausage-dog.html#ixzz2ctyJcwht
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Charles

@surbiton FPT Wasn't Antonia Fraser married to a Tory MP before Pinter.

She was married to Hugh Fraser (a Lovat Fraser).

But I'm evolved enough to believe that women can have political views that diverge from those of their husbands

MonikerDiCanio

The Holyrood turnouts are dismal. The Scottish Assembly was just another New Labour waste of time and money. It should be closed.

Neil

@Moniker

I'm not sure there are any Scottish nationalists around to troll right now. You might be better off trying later.

Stuart_Dickson

I staked the max amount at PP about 3 months ago when better price. 64+.

Unfortunately they severely limit my stakes these days, since my 2011 Holyrood wins.

NickPalmer

I'd think 64+ on the Paddy list will win - 60-64 looks too narrow a band to happen to hit, and I think everyone will feel it's a lot more interesting than the question of whether to have a regional government. But the 8/11 odds aren't tempting - if one side is clearly far ahead as the vote approaches, that could depress turnout.

Roger

I think all the PB Nats are in jail. If we want any intelligent conversation on the subject let them out now.

Release the SNP ONE!

Neil

o/t - I see Paddy is offering odds on the next leader of the DUP. Clearly speculation about Peter Robinson is growing. Even at 11/10 I think the odds on Nigel Dodds are value (Sammy Wilson as First Minister, really?) but I'm not sure Peter Robinson is going anywhere very soon (that's a signal for him to resign now!).

NickPalmer

Neil - local elections and polls are telling much the same story, of a steady 6% swing. So we're back to the usual debate of whether this is the usual midterm froth or a realignment of left-wing LibDems. Personally I think UKIP has nicked the frothy vote and this is pretty steady, which would mean that Labour does get 36-39 at the election, but the Tories improve on their score too if the UKIP froth subsides. By enough to stay in government, i.e. getting a lead of 5-7%? Probably not.

Y0kel

DecrepitJohn FPT

A black operation is always possible but there are several things that would go against that hypothesis in this case:

1. If it was an attempt to pull the US in then the US has, so far, been complicit in supporting the claim of a mass chemical attack and quick out of the blocks in doing so in unattributed vriefings.

2. The president doesn't want to do a thing beyond a surreal tap-on, tap-off support for insurgents, something that is in tap-on mode at the moment. The chemical attack scenario is not good for the administration that doesn't want, understandably on some grounds, to take any direct action because its a credibility issue, in Syria, regionally and globally. Its one that they've ignored before but the scale looks too big to ignore without consequences.

3. On Wednesday I think I proposed that the US and certainly the Israelis had possibly a good idea what had happened without anyone ever having to go look and indeed had an idea before any attack occurred. The Syrian special weapons machine is organised and also subject to considerable monitoring. Given reports leaking from US officials to the US media, this as it turns out, seems to have been the case, they have gne bck, looked at the intercepts and reckoned it was coming.

4. Its doubtful, though possible US action will be deliberately designed to change the overall military balance. There are options on the US books to bomb Assads regime back to the stone ae then declining from there. What appears to be suggested now is something of a direct assault specfically around the chemical weapons anbd/or on regiome targets designed to hurt but not cripple Assads war effort.

5. Assad isn't winning. The mainstream media is about 1-2 months behind events in terms of assessment. He had a number of strategic successes in the centre of the country in the late spring/early summer period but he doesn't have the ability to fight to a finish on so many fronts. In Damascus the mainstream media have missed a fairly considerable insurgent offensive in the east of the city, the same area where the alleged chemical attacks occurred. Aleppo hangs in the balance, Idlib province is not looking clever and Daraa and the Golan area are also subject to insurgent offensives. Over half the country geographically is outside Assad's control.

That the Iranians are again putting fighting men into Syria is a sign that it isn't all dandy. All to play for yes but decisively winning, no.

malcolmg

Neil said:

@Moniker

I'm not sure there are any Scottish nationalists around to troll right now. You might be better off trying later.

Just ignoring Monica's usual crap

MonikerDiCanio

Neil said:

@Moniker

I'm not sure there are any Scottish nationalists around to troll right now. You might be better off trying later.

Your supercilious backchat must bore even you by now.

OldKingCole

Plato said:

If you missed it

When he volunteered as judge at a charity dog show he probably didn't count on the contestants taking his comments personally.

But animal loving former MP Lembit Opik found himself needing medical attention after an irate sausage dog launched itself at him and bit his privates.

Good humoured Mr Opik, who was once engaged to Cheeky Girl Gabriella Irimia laughed off the encounter but friends claim it left him in pain and struggling to walk.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2401356/Ex-MP-Lembit-Opik-bitten-GROIN-sausage-dog.html#ixzz2ctyJcwht
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Poor old Lembit. Not a lot's gone right for him since 2010. Hope Leadenhall Consulting,his current employers according to Wikipedia, are doing reasonably well!

Neil

@NickPalmer

Have you read this:

http://labourmajority.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Majority-Rules1.pdf

Interestingly claims that Labour will need a 7% lead to win a majority.

Roger

ما يحصل في هذه هتلر قليلا يرأس عندما مايك بعيدا؟

TwistedFireStopper

O/T
I've been a bit busy, and only just found out that Elmore Leonard has died. His writing got me into reading adult, grown up books, when I was barely in my teens and opened up the literary world for me.
Thanks, Dutch.

Y0kel

Or a little Stalin.

Y0kel

Neil said:

o/t - I see Paddy is offering odds on the next leader of the DUP. Clearly speculation about Peter Robinson is growing. Even at 11/10 I think the odds on Nigel Dodds are value (Sammy Wilson as First Minister, really?) but I'm not sure Peter Robinson is going anywhere very soon (that's a signal for him to resign now!).

Dodds or Foster.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Y0kel, thanks for your informative post in Syria.

Neil

@Yokel

I cant see them making a defector leader so I've been ruling out Foster (even though she is one of the more impressive ministers they have). What do you make of the speculation over Robinson? I'm surprised at the unrest.

Andy_JS

Target seats, Australian General Election:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dERmb2NsbmpUNmlyOHplOTNOTE9iZVE#gid=0

Y0kel

Neil said:

@Yokel

I cant see them making a defector leader so I've been ruling out Foster (even though she is one of the more impressive ministers they have). What do you make of the speculation over Robinson? I'm surprised at the unrest.

If you remember Paisley's retirement it gained steam extremely quickly as well. I'm not aware of anything in particular that may be fueling this. Some might just think his time is up, which is basically incorrect.

They would elect a defector ok, its more whether electing someone outside of their traditional cockpit areas is viable.

surbiton

Neil said:

@NickPalmer

Have you read this:

http://labourmajority.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Majority-Rules1.pdf

Interestingly claims that Labour will need a 7% lead to win a majority.

Wasn't the article based on boundary changes ?

Ishmael_X

TheScreamingEagles said:

Ishmael_X said:

The effect of the referendum is surely "UK wide". I'd expect higher turnout than 2010.

But the voters are Scotland only.

But that is true of all the cases under consideration.

Andy_JS

surbiton said:

Neil said:

@NickPalmer

Have you read this:

http://labourmajority.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Majority-Rules1.pdf

Interestingly claims that Labour will need a 7% lead to win a majority.

Wasn't the article based on boundary changes ?

I would have thought so. Labour only need to be 3% ahead with the current boundaries.

Sunil_Prasannan

Roger said:

ما يحصل في هذه هتلر قليلا يرأس عندما مايك بعيدا؟

"What is happening in this little Hitler when Mike headed away?"

Charles

Roger said:

ما يحصل في هذه هتلر قليلا يرأس عندما مايك بعيدا؟

Apropos anything?

Neil

@Yokel

A bit of googling and I've realised that tipping Dodds at slightly better than evens may be about the worst bit of tipping I've ever done on pbc as it's not clear he'll be back in (or could get back to) Stormont when a vacancy arises (though he may not have a seat in Westminster after 2015 either). On that basis Foster (9/2!) is probably the value. Basically I dont fancy Sammy Wilson!

Neil

surbiton said:

Neil said:

@NickPalmer

Have you read this:

http://labourmajority.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Majority-Rules1.pdf

Interestingly claims that Labour will need a 7% lead to win a majority.

Wasn't the article based on boundary changes ?

No.

OldKingCole

If the turnout's below 50%, would any sort of majority for Independence be considered enough? If there's a 51-49 split on a 49% turnnout will the UK Parliament not simply say "Not Proven"?

Stuart_Dickson

OldKingCole said:

If the turnout's below 50%, would any sort of majority for Independence be considered enough? If there's a 51-49 split on a 49% turnnout will the UK Parliament not simply say "Not Proven"?

I seem to recall the PM saying that he would respect the verdict of the electorate. No turnout criterion was mentioned.

dugarbandier

Y0kel said:

DecrepitJohn FPT


That the Iranians are again putting fighting men into Syria is a sign that it isn't all dandy. All to play for yes but decisively winning, no.

is everything dependent on what the russians decide to do? or is that too simplistic?

Andy_JS

Labour won a 66 seat majority in 2005 with a 3% lead.

At that time the base electorates used for the boundaries were 14 years old.

At the next election they'll be 15 years old.

Y0kel

Neil said:

@Yokel

A bit of googling and I've realised that tipping Dodds at slightly better than evens may be about the worst bit of tipping I've ever done on pbc as it's not clear he'll be back in (or could get back to) Stormont when a vacancy arises (though he may not have a seat in Westminster after 2015 either). On that basis Foster (9/2!) is probably the value. Basically I dont fancy Sammy Wilson!

Depends, Dodds should hold on as an MP this time and proposed boundary changes would secure him ok in North Belfast.

OldKingCole

dugarbandier said:

Y0kel said:

DecrepitJohn FPT


That the Iranians are again putting fighting men into Syria is a sign that it isn't all dandy. All to play for yes but decisively winning, no.

is everything dependent on what the russians decide to do? or is that too simplistic?

Don't get the impression that anyone is "decisively winning"! Or will!

OldKingCole

Stuart_Dickson said:

OldKingCole said:

If the turnout's below 50%, would any sort of majority for Independence be considered enough? If there's a 51-49 split on a 49% turnnout will the UK Parliament not simply say "Not Proven"?

I seem to recall the PM saying that he would respect the verdict of the electorate. No turnout criterion was mentioned.

But will that be the view of Parliament?

Sunil_Prasannan

Y0kel said:

Neil said:

@Yokel

A bit of googling and I've realised that tipping Dodds at slightly better than evens may be about the worst bit of tipping I've ever done on pbc as it's not clear he'll be back in (or could get back to) Stormont when a vacancy arises (though he may not have a seat in Westminster after 2015 either). On that basis Foster (9/2!) is probably the value. Basically I dont fancy Sammy Wilson!

Depends, Dodds should hold on as an MP this time and proposed boundary changes would secure him ok in North Belfast.

Aren't the boundary changes dead for the remainder of this Parliament?

dugarbandier

OldKingCole said:

dugarbandier said:

Y0kel said:

DecrepitJohn FPT


That the Iranians are again putting fighting men into Syria is a sign that it isn't all dandy. All to play for yes but decisively winning, no.

is everything dependent on what the russians decide to do? or is that too simplistic?

Don't get the impression that anyone is "decisively winning"! Or will!

i can't see any outcome other than misery, sadly

Andy_JS

I'm really fed up with iTunes.

Tokyo Story is apparently one of the best films of all time but isn't available on there.

Y0kel

dugarbandier said:

Y0kel said:

DecrepitJohn FPT


That the Iranians are again putting fighting men into Syria is a sign that it isn't all dandy. All to play for yes but decisively winning, no.

is everything dependent on what the russians decide to do? or is that too simplistic?

What are the Russians going to do? The answer is ultimately they could be ignored. They have continued to supply Assad for some time, they have advisors in there, at least one senior officer advisor was killed by insurgents. They supplied their best anti air craft missiles and sea skimming anti ship missiles (some of which the Israelis have already destroyed) to try to discourage foreign interventions from the sea or the sky.

In short they are doing nearly as much as they reasonably can short of landing fighting men down there. I think thats extremely doubtful. Certainly they have set up shop in Beirut since abandoning active facilities in Syria. My understanding is that the Beirut base represents a forward planning location in case they have to get Assad and other key figures, as well as their own people out.

Officially the Russian line is that they don't back Assad himself, just that 3rd parties intervening & overthrowing him is not all fair and the insurgents have a seam that they don't like. When you look at their shows of force in the Med, the Americans have 4 times the amount of clout sailing about in the region all day every day without breaking sweat. It nearly killed the Russians to muster that kind of flotilla.

They will oppose any US action but will probably have to live the kind of things the President in reportedly looking at. Retaliation is already in place via the AA & anti ship missiles. All they will likely do is much of the same.

Y0kel

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Y0kel said:

Neil said:

@Yokel

A bit of googling and I've realised that tipping Dodds at slightly better than evens may be about the worst bit of tipping I've ever done on pbc as it's not clear he'll be back in (or could get back to) Stormont when a vacancy arises (though he may not have a seat in Westminster after 2015 either). On that basis Foster (9/2!) is probably the value. Basically I dont fancy Sammy Wilson!

Depends, Dodds should hold on as an MP this time and proposed boundary changes would secure him ok in North Belfast.

Aren't the boundary changes dead for the remainder of this Parliament?

As I said he should survive this time around.

david_herdson

On topic, I would anticipate a huge turnout for the referendum. This is not some parish council vote or even to decide which of two similar parties - in the eyes of cynics - will take up the reins of government. This is a Vote That Matters. I'd be very surprised if it's less than 70% and may be over 80%.

The independence referendums in Quebec have produced very high turnouts, particularly the one in 1995, where the result was on a knife-edge so not only was the impact of the vote highly significant but also every vote counted too.

Within the UK, the 1998 referendum on the Good Friday agreement had a turnout of 81.1%, which is probably the closest parallel

dugarbandier

Y0kel said:

They will oppose any US action but will probably have to live the kind of things the President in reportedly looking at. Retaliation is already in place via the AA & anti ship missiles. All they will likely do is much of the same.

many thanks for the reply. only hope loss of life and destruction can be minimizsd

OldKingCole

Y0kel said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Y0kel said:

Neil said:

@Yokel

A bit of googling and I've realised that tipping Dodds at slightly better than evens may be about the worst bit of tipping I've ever done on pbc as it's not clear he'll be back in (or could get back to) Stormont when a vacancy arises (though he may not have a seat in Westminster after 2015 either). On that basis Foster (9/2!) is probably the value. Basically I dont fancy Sammy Wilson!

Depends, Dodds should hold on as an MP this time and proposed boundary changes would secure him ok in North Belfast.

Aren't the boundary changes dead for the remainder of this Parliament?

As I said he should survive this time around.

Isn't his problem demograghic. The constituency seems to be becoming less Protestant and more Catholic?

Theuniondivvie

david_herdson said:

On topic, I would anticipate a huge turnout for the referendum. This is not some parish council vote or even to decide which of two similar parties - in the eyes of cynics - will take up the reins of government. This is a Vote That Matters. I'd be very surprised if it's less than 70% and may be over 80%.

The independence referendums in Quebec have produced very high turnouts, particularly the one in 1995, where the result was on a knife-edge so not only was the impact of the vote highly significant but also every vote counted too.

Within the UK, the 1998 referendum on the Good Friday agreement had a turnout of 81.1%, which is probably the closest parallel

Agree.
I think the 'More than 64%' is money for old rope, though I'm instinctively averse to betting odds-on (particularly with PP's shrivelled staking limits).

Andy_JS

"Will Self: I was reported as 'suspected paedophile' when out with my son

Writer and journalist says he was stopped and questioned when out with his 11-year-old after a security guard called the police":

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/aug/18/will-self-reported-suspected-paedophile

TheScreamingEagles

Toby Helm ‏@tobyhelm 14m

Labour lead stuck at 7% in Opinium/Observer poll. L 36 n/c. Tories 29 n/c. Ukip 18 +1, Lib Dem 8 -1. Mili personal rating down again to -31.

firstlight40

dugarbandier said:

Y0kel said:

They will oppose any US action but will probably have to live the kind of things the President in reportedly looking at. Retaliation is already in place via the AA & anti ship missiles. All they will likely do is much of the same.

many thanks for the reply. only hope loss of life and destruction can be minimizsd

I tend to agree that it is unlikely the americans allowed a chemical attack to go ahead by their proxies. Neither do the russians think so or there would be more protest. While they voted against it in the security council the US would ignore them if France and UK are on side (and France are definitely onside) A US cruise missile attack is quite hard to defend against and can be used against command and control facilities - and more importantly badly degrade the rather impressive syrian air defence network should further air action be required. I imagine that if there are collateral casualites in the iranian contingent or russian engineers manning the air defence network that won't cause the US any particular grief either. More cynically cruise missile have a limited lifespan before they have to be rebuilt and there must be some more coming to the end of their useful life...

MonikerDiCanio

Theuniondivvie said:

david_herdson said:

On topic, I would anticipate a huge turnout for the referendum. This is not some parish council vote or even to decide which of two similar parties - in the eyes of cynics - will take up the reins of government. This is a Vote That Matters. I'd be very surprised if it's less than 70% and may be over 80%.

The independence referendums in Quebec have produced very high turnouts, particularly the one in 1995, where the result was on a knife-edge so not only was the impact of the vote highly significant but also every vote counted too.

Within the UK, the 1998 referendum on the Good Friday agreement had a turnout of 81.1%, which is probably the closest parallel

Agree.
I think the 'More than 64%' is money for old rope, though I'm instinctively averse to betting odds-on (particularly with PP's shrivelled staking limits).

Bad news for the SNP/Yes camp . You only perform well in low turnout elections.

HYUFD

Godfrey Bloom 'I used to beat up guys like the PM'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10263580/I-used-to-beat-up-lads-like-the-PM-says-Bongo-Bongo-Bloom.html

NickPalmer

Neil said:

@NickPalmer

Have you read this:

http://labourmajority.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Majority-Rules1.pdf

Interestingly claims that Labour will need a 7% lead to win a majority.

Yes, the arguments are familiar themes here - he accepts that on paper Labour wins a majority with a tiny lead, but thinks essentially that LibDem personal votes will hold off Labour in half the target seats and that double incumbency effects will help enough Tories to hold on. He doesn't allow for the relatively large number of targets where the former Labour MP is the contender, which will presumably reduce the double incumbency. He's also quite sure that some high-profile seats will hold Labour off, e.g. Caroline Lucas (he may be right but I'm not as sure as him - he believes the Green council is very popular, which may not be a current view).

I think Labour's likely to be the largest party and form the Government. At this stage I wouldn't bet on the scale, though if I had to guess I'd say "with a small overall majority".

Sunil_Prasannan

OldKingCole said:

Y0kel said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Y0kel said:

Neil said:

@Yokel

A bit of googling and I've realised that tipping Dodds at slightly better than evens may be about the worst bit of tipping I've ever done on pbc as it's not clear he'll be back in (or could get back to) Stormont when a vacancy arises (though he may not have a seat in Westminster after 2015 either). On that basis Foster (9/2!) is probably the value. Basically I dont fancy Sammy Wilson!

Depends, Dodds should hold on as an MP this time and proposed boundary changes would secure him ok in North Belfast.

Aren't the boundary changes dead for the remainder of this Parliament?

As I said he should survive this time around.

Isn't his problem demograghic. The constituency seems to be becoming less Protestant and more Catholic?

North Belfast? Catholics just ahead in 2011, but neither community in a majority.

HYUFD

Charles - Antonia Fraser's son, Orlando, stood as Tory candidate for North Devon in 2005

Theuniondivvie

MonikerDiCanio said:

Bad news for the SNP/Yes camp . You only perform well in low turnout elections.

Can you remind us whether low or high turnouts favour UKIP in Scotland?

Oh, that's right, they're crap whenever the turnout is between 0-100%.

Carola

@NickPalmer

'he may be right but I'm not as sure as him - he believes the Green council is very popular, which may not be a current view'

If you want to see someone spitting fire in Brighton, start a conversation about the council.

Sunil_Prasannan

"A slave stood behind the conqueror holding a golden crown and whispering in his ear a warning: that all glory is fleeting."

HYUFD

Quinnipiac Colorado 2016

Chris Christie (R) 43% (44%)
Hillary Clinton (D) 42% (41%)

Hillary Clinton (D) 45%
Ted Cruz (R) 42%

Chris Christie (R) 50% (48%)
Joe Biden (D) 33% (32%)

Ted Cruz (R) 45%
Joe Biden (D) 39%

HYUFD

PPP Ohio 2016 GOP primary

Chris Christie 17%
Rand Paul 17%
Jeb Bush 10%
Marco Rubio 9%
Paul Ryan 8%
John Kasich 8%
Ted Cruz 6%
Bobby Jindal 4%
Rick Santorum 4%
Someone else/Not sure 17%

MikeK

From the man himself:
‏@MSmithsonPB
UKIP still running strong in the latest fortnightly Opinium online poll for Observer
CON 29% nc
LAB 36% nc
LD 8%-1
UKIP 18% +1

NickPalmer

HYUFD said:

Quinnipiac Colorado 2016

Chris Christie (R) 43% (44%)
Hillary Clinton (D) 42% (41%)

Hillary Clinton (D) 45%
Ted Cruz (R) 42%

Chris Christie (R) 50% (48%)
Joe Biden (D) 33% (32%)

Ted Cruz (R) 45%
Joe Biden (D) 39%

Pretty amazing difference between Clinton and Biden. If Clinton stands, Biden seemingly might as well give up immediately, though these things can change.

anotherDave

NickPalmer said:

HYUFD said:

Quinnipiac Colorado 2016

Chris Christie (R) 43% (44%)
Hillary Clinton (D) 42% (41%)

Hillary Clinton (D) 45%
Ted Cruz (R) 42%

Chris Christie (R) 50% (48%)
Joe Biden (D) 33% (32%)

Ted Cruz (R) 45%
Joe Biden (D) 39%

Pretty amazing difference between Clinton and Biden. If Clinton stands, Biden seemingly might as well give up immediately, though these things can change.

Jonah Goldberg suggested that if Mr Biden stands, he'll kill Mrs Clinton's unbeatable aura, and another candidate will come thru the middle.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/356295/run-joe-run-jonah-goldberg

Andy_JS

I have a video with an edition of Question Time from June 1984 which features Antonia Fraser as a panellist. The others are Norman Tebbit, Michael Meadowcroft and John Smith. I'll put it on YouTube sometime.

anotherDave

Neil said:

@NickPalmer

Have you read this:

http://labourmajority.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Majority-Rules1.pdf

Interestingly claims that Labour will need a 7% lead to win a majority.

In 2005 Labour won a majority with a lead of 3%. Con 32, Lab 35, LD 22.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2005

Andy_JS

anotherDave said:

Neil said:

@NickPalmer

Have you read this:

http://labourmajority.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Majority-Rules1.pdf

Interestingly claims that Labour will need a 7% lead to win a majority.

In 2005 Labour won a majority with a lead of 3%. Con 32, Lab 35, LD 22.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2005

And as I said before the boundaries are more favourable to Labour now than than were in 2005.

I think Kellner's analysis makes slightly too much of incumbency for Tory MPs elected in 2010.

HYUFD

NP/Another Dave - Indeed, this PPP Ohio poll I posted from yesterday confirms it is Hillary's for the taking.
Hillary Clinton (D) 45%
Chris Christie (R) 36%

Hillary Clinton (D) 50%
Jeb Bush (R) 36%

Hillary Clinton (D) 51%
Rand Paul (R) 36%

Hillary Clinton (D) 52%
Paul Ryan (R) 36%

Hillary Clinton (D) 53%
John Kasich (R) 35%

In any other year after 2 terms in the White House the VP would be odds-on favourite for his party's nomination, but not against a former first lady, senator and secretary of state who is probably their party's only chance of keeping power. Biden will almost certainly not run if Hillary does, indeed some of his 2008 staff are already working for her

Charles

HYUFD said:

Godfrey Bloom 'I used to beat up guys like the PM'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10263580/I-used-to-beat-up-lads-like-the-PM-says-Bongo-Bongo-Bloom.html

The more he talks, the more he comes across not so much as a bigot as just a huge jerk

Charles

HYUFD said:

Charles - Antonia Fraser's son, Orlando, stood as Tory candidate for North Devon in 2005

Family of rebels ;-)

richardDodd

Godfreys Bloom is beginning to lose its petals..

RobD

Not an expert, but could it be a rouge element within Assad's military, pushing a harder line?

TheScreamingEagles

Labour has halted a decline in its poll rating following its summer of internal bickering, but Ed Miliband's personal ratings continue to slide, according to the latest Opinium/Observer poll.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/aug/24/ed-miliband-labour-opinium-poll-ratings

JosiasJessop

SeanT said:

If Yokel is still here - or, indeed, any other pb expert - I'd be intrigued to know what they think Assad has to gain with his chemical attack.

I take on board 1, the fact that he's not winning yet, and 2, he has form as a total bastard, but surely 3, he is doing better now than he has been for months, so why endanger all that with an indiscriminate and pointless chemical assault?

Very odd.

That rather assumes that:
a) we know the full situation on the ground (in a previous post Y0kel seemed to imply we were out-of-date)
b) that people react logically, especially when under pressure.
c) that any attack was ordered by him, not in spite of him.

ISTR that both the Warsaw Pact and NATO had rules where, in a full-blown war, commanders on the ground had the right to use small tactical nukes as and when they saw fit, without going up the chain of command. The thinking was that by the time it had been okay'ed by the chain of command, the time to use them would have been past.

Could be wrong in that, though ...

anotherDave

Andy_JS said:

anotherDave said:

Neil said:

@NickPalmer

Have you read this:

http://labourmajority.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Majority-Rules1.pdf

Interestingly claims that Labour will need a 7% lead to win a majority.

In 2005 Labour won a majority with a lead of 3%. Con 32, Lab 35, LD 22.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2005

And as I said before the boundaries are more favourable to Labour now than than were in 2005.

Crickey. I'm amazed they were able to get away that 'equal sized constituencies = gerrymandering' line.

On another note, can you please point me towards your May 2013 spreadsheets?

HYUFD

Charles - Indeed, she is a good historian though, saw her in conversation with Simon Jenkins at the Hay Festival on her new book on the Great Reform Act. Her son is a top-earning commercial barrister, and with connections at the top of both main parties, the top of the arts and academia, the media and the law, and titles her family is pretty much as establishment as you can get

Charles/Richard Dodd - He comes across as basically a spitting image stereotype of a UKIPer, un PC, hard drinking, with opinions straight from the saloon bar, although to be fair and as he points out he has had a more impressive non-politics CV than Cameron

MikeL

Andy_JS said:

And as I said before the boundaries are more favourable to Labour now than than were in 2005.

I think Kellner's analysis makes slightly too much of incumbency for Tory MPs elected in 2010.

What? The 2010 boundary changes mean the current boundaries are far more favourable to Con and less favourable to Lab than in 2005.

What, specifically, do you think is wrong in Kellner's article?

A lot of people on here keep quoting the 2005 result to suggest that what Kellner is saying must be wrong. But the point is that Kellner's article actually illustrates just how much the landscape has changed.

Even if Con MPs get NO incumbency bonus at all, Lab needs a lead of 3% to get a majority of 1 (per Kellner). That compares to a lead of 3% giving a majority of 66 in 2005.

It is an absolutely massive change and because it's so massive lots of people seem to think the numbers must somehow be wrong. They aren't.

Andy_JS

Bloom is just winding people up and seeing if he can get a reaction.

Andy_JS

MikeL said:

Andy_JS said:

And as I said before the boundaries are more favourable to Labour now than than were in 2005.

I think Kellner's analysis makes slightly too much of incumbency for Tory MPs elected in 2010.

What? The 2010 boundary changes mean the current boundaries are far more favourable to Con and less favourable to Lab than in 2005.

What, specifically, do you think is wrong in Kellner's article?

A lot of people on here keep quoting the 2005 result to suggest that what Kellner is saying must be wrong. But the point is that Kellner's article actually illustrates just how much the landscape has changed.

Even if Con MPs get NO incumbency bonus at all, Lab needs a lead of 3% to get a majority of 1 (per Kellner). That compares to a lead of 3% giving a majority of 66 in 2005.

It is an absolutely massive change and because it's so massive lots of people seem to think the numbers must somehow be wrong. They aren't.

The 2005 boundaries were based on electorates from 1991 so they were 14 years old at the time, except in Scotland where new boundaries came into force based on electorates in 2001, so they were only 4 years old.

Compare this to 2015: they boundaries used then will be 15 years old (based on 2000 electorates) except in Scotland where they will be 14 years old.

Andy_JS

SeanT said:

If Yokel is still here - or, indeed, any other pb expert - I'd be intrigued to know what they think Assad has to gain with his chemical attack.

I take on board 1, the fact that he's not winning yet, and 2, he has form as a total bastard, but surely 3, he is doing better now than he has been for months, so why endanger all that with an indiscriminate and pointless chemical assault?

Very odd.

Assad believes he can afford to launch chemical attacks because he calculates - probably correctly - that there is absolutely no appetite in either Europe or the US for a military intervention. So he can do what he likes and get away with it.

MikeL

Andy - just read your earlier post saying 2015 boundaries will be 15 years out of date whereas 2005 boundaries were only 14 years out of date.

My answer to that is please go and read the 2006 Boundary Commission report. You will find that:

1) The 2006 review (based on 2000 data) did a far better job in making constituencies more equal than any previous review.

2) The 2006 report also shows that the rate of obsolescence (ie from 2000 to 2006) was far slower than after previous reviews - presumably due to less new home building and more inner city regeneration.

The rate of new home building has continued to be very low since then due to the financial crisis - which means the rate of obsolescence has continued to be low. Plus there is quite a bit more inner city regeneration than pre 2000, plus children of immigrants reaching 18 are concentrated in inner city areas etc.

Andy_JS

MikeL said:

Andy - just read your earlier post saying 2015 boundaries will be 15 years out of date whereas 2005 boundaries were only 14 years out of date.

My answer to that is please go and read the 2006 Boundary Commission report. You will find that:

1) The 2006 review (based on 2000 data) did a far better job in making constituencies more equal than any previous review.

2) The 2006 report also shows that the rate of obsolescence (ie from 2000 to 2006) was far slower than after previous reviews - presumably due to less new home building and more inner city regeneration.

The rate of new home building has continued to be very low since then due to the financial crisis - which means the rate of obsolescence has continued to be low. Plus there is quite a bit more inner city regeneration than pre 2000, plus children of immigrants reaching 18 are concentrated in inner city areas etc.

But I think Scotland is important: the boundaries there haven't changed since 2005 based on 2001 electorates and Labour relies on Scottish seats for its majority. So for example they will continue winning all of the seats in Glasgow with ever decreasing number of votes.

Andy_JS

anotherDave said:

Andy_JS said:

anotherDave said:

Neil said:

@NickPalmer

Have you read this:

http://labourmajority.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Majority-Rules1.pdf

Interestingly claims that Labour will need a 7% lead to win a majority.

In 2005 Labour won a majority with a lead of 3%. Con 32, Lab 35, LD 22.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2005

And as I said before the boundaries are more favourable to Labour now than than were in 2005.

Crickey. I'm amazed they were able to get away that 'equal sized constituencies = gerrymandering' line.

On another note, can you please point me towards your May 2013 spreadsheets?

Local election results 2013:

http://vote-2012.proboards.com/post/82801/thread

MikeL

Andy_JS said:

But I think Scotland is important: the boundaries there haven't changed since 2005 based on 2001 electorates and Labour relies on Scottish seats for its majority. So for example they will continue winning all of the seats in Glasgow with ever decreasing number of votes.

True.

But I don't think Scotland makes a significant difference to the overall picture.

If the proposed boundary changes had gone through for 2015, Scotland would have lost 7 out of 59 seats (ie 12%) vs 50 out of 650 (ie 8%) for the UK as a whole.

So, proportionately, Scotland would only have lost 2 extra seats. And any further reallocation between parties in the remaining seats would not have been that significant. So overall any specific Scotand effect can only be marginal.

surbiton

Andy_JS said:

SeanT said:

If Yokel is still here - or, indeed, any other pb expert - I'd be intrigued to know what they think Assad has to gain with his chemical attack.

I take on board 1, the fact that he's not winning yet, and 2, he has form as a total bastard, but surely 3, he is doing better now than he has been for months, so why endanger all that with an indiscriminate and pointless chemical assault?

Very odd.

Assad believes he can afford to launch chemical attacks because he calculates - probably correctly - that there is absolutely no appetite in either Europe or the US for a military intervention. So he can do what he likes and get away with it.

One thing does bother me. If I were Assad, would I launch a chemical attack precisely when a UN delegation to investigate chemical attack is staying in ahotel barely 15 miles away ?

I am not saying it is not possible.

Very odd !

SouthamObserver

SeanT said:

Intriguing. A US soccer team with average home gates of 43,000:

http://www.bbc.com/travel/blog/20130821-soccer-fever-hits-the-pacific-northwest

The progress football has made in the US since the last World Cup is unbelievable. People know about it in a way that you would never have thought possible even five years ago.

MrJones

SeanT said:

If Yokel is still here - or, indeed, any other pb expert - I'd be intrigued to know what they think Assad has to gain with his chemical attack.

I take on board 1, the fact that he's not winning yet, and 2, he has form as a total bastard, but surely 3, he is doing better now than he has been for months, so why endanger all that with an indiscriminate and pointless chemical assault?

Very odd.

If the objective is to topple Assad then he is winning as without kinetic US assistance the situation before this chemical attack was extrapolating to either him winning or more likely a stalemate with the front-line fixed along ethno-sectarian lines neither of which achieves the objective.

surbiton

TheScreamingEagles said:

Labour has halted a decline in its poll rating following its summer of internal bickering, but Ed Miliband's personal ratings continue to slide, according to the latest Opinium/Observer poll.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/aug/24/ed-miliband-labour-opinium-poll-ratings

The interesting bit is the energy options. PBTories just will not like that.

Regarding the main poll. Ed is Crap and Labour to form the next government. Same old story !

Andy_JS

It is difficult to believe how outdated most of the boundaries usually are for Westminster elections.

I think the most up-to-date boundaries in recent times for most of the UK in Westminster elections were those first used in May 1997 which were "only" 6 years old, based on electorates from February 1991.

The new boundaries for 2010 were already more than 10 years old when they came into effect: election in May 2010 and electorates from February 2000 (except Scotland).

No_Offence_Alan

Andy_JS said:

MikeL said:

Andy - just read your earlier post saying 2015 boundaries will be 15 years out of date whereas 2005 boundaries were only 14 years out of date.

My answer to that is please go and read the 2006 Boundary Commission report. You will find that:

1) The 2006 review (based on 2000 data) did a far better job in making constituencies more equal than any previous review.

2) The 2006 report also shows that the rate of obsolescence (ie from 2000 to 2006) was far slower than after previous reviews - presumably due to less new home building and more inner city regeneration.

The rate of new home building has continued to be very low since then due to the financial crisis - which means the rate of obsolescence has continued to be low. Plus there is quite a bit more inner city regeneration than pre 2000, plus children of immigrants reaching 18 are concentrated in inner city areas etc.

But I think Scotland is important: the boundaries there haven't changed since 2005 based on 2001 electorates and Labour relies on Scottish seats for its majority. So for example they will continue winning all of the seats in Glasgow with ever decreasing number of votes.

Scotland has strictly speaking 2 more seats at present then proportionately entitled to. But the two seats which are way below average electorate don't return Labour MPs.

Andy_JS

No_Offence_Alan said:

Andy_JS said:

MikeL said:

Andy - just read your earlier post saying 2015 boundaries will be 15 years out of date whereas 2005 boundaries were only 14 years out of date.

My answer to that is please go and read the 2006 Boundary Commission report. You will find that:

1) The 2006 review (based on 2000 data) did a far better job in making constituencies more equal than any previous review.

2) The 2006 report also shows that the rate of obsolescence (ie from 2000 to 2006) was far slower than after previous reviews - presumably due to less new home building and more inner city regeneration.

The rate of new home building has continued to be very low since then due to the financial crisis - which means the rate of obsolescence has continued to be low. Plus there is quite a bit more inner city regeneration than pre 2000, plus children of immigrants reaching 18 are concentrated in inner city areas etc.

But I think Scotland is important: the boundaries there haven't changed since 2005 based on 2001 electorates and Labour relies on Scottish seats for its majority. So for example they will continue winning all of the seats in Glasgow with ever decreasing number of votes.

Scotland has strictly speaking 2 more seats at present then proportionately entitled to. But the two seats which are way below average electorate don't return Labour MPs.

It's more than 2 seats I think. But the main problem is the small electorates in certain Scottish constituencies such as most of the seats in Glasgow compared with other areas.

NickPalmer

TheScreamingEagles said:

Labour has halted a decline in its poll rating following its summer of internal bickering, but Ed Miliband's personal ratings continue to slide, according to the latest Opinium/Observer poll.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/aug/24/ed-miliband-labour-opinium-poll-ratings

As Surbiton says, the energy questions are fun. 60% wouldn't mind having a windfarm on their doorstep, but only 23% would be willing to have a fracking well.

There's no doubt that having 50% disapproval isn't great for a leader, but striking that this is the case for all three leaders, except that it's 60% for Clegg. The difference is that Cameron still has a fan club of 32% who like him. As the Tory rating in this poll is 29, I assume this is basically his remaining voters being content. While nice to have, it doesn't produce more votes.

MikeL

SouthamObserver said:

The progress football has made in the US since the last World Cup is unbelievable. People know about it in a way that you would never have thought possible even five years ago.

A Premier League game is being shown live on the main free to air NBC network each Saturday at 12.30pm ET (ie the 5.30pm UK game).

The first game last Saturday only got 1.4m viewers. The US is approx. 5 times the size of the UK so that's equivalent to something on one of our main 5 terrestrial channels getting 300,000 which would be derisory.

OK, the US TV market is far, far, far more competitive but it's still a very small audience.

Andy_JS

In some ways Australia appears to be one of the most modern, forward-looking countries in the world, which is why it's rather mystifying that it's probably about to election an anti-climate change, anti gay marriage prime minister:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/politics/9000931/how-australian-labor-lost-it/