Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » It’s now just possible to contemplate that my 32p Euros bet at

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited May 15 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » It’s now just possible to contemplate that my 32p Euros bet at 990/1 might just be a winner

BMG Euros poll for the Indy hasBXP 26%LAB 22%LD 19%CON 12%GRN 10%CUK 3%So the LDs just 7 points behind BXP

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • RobDRobD Posts: 37,158
    Which is more insane, that OGH bet 32p, or that someone bet £316.48 to win 32p?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 25,218
    I said it was a good bet, and here's how it (MIGHT) pay out.

    1. UKIP/BRX split turns out to be a lot more even than people think. We're all political obsessives. We know about the new Brexit Party. The people who sign up to do YouGov polls. They're political obsessives too. If you go into the street and ask 100 people which political party Nigel Farage represents, I bet you'd get at least 20 saying "UKIP". So, I reckon a 3-1 split in the BRX/UKIP vote is by no means impossible. Now imagine the BRX/UKIP total is 32% (and that's probably on the low side, but not impossible) - well on 3-1, that means BRX gets 24% and UKIP 8%.

    2. Bollocks to Brexit. The LDs get a lot of Remainer protest votes as the Chuckers chuck it in, and they become the perfect repository for protest votes.

    For those two to happen is still only a small chance. I'd reckon no more likely than 33-1. But a lot more likely than 900-1.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 11,002
    > @rcs1000 said:
    > 1. UKIP/BRX split turns out to be a lot more even than people think. We're all political obsessives. We know about the new Brexit Party. The people who sign up to do YouGov polls. They're political obsessives too. If you go into the street and ask 100 people which political party Nigel Farage represents, I bet you'd get at least 20 saying "UKIP". So, I reckon a 3-1 split in the BRX/UKIP vote is by no means impossible. Now imagine the BRX/UKIP total is 32% (and that's probably on the low side, but not impossible) - well on 3-1, that means BRX gets 24% and UKIP 8%.


    Also, UKIP get leaflets and a broadcast, right? Is it impossible to imagine that they'll come out with a message that convinces some of the voters to knowingly vote for them instead of Farage?
  • JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,760
    (Two threads ago)

    The article said "It is hard now to see anyone at all competing with Swinson and winning. The former cabinet minister, Ed Davey, is now 12% in the betting and the only other movement is Christine Jardine who won Edinburgh West of the SNP at the 2017 general election.

    According to the Evening Standard which broke the story her decision has nothing to do with the controversy when she admitted to facing charges which were dropped in a 2013 incident at the Party Conference in Glasgow"

    It took me several minutes of confusion and googling to work out who the "she" was in the second paragraph above. The context suggested Jardine. The other context suggested Swinson. It turned out to be Moran, who is the most remotely removed of the three from the words quoted. Does PB employ a proof-reader?
  • SirBenjaminSirBenjamin Posts: 153
    > @RobD said:
    > Which is more insane, that OGH bet 32p, or that someone bet £316.48 to win 32p?

    Possible that this was some sort of Arb/balancer for them? I occasionally have to place bets on Betfair that look absolutely nonsensical in isolation but which serve a wider strategic purpose.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 43,472
    I'm proud of you PB. Rather than talk about Brexit there was a long discussion on property valuation and taxation. It's what we all needed.
    _Anazina_ said:

    isam said:
    How much do you earn from the Kremlin?
    Not as much as me.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 43,472
    rcs1000 said:

    I said it was a good bet, and here's how it (MIGHT) pay out.



    1. UKIP/BRX split turns out to be a lot more even than people think. We're all political obsessives. We know about the new Brexit Party. The people who sign up to do YouGov polls. They're political obsessives too. If you go into the street and ask 100 people which political party Nigel Farage represents, I bet you'd get at least 20 saying "UKIP". So, I reckon a 3-1 split in the BRX/UKIP vote is by no means impossible. Now imagine the BRX/UKIP total is 32% (and that's probably on the low side, but not impossible) - well on 3-1, that means BRX gets 24% and UKIP 8%.



    2. Bollocks to Brexit. The LDs get a lot of Remainer protest votes as the Chuckers chuck it in, and they become the perfect repository for protest votes.



    For those two to happen is still only a small chance. I'd reckon no more likely than 33-1. But a lot more likely than 900-1.

    Perhaps. Though I think the BP/UKIP split or confusion would indeed be unlikely to be so high - the messaging and branding has been effective and people will come across BP the ballot paper first which should give them pause if they were even slightly confused.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 43,472
    edited May 15
    Funniest result?

    BP surge not as high as it seems and there is a larger split with UKIP than predicted. Labour lose out but more to Green than LD, who rise but not as much as expected, and the Tory sympathy/core vote holds up better than expected as it is depressed due to embarrassment.

    Ending with Tories inching out...first place.

    I'd want better odds than OGH on his bet
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 43,472
    JohnLoony said:

    (Two threads ago)



    The article said "It is hard now to see anyone at all competing with Swinson and winning. The former cabinet minister, Ed Davey, is now 12% in the betting and the only other movement is Christine Jardine who won Edinburgh West of the SNP at the 2017 general election.



    According to the Evening Standard which broke the story her decision has nothing to do with the controversy when she admitted to facing charges which were dropped in a 2013 incident at the Party Conference in Glasgow"



    It took me several minutes of confusion and googling to work out who the "she" was in the second paragraph above. The context suggested Jardine. The other context suggested Swinson. It turned out to be Moran, who is the most remotely removed of the three from the words quoted. Does PB employ a proof-reader?

    No, moving on.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 43,472
    I see Alabama gets the 'bragging rights' of harshest abortion law in the US so they can get a challenge to the Supreme Court.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48275795
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 51,575
    Longest lay for me ? Bet 400 to win £1 on Farage becoming the next PM. That's also shortened, but it won't win.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 11,517
    > @kle4 said:
    > I see Alabama gets the 'bragging rights' of harshest abortion law in the US so they can get a challenge to the Supreme Court.
    >
    > https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48275795

    In some respects the Georgia bill, which specifically grants a foetus personhood, is more draconian still, since a woman planning an abortion might be charged with conspiracy to murder, or murder, should she self abort.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 43,472
    Any reason the government is planning to introduce the Brexit legislation in early June and not now other than to pretend the labour talks are going anywhere?

    My theory is May will finally be forced out after next Sunday - given how frightened Tory mps are of the Brexit party and will recommend capitulation rather than fighting them by delivering Brexit- so the June announcement enables her and the cabinet to say they intended to see us leave but the party stopped them even trying, since Boris or whoever wont do it and if Brexit does not happen May and co can point to that.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 43,472
    Nigelb said:

    > @kle4 said:

    > I see Alabama gets the 'bragging rights' of harshest abortion law in the US so they can get a challenge to the Supreme Court.

    >

    > https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48275795



    In some respects the Georgia bill, which specifically grants a foetus personhood, is more draconian still, since a woman planning an abortion might be charged with conspiracy to murder, or murder, should she self abort.

    Hell of a game of top trumps.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 11,002
    > @kle4 said:
    > Perhaps. Though I think the BP/UKIP split or confusion would indeed be unlikely to be so high - the messaging and branding has been effective and people will come across BP the ballot paper first which should give them pause if they were even slightly confused.

    Yup, also the Brexit Party has a big old arrow pointing at the box you have to tick. Whereas UKIP has a pound symbol, which will make their target demographic think they have to put some money in the slot.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 105
    If you’re in the mood for long-shots, Shadsy has the Liberal Democrat’s at 100/1 to win Most Seats at the next Scottish Parliament election. Ruthie’s team at 7/1.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 43,472

    If you’re in the mood for long-shots, Shadsy has the Liberal Democrat’s at 100/1 to win Most Seats at the next Scottish Parliament election. Ruthie’s team at 7/1.

    7/1?!
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 11,517
    > @kle4 said:
    > > @kle4 said:
    >
    > > I see Alabama gets the 'bragging rights' of harshest abortion law in the US so they can get a challenge to the Supreme Court.
    >
    > >
    >
    > > https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48275795
    >
    >
    >
    > In some respects the Georgia bill, which specifically grants a foetus personhood, is more draconian still, since a woman planning an abortion might be charged with conspiracy to murder, or murder, should she self abort.
    >
    > Hell of a game of top trumps.

    Quite.
    The game is to introduce abortion bans without exceptions (which might muddy the legal argument) in order to give the Supreme Court an opportunity to overrun Roe v Wade.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 24,657
    That’s a bet I’d like to be the owner of.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 25,239
    > @williamglenn said:
    >

    Thank goodness. The EU is going to help force our politicians to make a decision after they have wasted another 7 months.
  • FenmanFenman Posts: 598
    > @kle4 said:
    > I said it was a good bet, and here's how it (MIGHT) pay out.
    >
    >
    >
    > 1. UKIP/BRX split turns out to be a lot more even than people think. We're all political obsessives. We know about the new Brexit Party. The people who sign up to do YouGov polls. They're political obsessives too. If you go into the street and ask 100 people which political party Nigel Farage represents, I bet you'd get at least 20 saying "UKIP". So, I reckon a 3-1 split in the BRX/UKIP vote is by no means impossible. Now imagine the BRX/UKIP total is 32% (and that's probably on the low side, but not impossible) - well on 3-1, that means BRX gets 24% and UKIP 8%.
    >
    >
    >
    > 2. Bollocks to Brexit. The LDs get a lot of Remainer protest votes as the Chuckers chuck it in, and they become the perfect repository for protest votes.
    >
    >
    >
    > For those two to happen is still only a small chance. I'd reckon no more likely than 33-1. But a lot more likely than 900-1.
    >
    > Perhaps. Though I think the BP/UKIP split or confusion would indeed be unlikely to be so high - the messaging and branding has been effective and people will come across BP the ballot paper first which should give them pause if they were even slightly confused.

    People who support Brexit obviously don't understand Economics. What makes you think they understand Politics. Secondly, you need to assess differential turnout.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 49,228
    Good morning, everyone.

    A very good bet. I'd probably hedge to guarantee no loss :p
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 25,239
    It appears in the BMG poll that UKIP are not troubling the scorers at all. Polling behind the CUKs is surely the most final form of death imaginable. I think those wanting a more even split with the BP are going to be sorely disappointed.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 37,158
    DavidL said:

    > @williamglenn said:

    >





    Thank goodness. The EU is going to help force our politicians to make a decision after they have wasted another 7 months.
    You continued reading after “No 10 say”? :p
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 27,942
    > @RobD said:
    > > @williamglenn said:
    >
    > >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Thank goodness. The EU is going to help force our politicians to make a decision after they have wasted another 7 months.
    >
    > You continued reading after “No 10 say”? :p

    It might as well have said, “Anyone who wants either No Deal or Revoke shouldn’t vote for the deal.”
  • RobDRobD Posts: 37,158

    Good morning, everyone.

    A very good bet. I'd probably hedge to guarantee no loss :p

    Good morning, comrade Dancer.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 11,002
    > @williamglenn said:
    >

    Meet the new strategy, exactly the same as the old strategy
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 5,076
    Has anyone on here ever won a 1000/1 or similar bet on politics?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 17,724
    I’m green on everything apart from BP and, er, the Greens.

    I like Robert's thinking. Not a huge stretch to think that for a variety of reasons a brand spanking new party won't win the first election it ever contests.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 49,228
    Mr. Tokyo, doing exactly what we've done seventeen times before is precisely the last thing they'll expect us to do this time.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 24,657
    > @rkrkrk said:
    > Has anyone on here ever won a 1000/1 or similar bet on politics?
    >

    Not won but I managed to cash out some of a 999/1 bet on David Lidington to be next Prime Minister at 5/1.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 10,911
    edited May 15
    rkrkrk said:

    Has anyone on here ever won a 1000/1 or similar bet on politics?

    I passed on £5 on Jeremy Corbyn at a similar 990 when I heard he was considering to be the Left candidate in the Labour leadership election.

    My only comfort is I know I would have laid that off way to early.
  • eekeek Posts: 3,479
    > @Fenman said:
    > > @kle4 said:
    > > I said it was a good bet, and here's how it (MIGHT) pay out.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > 1. UKIP/BRX split turns out to be a lot more even than people think. We're all political obsessives. We know about the new Brexit Party. The people who sign up to do YouGov polls. They're political obsessives too. If you go into the street and ask 100 people which political party Nigel Farage represents, I bet you'd get at least 20 saying "UKIP". So, I reckon a 3-1 split in the BRX/UKIP vote is by no means impossible. Now imagine the BRX/UKIP total is 32% (and that's probably on the low side, but not impossible) - well on 3-1, that means BRX gets 24% and UKIP 8%.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > 2. Bollocks to Brexit. The LDs get a lot of Remainer protest votes as the Chuckers chuck it in, and they become the perfect repository for protest votes.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > For those two to happen is still only a small chance. I'd reckon no more likely than 33-1. But a lot more likely than 900-1.
    > >
    > > Perhaps. Though I think the BP/UKIP split or confusion would indeed be unlikely to be so high - the messaging and branding has been effective and people will come across BP the ballot paper first which should give them pause if they were even slightly confused.
    >
    > People who support Brexit obviously don't understand Economics. What makes you think they understand Politics. Secondly, you need to assess differential turnout.

    There are economists on this site who I would argue with regarding their understanding of economics (for instance one believes that high house prices are good for the economy, I'm not so sure that's true).
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 17,512
    > @rcs1000 said:
    > I said it was a good bet, and here's how it (MIGHT) pay out.
    >
    > 1. UKIP/BRX split turns out to be a lot more even than people think. We're all political obsessives. We know about the new Brexit Party. The people who sign up to do YouGov polls. They're political obsessives too. If you go into the street and ask 100 people which political party Nigel Farage represents, I bet you'd get at least 20 saying "UKIP". So, I reckon a 3-1 split in the BRX/UKIP vote is by no means impossible. Now imagine the BRX/UKIP total is 32% (and that's probably on the low side, but not impossible) - well on 3-1, that means BRX gets 24% and UKIP 8%.
    >
    > 2. Bollocks to Brexit. The LDs get a lot of Remainer protest votes as the Chuckers chuck it in, and they become the perfect repository for protest votes.
    >
    > For those two to happen is still only a small chance. I'd reckon no more likely than 33-1. But a lot more likely than 900-1.

    I would have expected 1., but the VI polls strongly suggest otherwise. When you think how long UKiP has bee building its brand, such that most people would know its platform, it is a remarkable achievement by Farage to have broken through with his new party so quickly.

    2. is starting to happen, but the Green vote will be resilient given the recent media focus on climate change. The LibDems would be in with a chance had the Greens been on the margins as they were last year.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 18,171
    eek said:

    There are economists on this site who I would argue with regarding their understanding of economics (for instance one believes that high house prices are good for the economy, I'm not so sure that's true).

    'Why didn't Sir Frank warn me about the looming economic crisis?'

    'I'm afraid he's at an even greater disadvantage than Sir Humphrey when it comes to understanding economics, Prime Minister. He's an economist.'

    Yes Prime Minister, A Real Partnership.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 5,300
    edited May 15
    It's a great bet. Shame OGH could only get 32p. I'd have thrown a fiver at it without hesitation if I could have found a layer.

    There's another way this bet could come in. We may be at Max BP. Some BP voters might start to notice that the Party has no policy other than leaving the EU and on shockingly awful terms. The Party's vote may then ease down to around 25% at which point the LDs can easily pass them by convincing the electorate that they are Remain's best hope.

    I backed the Yellow Peril at 130/1 and then layed off the stake. I've gone back in at 30s. I don't think they should be any more than 10s.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 27,942
    > @IanB2 said:
    >
    > 2. is starting to happen, but the Green vote will be resilient given the recent media focus on climate change. The LibDems would be in with a chance had the Greens been on the margins as they were last year.

    Going with “Bollocks to Brexit” was an inspired move that could help pick up a late swing to them if they get close to winning.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 25,239
    > @RobD said:
    > > @williamglenn said:
    >
    > >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Thank goodness. The EU is going to help force our politicians to make a decision after they have wasted another 7 months.
    >
    > You continued reading after “No 10 say”? :p

    A fair point. Just a natural optimist I guess.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 3,421

    > @RobD said:

    > > @williamglenn said:

    >

    > >



    >

    >

    >

    >

    >

    > Thank goodness. The EU is going to help force our politicians to make a decision after they have wasted another 7 months.

    >

    > You continued reading after “No 10 say”? :p



    It might as well have said, “Anyone who wants either No Deal or Revoke shouldn’t vote for the deal.”
    Plenty of people would prefer either of those outcomes over the tomato skin flecked turd that May curled out.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 5,076
    > @Alistair said:
    > Has anyone on here ever won a 1000/1 or similar bet on politics?
    >
    > I passed on £5 on Jeremy Corbyn at a similar 990 when I heard he was considering to be the Left candidate in the Labour leadership election.
    >
    > My only comfort is I know I would have laid that off way to early.

    Ouch. Apart from the money, think of the bragging rights!
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 5,300
    > @Alistair said:
    > Has anyone on here ever won a 1000/1 or similar bet on politics?
    >
    > I passed on £5 on Jeremy Corbyn at a similar 990 when I heard he was considering to be the Left candidate in the Labour leadership election.
    >
    > My only comfort is I know I would have laid that off way to early.

    No. An acquaintance of mine pulls off this stunt several times a year but it's on the horses. He bets in running on horses that are out of camera shot. Works better at some courses than others. Chester is his happy hunting ground. Bangor and Fakenham are also good.

    He makes money at it. The main problem, as you might figure, is getting enough on.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 5,076
    > @AlastairMeeks said:
    > > @rkrkrk said:
    > > Has anyone on here ever won a 1000/1 or similar bet on politics?
    > >
    >
    > Not won but I managed to cash out some of a 999/1 bet on David Lidington to be next Prime Minister at 5/1.

    > @AlastairMeeks said:
    > > @rkrkrk said:
    > > Has anyone on here ever won a 1000/1 or similar bet on politics?
    > >
    >
    > Not won but I managed to cash out some of a 999/1 bet on David Lidington to be next Prime Minister at 5/1.

    That's superb. I'm still very green on Lidington in the hope it might happen.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 25,239
    > @eek said:
    > > @Fenman said:
    > > > @kle4 said:
    > > >
    > >
    > > People who support Brexit obviously don't understand Economics. What makes you think they understand Politics. Secondly, you need to assess differential turnout.
    >
    > There are economists on this site who I would argue with regarding their understanding of economics (for instance one believes that high house prices are good for the economy, I'm not so sure that's true).

    It's hard to see how high house prices are good for the economy. It reduces labour mobility etc. I think rising house prices has been an illicit drug for the UK economy on which we have had several highs as well as some lows over the post war years. The notional wealth encourages spending, borrowing and leaks into overall consumption allowing us to buy more expensive cars more often than we need and other things.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 49,228
    Mr. Punter, hmm.

    That makes me wonder if reduced coverage of certain drivers on contra-strategies in F1 might, in-race, yield profit.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 18,171
    I am still trying to work out what Labour are attempting to achieve with the recent flurry of mad, ooops, populist policies that they clearly haven't costed or thought through.

    Are they doing it in desperation in the belief that it will shore up their vote for the Euros? If so they're fools. Nobody is going to vote on domestic issues in these elections.

    Are they doing it in the expectation of a general election? If so, they're not fools, but they're rather rash to be showing their hand this early. The only reason this strategy sort of worked last time is that they revealed it very late and none of their opponents paid any attention to it. This time it is unlikely that mistake will happen.

    Or am I overthinking this and it is the Ganesh explanation - they are as thick as pigshit and don't have a clue what they're doing?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 14,781
    > @DavidL said:
    > > @eek said:
    > > > @Fenman said:
    > > > > @kle4 said:
    > > > >
    > > >
    > > > People who support Brexit obviously don't understand Economics. What makes you think they understand Politics. Secondly, you need to assess differential turnout.
    > >
    > > There are economists on this site who I would argue with regarding their understanding of economics (for instance one believes that high house prices are good for the economy, I'm not so sure that's true).
    >
    > It's hard to see how high house prices are good for the economy. It reduces labour mobility etc. I think rising house prices has been an illicit drug for the UK economy on which we have had several highs as well as some lows over the post war years. The notional wealth encourages spending, borrowing and leaks into overall consumption allowing us to buy more expensive cars more often than we need and other things.

    As an OAP I am bombarded with 'offers' for equity release. Our IFA considers that they are the very last thing we should consider for cash-raising, if that becomes necessary, but it all looks too easy!
    An accountant acquaintance reckons that they are the next PPI scandal.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 5,300
    > @Morris_Dancer said:
    > Mr. Punter, hmm.
    >
    > That makes me wonder if reduced coverage of certain drivers on contra-strategies in F1 might, in-race, yield profit.

    As long as you are not looking at delayed pictures it might well work. Obviously you must have a TV feed that gives you pretty close to live coverage.

    Alternatively you might like to follow the practice of a guy I used to see at Sandown. He would sit in a tree with his laptop.

    Don't think it would work at Monaco. No trees.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 14,781
    Just a thought. I gamble rarely, preferring to look at sites such as this for probabilities, but just seen this in the Guardian:

    'The ad watchdog has upheld complaints against William Hill for equating gambling with sexual success. The betting company said users could escape from being “stuck in the friend zone” (ie unable to get beyond the platonic level) by placing bets on its app. '

    Any comments from the experienced gamblers? At least one of the Sean's seems to either not in fact gamble or to have few problems.
  • mattmatt Posts: 2,805
    ydoethur said:

    I am still trying to work out what Labour are attempting to achieve with the recent flurry of mad, ooops, populist policies that they clearly haven't costed or thought through.

    Are they doing it in desperation in the belief that it will shore up their vote for the Euros? If so they're fools. Nobody is going to vote on domestic issues in these elections.

    Are they doing it in the expectation of a general election? If so, they're not fools, but they're rather rash to be showing their hand this early. The only reason this strategy sort of worked last time is that they revealed it very late and none of their opponents paid any attention to it. This time it is unlikely that mistake will happen.

    Or am I overthinking this and it is the Ganesh explanation - they are as thick as pigshit and don't have a clue what they're doing?

    Is the the “nationalise all domestic power sources” “leak” with economic analysis based on the noted and no doubt well founded research from Citizens Advice?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 43,472
    Dura_Ace said:

    > @RobD said:

    > > @williamglenn said:

    >

    > >



    >

    >

    >

    >

    >

    > Thank goodness. The EU is going to help force our politicians to make a decision after they have wasted another 7 months.

    >

    > You continued reading after “No 10 say”? :p



    It might as well have said, “Anyone who wants either No Deal or Revoke shouldn’t vote for the deal.”
    Plenty of people would prefer either of those outcomes over the tomato skin flecked turd that May curled out.
    Except which is most likely and would they prefer that? The last time it was deal or likely no Brexit a lot of people caved (but probably would not again with a surging BP) and agreed that was preferred.

    Sadly the fact the EU extended last time when we had no plan, something they said they would not do, means not enough will believe this is the final shot. They will continue to believe their dream outcome could happen and refuse to budge.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 12,282
    > @Peter_the_Punter said:
    > > @Alistair said:
    > > Has anyone on here ever won a 1000/1 or similar bet on politics?
    > >
    > > I passed on £5 on Jeremy Corbyn at a similar 990 when I heard he was considering to be the Left candidate in the Labour leadership election.
    > >
    > > My only comfort is I know I would have laid that off way to early.
    >
    > No. An acquaintance of mine pulls off this stunt several times a year but it's on the horses. He bets in running on horses that are out of camera shot. Works better at some courses than others. Chester is his happy hunting ground. Bangor and Fakenham are also good.
    >
    > He makes money at it. The main problem, as you might figure, is getting enough on.

    I'm slightly embarrassed to admit that my most successful bet on anything ever was winning £1100 on the Tories winning Fulham in an election where they were clearly ahead - the bookies had got the odds the wrong way round, Sean Fear pointed it out, and I jumped in.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 25,239
    > @ydoethur said:
    > I am still trying to work out what Labour are attempting to achieve with the recent flurry of mad, ooops, populist policies that they clearly haven't costed or thought through.
    >
    > Are they doing it in desperation in the belief that it will shore up their vote for the Euros? If so they're fools. Nobody is going to vote on domestic issues in these elections.
    >
    > Are they doing it in the expectation of a general election? If so, they're not fools, but they're rather rash to be showing their hand this early. The only reason this strategy sort of worked last time is that they revealed it very late and none of their opponents paid any attention to it. This time it is unlikely that mistake will happen.
    >
    > Or am I overthinking this and it is the Ganesh explanation - they are as thick as pigshit and don't have a clue what they're doing?

    They are trying to change the story to anything except Brexit where Corbyn has got seriously out of line with where the party wants to be in an embarrassing and confused way. It's understandable but the timing, with the Euros and these desperately pointless talks going on, is not great.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 25,239
    > @OldKingCole said:
    > > @DavidL said:
    > > > @eek said:
    > > > > @Fenman said:
    > > > > > @kle4 said:
    > > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > People who support Brexit obviously don't understand Economics. What makes you think they understand Politics. Secondly, you need to assess differential turnout.
    > > >
    > > > There are economists on this site who I would argue with regarding their understanding of economics (for instance one believes that high house prices are good for the economy, I'm not so sure that's true).
    > >
    > > It's hard to see how high house prices are good for the economy. It reduces labour mobility etc. I think rising house prices has been an illicit drug for the UK economy on which we have had several highs as well as some lows over the post war years. The notional wealth encourages spending, borrowing and leaks into overall consumption allowing us to buy more expensive cars more often than we need and other things.
    >
    > As an OAP I am bombarded with 'offers' for equity release. Our IFA considers that they are the very last thing we should consider for cash-raising, if that becomes necessary, but it all looks too easy!
    > An accountant acquaintance reckons that they are the next PPI scandal.

    The next wave of pathetic moaners saying, "oh, I didn't realise that there is no such thing as a free lunch." Yes, its possible.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 43,472
    edited May 15
    ydoethur said:

    I am still trying to work out what Labour are attempting to achieve with the recent flurry of mad, ooops, populist policies that they clearly haven't costed or thought through.

    Are they doing it in desperation in the belief that it will shore up their vote for the Euros? If so they're fools. Nobody is going to vote on domestic issues in these elections.

    Are they doing it in the expectation of a general election? If so, they're not fools, but they're rather rash to be showing their hand this early. The only reason this strategy sort of worked last time is that they revealed it very late and none of their opponents paid any attention to it. This time it is unlikely that mistake will happen.

    Or am I overthinking this and it is the Ganesh explanation - they are as thick as pigshit and don't have a clue what they're doing?

    It is the GE explanation plus it is easier to talk about than Brexit. I think it might work, in any case it is the easiest option. What is easiest for my short term political survival has been the key question for both sides.

    It might be as simple as it was on the schedule for now because they too thought we would be out by now and cannot be arsed to adjust.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 18,171
    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    I am still trying to work out what Labour are attempting to achieve with the recent flurry of mad, ooops, populist policies that they clearly haven't costed or thought through.

    Are they doing it in desperation in the belief that it will shore up their vote for the Euros? If so they're fools. Nobody is going to vote on domestic issues in these elections.

    Are they doing it in the expectation of a general election? If so, they're not fools, but they're rather rash to be showing their hand this early. The only reason this strategy sort of worked last time is that they revealed it very late and none of their opponents paid any attention to it. This time it is unlikely that mistake will happen.

    Or am I overthinking this and it is the Ganesh explanation - they are as thick as pigshit and don't have a clue what they're doing?

    It is the GE explanation plus it is easier to talk about than Brexit. I think it might work, in any case it is the easiest option. What is easiest for my short term political survival has been the key question for both sides.

    It might be as simple as it was on the schedule for now because they too thought we would be out by now and cannot be arsed to adjust.
    It's not totally implausible. Would be typical of the cack-handed performance of the current leadership cabal.

    Have a good morning.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 24,657

    > @DavidL said:

    > > @eek said:

    > > > @Fenman said:

    > > > > @kle4 said:

    > > > >

    > > >

    > > > People who support Brexit obviously don't understand Economics. What makes you think they understand Politics. Secondly, you need to assess differential turnout.

    > >

    > > There are economists on this site who I would argue with regarding their understanding of economics (for instance one believes that high house prices are good for the economy, I'm not so sure that's true).

    >

    > It's hard to see how high house prices are good for the economy. It reduces labour mobility etc. I think rising house prices has been an illicit drug for the UK economy on which we have had several highs as well as some lows over the post war years. The notional wealth encourages spending, borrowing and leaks into overall consumption allowing us to buy more expensive cars more often than we need and other things.



    As an OAP I am bombarded with 'offers' for equity release. Our IFA considers that they are the very last thing we should consider for cash-raising, if that becomes necessary, but it all looks too easy!

    An accountant acquaintance reckons that they are the next PPI scandal.

    Equity release has its place for some people, but the ads for it are a disgrace because the people for whom it has its place look nothing like the people used in the adverts as possible customers. The chances of the wrong people using equity release are immeasurably higher as a result.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 43,472

    > @Peter_the_Punter said:

    > > @Alistair said:

    > > Has anyone on here ever won a 1000/1 or similar bet on politics?

    > >

    > > I passed on £5 on Jeremy Corbyn at a similar 990 when I heard he was considering to be the Left candidate in the Labour leadership election.

    > >

    > > My only comfort is I know I would have laid that off way to early.

    >

    > No. An acquaintance of mine pulls off this stunt several times a year but it's on the horses. He bets in running on horses that are out of camera shot. Works better at some courses than others. Chester is his happy hunting ground. Bangor and Fakenham are also good.

    >

    > He makes money at it. The main problem, as you might figure, is getting enough on.



    I'm slightly embarrassed to admit that my most successful bet on anything ever was winning £1100 on the Tories winning Fulham in an election where they were clearly ahead - the bookies had got the odds the wrong way round, Sean Fear pointed it out, and I jumped in.

    Why be embarrassed about winning money? Not your fault it was thanks to a Tory win!

    Of course one of my larger wins was on the Brexit outcome which I now regret!
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 1,408
    > @kle4 said:
    > I see Alabama gets the 'bragging rights' of harshest abortion law in the US so they can get a challenge to the Supreme Court.
    >
    > https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48275795

    The Republicans really are loathsome scum . Utterly disgraceful , forcing a woman who is the victim of rape or incest to carry a child .
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 49,228
    edited May 15
    Mr. Meeks, the ads remind me a bit of one from decades ago. Blue telephone was the 'character'. It was about taking out a loan for necessities. Or a holiday.

    It should be stressed I was oddly frugal for a child, but even at the time I remember thinking it was insane to borrow money and have to pay back more rather than simply save up.

    Edited extra bit: though unnecessary equity release seems far dafter.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 43,472
    Still high for CUK. Apocalyptic for the Tories so the cowards who were previously UKIP wannabes will already be working towards an alliance with BP. Finally the LDs get a reward for their stance, be interesting to see if it lasts post euros.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 25,239
    > @AlastairMeeks said:
    > > @DavidL said:
    >
    > > > @eek said:
    >
    > > > > @Fenman said:
    >
    > > > > > @kle4 said:
    >
    > > > > >
    >
    > > > >
    >
    > > > > People who support Brexit obviously don't understand Economics. What makes you think they understand Politics. Secondly, you need to assess differential turnout.
    >
    > > >
    >
    > > > There are economists on this site who I would argue with regarding their understanding of economics (for instance one believes that high house prices are good for the economy, I'm not so sure that's true).
    >
    > >
    >
    > > It's hard to see how high house prices are good for the economy. It reduces labour mobility etc. I think rising house prices has been an illicit drug for the UK economy on which we have had several highs as well as some lows over the post war years. The notional wealth encourages spending, borrowing and leaks into overall consumption allowing us to buy more expensive cars more often than we need and other things.
    >
    >
    >
    > As an OAP I am bombarded with 'offers' for equity release. Our IFA considers that they are the very last thing we should consider for cash-raising, if that becomes necessary, but it all looks too easy!
    >
    > An accountant acquaintance reckons that they are the next PPI scandal.
    >
    > Equity release has its place for some people, but the ads for it are a disgrace because the people for whom it has its place look nothing like the people used in the adverts as possible customers. The chances of the wrong people using equity release are immeasurably higher as a result.

    It's like those life insurance adverts for people who are barely pensioners and obviously in rude health. Those buying no medical life insurance should obviously be at death's door, not like that.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 24,657

    Mr. Meeks, the ads remind me a bit of one from decades ago. Blue telephone was the 'character'. It was about taking out a loan for necessities. Or a holiday.

    It should be stressed I was oddly frugal for a child, but even at the time I remember thinking it was insane to borrow money and have to pay back more rather than simply save up.

    Edited extra bit: though unnecessary equity release seems far dafter.

    These ads are more insidious, because they show fit people in their fifties or early sixties as typical customers using their money to pay for their children's weddings. A more appropriate customer would be a frail person in their mid-eighties who has a house but no other assets now or reliable source of income.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 21,587

    > @Peter_the_Punter said:

    > > @Alistair said:

    > > Has anyone on here ever won a 1000/1 or similar bet on politics?

    > >

    > > I passed on £5 on Jeremy Corbyn at a similar 990 when I heard he was considering to be the Left candidate in the Labour leadership election.

    > >

    > > My only comfort is I know I would have laid that off way to early.

    >

    > No. An acquaintance of mine pulls off this stunt several times a year but it's on the horses. He bets in running on horses that are out of camera shot. Works better at some courses than others. Chester is his happy hunting ground. Bangor and Fakenham are also good.

    >

    > He makes money at it. The main problem, as you might figure, is getting enough on.



    I'm slightly embarrassed to admit that my most successful bet on anything ever was winning £1100 on the Tories winning Fulham in an election where they were clearly ahead - the bookies had got the odds the wrong way round, Sean Fear pointed it out, and I jumped in.

    Not come close to 1000/1

    But if young mayor Pete pulls it off, then 270/1 comes in.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 13,726
    > @rcs1000 said:
    >
    >
    > It's really terribly simple. You declare what your house is worth, and anybody can - within 30 days of declaration - buy it for 30% more than your declaration.
    >
    > Result: nobody will lie and say their house is worth half the real value, as they might lose it.

    Wouldn't that lead to Buckingham Palace, Chatsworth, Harewood, Castle Howard etc all being bought by oligarchs or tech billionaires at 30% over declared value ?
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 24,657
    DavidL said:

    > @AlastairMeeks said:

    > > @DavidL said:

    >

    > > > @eek said:

    >

    > > > > @Fenman said:

    >

    > > > > > @kle4 said:

    >

    > > > > >

    >

    > > > >

    >

    > > > > People who support Brexit obviously don't understand Economics. What makes you think they understand Politics. Secondly, you need to assess differential turnout.

    >

    > > >

    >

    > > > There are economists on this site who I would argue with regarding their understanding of economics (for instance one believes that high house prices are good for the economy, I'm not so sure that's true).

    >

    > >

    >

    > > It's hard to see how high house prices are good for the economy. It reduces labour mobility etc. I think rising house prices has been an illicit drug for the UK economy on which we have had several highs as well as some lows over the post war years. The notional wealth encourages spending, borrowing and leaks into overall consumption allowing us to buy more expensive cars more often than we need and other things.

    >

    >

    >

    > As an OAP I am bombarded with 'offers' for equity release. Our IFA considers that they are the very last thing we should consider for cash-raising, if that becomes necessary, but it all looks too easy!

    >

    > An accountant acquaintance reckons that they are the next PPI scandal.

    >

    > Equity release has its place for some people, but the ads for it are a disgrace because the people for whom it has its place look nothing like the people used in the adverts as possible customers. The chances of the wrong people using equity release are immeasurably higher as a result.



    It's like those life insurance adverts for people who are barely pensioners and obviously in rude health. Those buying no medical life insurance should obviously be at death's door, not like that.

    Quite. And the celebrities that endorse those products should take a long hard look at themselves in the mirror.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 21,847
    rkrkrk said:

    Has anyone on here ever won a 1000/1 or similar bet on politics?

    Only 100/1, on Corbyn. I’m sure someone here got on at 250s or thereabouts though.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 43,472
    Maybe its because I've not been able to sleep since 4am, but man politics is making me tired right now. Theres a lot of frantic activity going on, but no forward momentum. Just seems like such a bloody waste.

    Pleasant day all
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 13,726
    > @DavidL said:
    > > @OldKingCole said:
    > > > @DavidL said:
    > > > > @eek said:
    > > > > > @Fenman said:
    > > > > > > @kle4 said:
    > > > > > >
    > > > > >
    > > > > > People who support Brexit obviously don't understand Economics. What makes you think they understand Politics. Secondly, you need to assess differential turnout.
    > > > >
    > > > > There are economists on this site who I would argue with regarding their understanding of economics (for instance one believes that high house prices are good for the economy, I'm not so sure that's true).
    > > >
    > > > It's hard to see how high house prices are good for the economy. It reduces labour mobility etc. I think rising house prices has been an illicit drug for the UK economy on which we have had several highs as well as some lows over the post war years. The notional wealth encourages spending, borrowing and leaks into overall consumption allowing us to buy more expensive cars more often than we need and other things.
    > >
    > > As an OAP I am bombarded with 'offers' for equity release. Our IFA considers that they are the very last thing we should consider for cash-raising, if that becomes necessary, but it all looks too easy!
    > > An accountant acquaintance reckons that they are the next PPI scandal.
    >
    > The next wave of pathetic moaners saying, "oh, I didn't realise that there is no such thing as a free lunch." Yes, its possible.

    As will interest only mortgages.

    I'll add that much of the extra consumption you referred to goes on imports and foreign holidays.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 1,408
    Some weird goings on with Comres and it’s EU elections .

    Both the BP and Lib Dem surges hit the buffers .

    The BP on 27 just 2 points ahead of Labour and the Lib Dems on 13% the same as their Westminster score .
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 21,847

    Just a thought. I gamble rarely, preferring to look at sites such as this for probabilities, but just seen this in the Guardian:



    'The ad watchdog has upheld complaints against William Hill for equating gambling with sexual success. The betting company said users could escape from being “stuck in the friend zone” (ie unable to get beyond the platonic level) by placing bets on its app. '



    Any comments from the experienced gamblers? At least one of the Sean's seems to either not in fact gamble or to have few problems.

    Im surprised the U.K. bookies don’t have a lot more problems with their advertising, especially on TV. They tread a very fine line in the way they present gambling, while advertising poor-value accumulator prices and often show gambling in a social setting involving consumption of alcohol etc.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 49,228
    I forget the precise stats, but I came very close to a high hundreds, maybe thousands, to one winner on a practice market once. (In wet weather, backing low midfield and backmarkers can be worth it). They topped P2 but not P1, but due to the timing I had no chance, even had I wanted to, of backing in P2 as well as P1.

    Also had near misses at high odds in Azerbaijan, when the Force Indias collided. But for that I would've likely had a pair of rather nice green bets.

    [Best actual bet/tip, of course, was Verstappen for the 2016 Spanish win at 250/1].
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 21,587
    edited May 15
    > @kle4 said:
    > Maybe its because I've not been able to sleep since 4am, but man politics is making me tired right now. Theres a lot of frantic activity going on, but no forward momentum. Just seems like such a bloody waste.
    >
    > Pleasant day all

    It will be interesting to see what happens in this summer's leadership election. Will the candidates spend all their time arguing over who will go back to Brussels and be harder, or will we actually get some discussion of what a Tory government will do in 2020-22?
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 2,789
    nico67 said:

    Some weird goings on with Comres and it’s EU elections .



    Both the BP and Lib Dem surges hit the buffers .



    The BP on 27 just 2 points ahead of Labour and the Lib Dems on 13% the same as their Westminster score .

    The EU elections seem exceptionally difficult to poll, presumably because of the big uncertainty in turnout
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 43,472

    > @kle4 said:

    > Maybe its because I've not been able to sleep since 4am, but man politics is making me tired right now. Theres a lot of frantic activity going on, but no forward momentum. Just seems like such a bloody waste.

    >

    > Pleasant day all



    It will be interesting to see what happens in this summer's leadership election. Will the candidates spend all their time arguing over who will go back to Brussels and be harder, or will we actually get some discussion of what a Tory government will do in 2020-22?

    Seems like that would be wasted effort for a start, both in that they need to solve Brexit before they decide what to do, and if they manage to solve it it probably costs them the government either way.
  • mattmatt Posts: 2,805

    Mr. Meeks, the ads remind me a bit of one from decades ago. Blue telephone was the 'character'. It was about taking out a loan for necessities. Or a holiday.

    It should be stressed I was oddly frugal for a child, but even at the time I remember thinking it was insane to borrow money and have to pay back more rather than simply save up.

    Edited extra bit: though unnecessary equity release seems far dafter.

    These ads are more insidious, because they show fit people in their fifties or early sixties as typical customers using their money to pay for their children's weddings. A more appropriate customer would be a frail person in their mid-eighties who has a house but no other assets now or reliable source of income.
    The trick is not to need it, to trade down before the equity release point arrives. Difficult conversation with parents though, convincing them to move before they need to and it’s too late (as you say, frail etc).
  • isamisam Posts: 26,537
    rcs1000 said:

    I said it was a good bet, and here's how it (MIGHT) pay out.



    1. UKIP/BRX split turns out to be a lot more even than people think. We're all political obsessives. We know about the new Brexit Party. The people who sign up to do YouGov polls. They're political obsessives too. If you go into the street and ask 100 people which political party Nigel Farage represents, I bet you'd get at least 20 saying "UKIP". So, I reckon a 3-1 split in the BRX/UKIP vote is by no means impossible. Now imagine the BRX/UKIP total is 32% (and that's probably on the low side, but not impossible) - well on 3-1, that means BRX gets 24% and UKIP 8%.



    2. Bollocks to Brexit. The LDs get a lot of Remainer protest votes as the Chuckers chuck it in, and they become the perfect repository for protest votes.



    For those two to happen is still only a small chance. I'd reckon no more likely than 33-1. But a lot more likely than 900-1.

    Your first point is one I wrote a blog on before the 2017 election, and the reason why I don’t trust opinion polls

    http://aboutasfarasdelgados.blogspot.com/2017/05/the-problem-with-opinion-polls-polls.html

    As it happens YouGov did down weight the politically engaged and were very accurate, possibly as a result, possibly for another reason.

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 11,517
    Dura_Ace said:

    > @RobD said:

    > > @williamglenn said:

    >

    > >



    >

    >

    >

    >

    >

    > Thank goodness. The EU is going to help force our politicians to make a decision after they have wasted another 7 months.

    >

    > You continued reading after “No 10 say”? :p



    It might as well have said, “Anyone who wants either No Deal or Revoke shouldn’t vote for the deal.”
    Plenty of people would prefer either of those outcomes over the tomato skin flecked turd that May curled out.
    Yes, but most who prefer one of those alternate outcomes regard the other as cholera ridden diarrhoea.
  • DruttDrutt Posts: 395
    > @OldKingCole said:
    > > @DavidL said:
    > > > @eek said:
    > > > > @Fenman said:
    > > > > > @kle4 said:
    > > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > People who support Brexit obviously don't understand Economics. What makes you think they understand Politics. Secondly, you need to assess differential turnout.
    > > >
    > > > There are economists on this site who I would argue with regarding their understanding of economics (for instance one believes that high house prices are good for the economy, I'm not so sure that's true).
    > >
    > > It's hard to see how high house prices are good for the economy. It reduces labour mobility etc. I think rising house prices has been an illicit drug for the UK economy on which we have had several highs as well as some lows over the post war years. The notional wealth encourages spending, borrowing and leaks into overall consumption allowing us to buy more expensive cars more often than we need and other things.
    >
    > As an OAP I am bombarded with 'offers' for equity release. Our IFA considers that they are the very last thing we should consider for cash-raising, if that becomes necessary, but it all looks too easy!
    > An accountant acquaintance reckons that they are the next PPI scandal.

    The people who used to ring you to say 'have you had PPI' are running out of time and punters. One of their new gigs is to look at who has died recently and contact their heirs to say 'you might have a claim against the estate's lawyers because they didn't check whether the deceased had PPI'.

    Make what you will of that.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 25,239
    > @another_richard said:
    > > @DavidL said:
    > > > @OldKingCole said:
    > > > > @DavidL said:
    > > > > > @eek said:
    > > > > > > @Fenman said:
    > > > > > > > @kle4 said:
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > People who support Brexit obviously don't understand Economics. What makes you think they understand Politics. Secondly, you need to assess differential turnout.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > There are economists on this site who I would argue with regarding their understanding of economics (for instance one believes that high house prices are good for the economy, I'm not so sure that's true).
    > > > >
    > > > > It's hard to see how high house prices are good for the economy. It reduces labour mobility etc. I think rising house prices has been an illicit drug for the UK economy on which we have had several highs as well as some lows over the post war years. The notional wealth encourages spending, borrowing and leaks into overall consumption allowing us to buy more expensive cars more often than we need and other things.
    > > >
    > > > As an OAP I am bombarded with 'offers' for equity release. Our IFA considers that they are the very last thing we should consider for cash-raising, if that becomes necessary, but it all looks too easy!
    > > > An accountant acquaintance reckons that they are the next PPI scandal.
    > >
    > > The next wave of pathetic moaners saying, "oh, I didn't realise that there is no such thing as a free lunch." Yes, its possible.
    >
    > As will interest only mortgages.
    >
    > I'll add that much of the extra consumption you referred to goes on imports and foreign holidays.

    Indeed but it still boosts GDP. Its been the permitted form of QE until we decided to try the real thing.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 43,472
    Nigelb said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    > @RobD said:

    > > @williamglenn said:

    >

    > >



    >

    >

    >

    >

    >

    > Thank goodness. The EU is going to help force our politicians to make a decision after they have wasted another 7 months.

    >

    > You continued reading after “No 10 say”? :p



    It might as well have said, “Anyone who wants either No Deal or Revoke shouldn’t vote for the deal.”
    Plenty of people would prefer either of those outcomes over the tomato skin flecked turd that May curled out.
    Yes, but most who prefer one of those alternate outcomes regard the other as cholera ridden diarrhoea.
    Yet they chow down regardless, insisting if they do they'll be given what they want later.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 24,657
    matt said:

    Mr. Meeks, the ads remind me a bit of one from decades ago. Blue telephone was the 'character'. It was about taking out a loan for necessities. Or a holiday.

    It should be stressed I was oddly frugal for a child, but even at the time I remember thinking it was insane to borrow money and have to pay back more rather than simply save up.

    Edited extra bit: though unnecessary equity release seems far dafter.

    These ads are more insidious, because they show fit people in their fifties or early sixties as typical customers using their money to pay for their children's weddings. A more appropriate customer would be a frail person in their mid-eighties who has a house but no other assets now or reliable source of income.
    The trick is not to need it, to trade down before the equity release point arrives. Difficult conversation with parents though, convincing them to move before they need to and it’s too late (as you say, frail etc).
    Tell me about that. I was the bad guy for ten years. Then my parents moved. Now of course my mum loves her new house and is so happy there.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 54,000
    LDs just 3% behind Labour on the new BMG European elections poll but 7% behind the Brexit Party.

    I can see the LDs overtaking Labour for second then if it is perceived as more committed to Remain by Remainers than Labour but I doubt it will overtake the Brexit Party, there are too many Remain parties dividing the Remain vote for that while Leavers are largely united behind the Brexit Party
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 11,517

    > @Peter_the_Punter said:

    > > @Alistair said:

    > > Has anyone on here ever won a 1000/1 or similar bet on politics?

    > >

    > > I passed on £5 on Jeremy Corbyn at a similar 990 when I heard he was considering to be the Left candidate in the Labour leadership election.

    > >

    > > My only comfort is I know I would have laid that off way to early.

    >

    > No. An acquaintance of mine pulls off this stunt several times a year but it's on the horses. He bets in running on horses that are out of camera shot. Works better at some courses than others. Chester is his happy hunting ground. Bangor and Fakenham are also good.

    >

    > He makes money at it. The main problem, as you might figure, is getting enough on.



    I'm slightly embarrassed to admit that my most successful bet on anything ever was winning £1100 on the Tories winning Fulham in an election where they were clearly ahead - the bookies had got the odds the wrong way round, Sean Fear pointed it out, and I jumped in.

    Not come close to 1000/1

    But if young mayor Pete pulls it off, then 270/1 comes in.
    Unlikely though.
    He is getting no traction at all with a significant part of the Democratic base - currently polling 18% with whites in South Carolina and 0% with African Americans.

    In less crowded field, he might turn that around sufficiently for a route to the nomination, but in this contest it doesn't look feasible.
  • ah009ah009 Posts: 256
    > @StuartDickson said:
    > If you’re in the mood for long-shots, Shadsy has the Liberal Democrat’s at 100/1 to win Most Seats at the next Scottish Parliament election. Ruthie’s team at 7/1.

    7/1 for the Conservatives is a lay for me.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 13,726
    > @DavidL said:
    > > @another_richard said:
    > > > @DavidL said:
    > > > > @OldKingCole said:
    > > > > > @DavidL said:
    > > > > > > @eek said:
    > > > > > > > @Fenman said:
    > > > > > > > > @kle4 said:
    > > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > People who support Brexit obviously don't understand Economics. What makes you think they understand Politics. Secondly, you need to assess differential turnout.
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > There are economists on this site who I would argue with regarding their understanding of economics (for instance one believes that high house prices are good for the economy, I'm not so sure that's true).
    > > > > >
    > > > > > It's hard to see how high house prices are good for the economy. It reduces labour mobility etc. I think rising house prices has been an illicit drug for the UK economy on which we have had several highs as well as some lows over the post war years. The notional wealth encourages spending, borrowing and leaks into overall consumption allowing us to buy more expensive cars more often than we need and other things.
    > > > >
    > > > > As an OAP I am bombarded with 'offers' for equity release. Our IFA considers that they are the very last thing we should consider for cash-raising, if that becomes necessary, but it all looks too easy!
    > > > > An accountant acquaintance reckons that they are the next PPI scandal.
    > > >
    > > > The next wave of pathetic moaners saying, "oh, I didn't realise that there is no such thing as a free lunch." Yes, its possible.
    > >
    > > As will interest only mortgages.
    > >
    > > I'll add that much of the extra consumption you referred to goes on imports and foreign holidays.
    >
    > Indeed but it still boosts GDP. Its been the permitted form of QE until we decided to try the real thing.

    Indeed.

    I'm curious as to when the obsession with GDP started.

    I wonder if it was about the time the media stopped reporting the trade balance.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 24,801
    > @Sunil_Prasannan said:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > All outliers, these recent polls :lol:

    I really thought that the Greens would be higher than CHUK-in-the-towel.....
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 54,000
    > @williamglenn said:
    >

    Which given the current Commons makeup probably means revoke if the Deal fails again, then quite possibly PM Farage at the next general election due to the Leaver backlash
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 7,137
    edited May 15

    I refuse to believe that the EU would inflict the consequences of a no deal Brexit onto Ireland. That only becomes possible if the PM decides it is preferable (which looks fairly likely if we have a new PM by the autumn).
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 12,282
    edited May 15
    > @MarqueeMark said:
    > > @Sunil_Prasannan said:
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > All outliers, these recent polls :lol:
    >
    > I really thought that the Greens would be higher than CHUK-in-the-towel.....

    Well, they are in this poll (for the Euros). Anyway, it's a Tory surge! And a bit of a Labour recovery. I wonder if Farage's push has peaked.

    The Westminster poll is fascinating but very hypothetical - I wonder where it'll be in 3 years...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 54,000
    edited May 15
    > @williamglenn said:
    >
    >

    Better for the Tories and Labour in the European elections poll in 3rd and 2nd respectively and a narrower Brexit Party lead.

    Worse for the Tories and Labour at Westminster though, Labour now just 2% above its European elections score and the Tories tied with the Brexit Party who are already up to 20%.

    LDs also now doing as well at Westminster as for the European elections on 13% for each
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 1,408
    > @not_on_fire said:
    > Some weird goings on with Comres and it’s EU elections .
    >
    >
    >
    > Both the BP and Lib Dem surges hit the buffers .
    >
    >
    >
    > The BP on 27 just 2 points ahead of Labour and the Lib Dems on 13% the same as their Westminster score .
    >
    > The EU elections seem exceptionally difficult to poll, presumably because of the big uncertainty in turnout

    True . On the weekend we saw a 13 point lead for the BP and now in two polls just a two point one .

    I have a lot of free time today so am going to look at all the methodologies to see whether that can help to a degree explain this . We would expect normal variation between pollsters but given these ones are online we shouldn’t be seeing shy voter etc .
  • isamisam Posts: 26,537
    Sandpit said:

    Just a thought. I gamble rarely, preferring to look at sites such as this for probabilities, but just seen this in the Guardian:



    'The ad watchdog has upheld complaints against William Hill for equating gambling with sexual success. The betting company said users could escape from being “stuck in the friend zone” (ie unable to get beyond the platonic level) by placing bets on its app. '



    Any comments from the experienced gamblers? At least one of the Sean's seems to either not in fact gamble or to have few problems.

    Im surprised the U.K. bookies don’t have a lot more problems with their advertising, especially on TV. They tread a very fine line in the way they present gambling, while advertising poor-value accumulator prices and often show gambling in a social setting involving consumption of alcohol etc.
    A topic kind of covered in my blog

    http://aboutasfarasdelgados.blogspot.com/2014/08/luis-louis-ladbrokes-life.html

    Paddy Power are in trouble for the advert ft Rhodri Giggs

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/may/08/paddy-power-advert-ryan-giggs-brother-banned-rhodri-gambling
  • DruttDrutt Posts: 395
    > @nico67 said:
    > Some weird goings on with Comres and it’s EU elections .
    >
    > Both the BP and Lib Dem surges hit the buffers .
    >
    > The BP on 27 just 2 points ahead of Labour and the Lib Dems on 13% the same as their Westminster score .

    LAB 8/1 most seats seems long for a party polling 2 points behind the leader in such an uncertain race
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 10,864
    > @nico67 said:
    > > @not_on_fire said:
    > > Some weird goings on with Comres and it’s EU elections .
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > Both the BP and Lib Dem surges hit the buffers .
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > The BP on 27 just 2 points ahead of Labour and the Lib Dems on 13% the same as their Westminster score .
    > >
    > > The EU elections seem exceptionally difficult to poll, presumably because of the big uncertainty in turnout
    >
    > True . On the weekend we saw a 13 point lead for the BP and now in two polls just a two point one .
    >
    > I have a lot of free time today so am going to look at all the methodologies to see whether that can help to a degree explain this . We would expect normal variation between pollsters but given these ones are online we shouldn’t be seeing shy voter etc .

    Is it possible BP can be explained by Andrew Marr's interview with Nigel Farage where, as some suggested might be a problem, Farage shed his cheery man-of-the-people image and came over as tetchy and, well, as just another politician complaining about being asked the wrong questions by the biased BBC?
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 7,362
    > @OblitusSumMe said:
    >
    > I refuse to believe that the EU would inflict the consequences of a no deal Brexit onto Ireland. That only becomes possible if the PM decides it is preferable (which looks fairly likely if we have a new PM by the autumn).

    It must be revoke now then. No parliment will tolerate no-deal.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 54,000
    > @Slackbladder said:
    > > @OblitusSumMe said:
    > >
    > > I refuse to believe that the EU would inflict the consequences of a no deal Brexit onto Ireland. That only becomes possible if the PM decides it is preferable (which looks fairly likely if we have a new PM by the autumn).
    >
    > It must be revoke now then. No parliment will tolerate no-deal.

    Revoke of course with no referendum will be an early Christmas present for Farage and see the Brexit Party surge even more
This discussion has been closed.