Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » London Mayoral punters should factor in the total ruthlessn
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » London Mayoral punters should factor in the total ruthlessness of the Tory election machine
As no doubt PBers are aware I am one of those who took Henry G Manson’s tip in March 2013 and backed Sadiq Khan at 33/1 to win next month’s mayoral election. It’s proved to be a great bet and a number of us could be having a nice pay day on May 6/7th.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
We have not had any party vote shares from this month's Comres Phone poll for the Daily Mail. The tables imply that the questions were asked. Any info?
He's a Tory strategist's wet dream, not particularly good, and bound to come unstuck. He may or may not have an appalling taste in friends. The fact that Zac Goldsmith was the candidate they put up against him practically proves that they want him elected!
Focusing on his judgment and making voters worry about whether they could trust him, whether they can trust him when he says he will confront the extremists when he has never done so in the past would have been better.
Khan himself realises he has a weakness which is why he has tried to address it. The Tories have used a blunderbuss when perhaps a scalpel would have been better. But Goldsmith is a weak candidate and not ruthless enough and without the personality to cut through.
Both are very sub-standard candidates.
Oh, I see what you mean.
Being serious, Mike is right. Although Super Thursday gives everyone across the country the chance to vote, most people won't. London will be a low-turnout election, probably even compared with recent mayoral contests so the issue is - as it always is in local elections - GOTV rather than flipping swing voters (though it's not an either/or).
I'm not convinced that the attacks on Khan will depress the Labour vote all that much; perhaps in some WWC areas. The bigger impact will be on whether it's a driving factor in turning out Tories who'd otherwise sit on their hands.
That poison kills people. Some things are too important for political game-playing.
Opinion strongly differs however when looking at who will vote to remain in European Union and those who will vote to leave (respondents were told that President Obama was expected to say that it is a matter for the British people to decide, but that the US supports a strong UK in the EU).
Two in three (68%) remain voters say Mr Obama should express his view (28% say he should not) versus one in four (25%) leave supporters (72% say he should not). Labour supporters are also more likely to say that the President should express his view – 64% saying he should (34% say he should not). This compares to 45% of Conservative supporters (53% say he should not) and 16% of UKIP voters (81% say he should not).
There is little difference between those who have definitely decided how they will vote in the referendum (51% say he should and 46% say he should not) and those who may change their mind (48% say he should and 50% say he should not) both groups also split.
Nevertheless the majority of the British public say that President Obama’s view will not be important to them in deciding how they will vote. Fifteen percent say his view will be important to them while 83% say that his view will not be very or at all important. Mr Obama’s views are more important to remain supporters than leave supporters (at 20% vs 7%), to the young rather than older people (24% of 18-34s vs 10% of 55+), and to those who may change their mind than those definitely decided (21% vs 12%).
https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3723/Remain-and-leave-supporters-split-on-President-Obamas-EU-intervention.aspx
Is political intelligence at Great Martin Street simply an oxymoron?
[All I can think of is that it might be Stalin acquiring influence through his role as general secretary, or whatever it was, but it's not my area].
You've got to respect someone who drops the wanker gesture to Guy Verhofstadt in the European Parliament.
But I'm sure they'd like to win - TonyE's theory is more making a virtue of possible necessity, in the same class as the people who say "That was a good General Election to lose".
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/03/barack-obama-is-right-to-offer-his-governments-view-on-the-eu-referendum/
There are some respects in which Zac isn't a terrible candidate for London - though rich he's in some ways a bit lefty, liberal, green; that fits with some of the floating vote in London, and the core vote will go with him anyway. Where it's gone wrong is that instead of running a soft-focus, dewy-eved, idealistic-but-vague campaign about a nicer London, he's been lumbered with a strategy which is about as far from his strengths as you can get - he simply is not a credible candidate for an antipodean sneer-fear-smear-leer strategy.
http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21697259-diehard-eurosceptics-leave-campaign-national-liberation-movement-b-brexit
One of the milder passages reads as follows:
"Yet that talk matters. Contrary to what the businesslike pronouncements of Vote Leave might suggest, for swathes of the Leave camp—exemplified by the burghers of South Wonston and by Nigel Farage, the UKIP leader—the upcoming referendum is about more than the best economic and geopolitical posture for Britain’s future. It is about making the country democratic again, about freeing it from foreign tyranny. If, as is likely, Britons vote to stay in the EU, this contingent knows whom to blame: meddling ministers, nefarious MI5 officers, corrupt journalists and, among the electorate, those “youngsters” who “don’t know how to make grown-up decisions”. Mr Finch even claimed confidently that the Out campaign is trying to keep the referendum date off websites heavily used by young Britons, in order to reduce their turnout."
What with that prediction and his signature on the 364 economists letter about Sir Geoffrey Howe's policies, I officially give him the Sion Simon award for awesome political predictions.
It sounds similarish to Constantius appointing Julian as Caesar, responsible for defending Gaul. Julian had been an academic interested in paganism, and got the job on the basis of being the only male relative of Constantius who hadn't either died in war or been murdered by, er, Constantius.
Julian ended up being so capable his soldiers named him emperor and he was forced into civil war, which he won through the flawless method of Constantius falling fatally ill before the armies could meet and naming Julian his successor.
Though as it is London, I don't care in the slightest if I'm proved right or wrong being so definitive.
https://youtu.be/4cpqoVqqDGk
Perhaps they'd advocate ignoring the vote, like the ex-editor of The Independent.
However, his 'sincerity' or otherwise is beside the point, which is how this will be recieved. I am prepared to believe that he still has star power and that his advice means a lot to some electors, but is there some sort of indication? Has he been surrounded by crowds of excited well-wishers? Or is it more Uncle Sam giving us a ticking off?
And it looked bloody dicey at GE2015 all the way up until *that* exit poll.
Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev and Brezhnev are all travelling together in a railway carriage.
Unexpectedly, the train stops. Lenin suggests: "Perhaps we should call a subbotnik, so that workers and peasants fix the problem."
Nothing much happens; the train perhaps moves marginally backwards.
Stalin puts his head out of the window and shouts, "If the train does not start moving, the driver will be executed!"
There are screams and a burst of machine gun fire. But the train doesn't start moving.
Khrushchev then shouts, "Let's take the rails behind the train and use them to construct the tracks in the front."
But it still doesn't move. Brezhnev then says, "Comrades, comrades, let's order the guard to paint all the windows black, and then tell the passengers that the train is moving."
Why - as an enlightened Muslim - does he hang around with Cage? Anyone with any judgment, any common-sense, any decency should have been giving Cage a very wide berth indeed for some considerable time?
Why - as an enlightened Muslim - has he not condemned his local iman for his demands to boycott Ahmadi Muslims? (You cannot be unaware of the sectarianism which has been directed at the Ahmadis and which has led to murder, sadly.
Why- as an enlightened Muslim - does he support an Islamic blasphemy law?
Why - as an enlightened Muslim - was he equivocal about condemning what Al Qaradawi said about stoning, and the beating of women and suicide bombing?
As I asked yesterday, why is it that senior Labour people always seem to associate with extremist Muslims and not the liberal peaceful non-extremist Muslims they're always talking about?
And why is it that when people ask about this the default reaction is to try and shut down the debate: either by alleging racism or by saying that it sends the wrong message.
It creates the perception that Labour thinks the extremists are the only Muslims worth talking to, that these are the Muslims who represent the community. And that does a grave disservice to the non-extremists. It really does send an appalling message to the non-extreme and the liberals. And it does give more oxygen to the extremists.
There are plenty of non-extreme Muslims who don't hang around with Cage and justify stoning and the rest of it who would be splendid role models and could advise Labour and Khan. But they're not there, are they? Why not? It's legitimate to ask this.
And extremists do care about who wins because someone who doesn't take the fight to them will, by default, give them the space to spread. There has already been far too much of that, too much turning of blind eyes. I really hope if Khan wins he does take the fight to the extremists as he has promised. Because it is long past the time for that to be done. But I am not hopeful on the basis of his track record. I hope I am proved wrong.
https://www.predictit.org/Contract/563/Will-Paul-Ryan-win-the-2016-Republican-presidential-nomination#data
ROFLMAO - don't think I had heard that one. Would have carried 5 years under Article 58.
We are all wise now.
I agree that 'on the ground' the feeling was tending towards Con most votes and most seats but a Con- / Con-led govt? Not so nailed on.
---------------
Probably because these people are useful for 'mobilising' a certain part of the vote. Or you could think Parnell and Irish extremists and the long tradition of having an 'each way bet on force'.
Would you say that shows Dave gets it right, again ?
http://www.itv.com/news/2016-04-22/obamas-views-on-eu-membership-not-important-to-most-britons-itv-news-poll-suggests/
As for the later war, assuming all else panned out in the same way (which is very far from guaranteed), yes, the Soviet Union ended up destroying Germany (with a little help from the RAF and USAF), but wouldn't much the same have been true of a republican Russia that hadn't been through the civil war, famines and purges of the USSR? Remember that one reason that Germany was willing to write Austria the blank cheque in 1914 was because they feared that Russia might be unbeatable given its rate of development within a few years.
I wonder if it will become a full blown story here?
I don't disagree with some of your comments but I'd but interested to see evidence to back up your implication that it is a characteristic choice of Labour politicians to shun "peaceful" Muslims in favour of "extremist" ones. That seems a smear too far. I mean, Khan is a "peaceful" one, unless you're one of Zac's "nut jobs on Twitter" and plenty of senior Labour people associate with him.
Gove is the past master of the polite insult- something his colleagues could learn.
As Alex Massie observed "a lot of angry people"....
And yes the more you post on this the more I realise you really do need to be in one of those University safe zones.next you'll be telling us that simply by disagreeing someone is being insulting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NTqZ347TKY
http://capitolweekly.net/ca120-california-gop-primary/
Trump 41% Cruz 23% Kasich 21%
Separate sample of 466 Republicans registered since the turn of the New Year has Trump ahead 53%-21%-15%
Regions - Districts - Trump - Cruz - Kasich
Northern California 01,02,03,04 43% 22% 16%
Bay Area 05,11,12,13,14,15,17,18,19 39% 23% 25%
Central Valley 09,10,16,21,22,23 35% 28% 18%
LA County White 25,26,27,28,30,33 48% 15% 23%
LA County Non-White 29,32,34,37,38,40,43,44 38% 25% 21%
Inland Empire 08,31,35,36,41 49% 22% 16%
Orange County 39,42,45,46,47,48 42% 27% 18%
San Diego 49,50,51,52,53 39% 22% 26%
Sacramento 06,07 54% 14% 13%
Central Coast 20,24,26 33% 23% 28%
And I had you down as one of the rational ones....
No prizes for guessing which side they're on.
I'm also not convinced that CCHQ really regards this as an election worth throwing the kitchen sink at. Mayor Zac could well end up as more of a nuisance than an asset, given his Heathrow position. Admittedly Sadiq is also now anti-Heathrow, but fortunately no-one takes his position seriously. In any case, from Cameron's point of view, being opposed by a mayor of the opposition party is one thing, being opposed by your own party's mayor rather more awkward.
In betting terms, I'm already on both candidates at gratifyingly long odds, but I tilted my position towards Sadiq a few weeks ago when his odds were more attractive than they are now. If I were starting from scratch, I suppose Zac might just be worth a speculative punt at around 9/1, but I don't think the current odds are far out.
http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2016/04/lord-ashcroft-the-first-of-my-new-focus-group-findings-about-the-eu-referendum.html
https://twitter.com/MorrisF1/status/723496885575671808
[I'm in the process of writing a trilogy, so it's not just a theoretical musing].
Marcellinus' work is also notable for the contempt he has for the concept of fixing commodity prices, a relatively rare instance of him criticising not only Julian's acts but also Ed Miliband's energy policy.
“It says we already control our borders. I thought, well, if that’s true we’re not doing a very good job.”