Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Betting round up

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited September 2013 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Betting round up

I’ve been on longer odds on IDS, so I think the value has gone in this, however long standing and outstanding PB contributor, Peter from Putney suggested this bet earlier on today, which I think is a very good option, as Chief Whip isn’t a cabinet position.

Read the full story here


«1

Comments

  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    In these days of coalition surely the "most seats" market needs a mention..
  • IOSIOS Posts: 1,450
    The idea that Labour has a funding crisis is crazy. We raised more than the Tories last year. We also have DOUBLE the number of members.
  • TGOHF said:

    In these days of coalition surely the "most seats" market needs a mention..

    I did look into those markets, but the best odds on Tories getting the most seats is 6/4.

    Which made me think, hold up according to the betting markets, Tories achieving that is in 2015, seems more likely than Boris standing and winning in 2016 at 5/2.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    In these days of coalition surely the "most seats" market needs a mention..

    I did look into those markets, but the best odds on Tories getting the most seats is 6/4.

    Which made me think, hold up according to the betting markets, Tories achieving that is in 2015, seems more likely than Boris standing and winning in 2016 at 5/2.

    Betfair have a busy trading market where the Labour price is 1.85 - arb territory with 6/4 cons ?
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    Welfare reform has been so much a part of the coalition's meme I just don't see Dave dumping IDS,even if things get hairier.
  • perdixperdix Posts: 1,806
    IDS will stick to his programme. He could have opted for an easier time at the last reshuffle - Cameron invited him to change. Cameron won't sack him because he's so popular with the party and the grassroots. To IDS it is a matter of honour that this project, which he sincerely believes will help millions of people, is implemented fully.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    edited September 2013
    IOS..go for it.. you are in a winning position.. should someone tell Ed?.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,957
    edited September 2013
    @TGOHF - Of course you're right.

    Updated the thread with your input
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,279
    "Former Syrian Defence Minister General Ali Habib, a prominent member of President Bashar al-Assad's Alawite sect, has defected and is now in Turkey, a senior member of the opposition Syrian National Coalition told Reuters on Wednesday.

    If his defection is confirmed, Habib would be the highest ranking figure from the Alawite minority to break with Assad since the uprising against him began in 2011."

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/04/us-syria-crisis-defection-idUSBRE9830O420130904
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited September 2013
    perdix said:

    IDS will stick to his programme. He could have opted for an easier time at the last reshuffle - Cameron invited him to change. Cameron won't sack him because he's so popular with the party and the grassroots. To IDS it is a matter of honour that this project, which he sincerely believes will help millions of people, is implemented fully.

    You can't solve a computer systems roll-out problem by changing Ministers.

    What is needed is to bring in an experienced outsider with proven turnaround project management skills and give him or her overall hire and fire authority.

    The Permanent Secretary at the DWP won't like it but eggs have to be broken to deliver a perfect omelette.

  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    IOS said:

    The idea that Labour has a funding crisis is crazy. We raised more than the Tories last year. We also have DOUBLE the number of members.

    yah, all you have to do is pay down that enormous overdraft ahead of an election.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    IOS said:

    The idea that Labour has a funding crisis is crazy. We raised more than the Tories last year. We also have DOUBLE the number of members.

    Don't worry, IOS.

    If Labour Party suppliers start demanding cash up front, just offer them a Co-Op Bank guarantee.

  • IOSIOS Posts: 1,450
    Alan

    We have less debt than the Tories I believe?
  • IOSIOS Posts: 1,450
    Avery again the long term finance of the Labour Party are stronger than the Tories.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    edited September 2013
    IOS said:

    Alan

    We have less debt than the Tories I believe?

    They have bigger funders. Oh and their bank is not looking shaky.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    IOS said:

    Avery again the long term finance of the Labour Party are stronger than the Tories.

    So how come it's always Labour with the funding questions against it rather than the Conservatives ?
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    Paul Kenny struggling to keep a straight face when asked about funding on ITV news.
  • Paul Kenny struggling to keep a straight face when asked about funding on ITV news.

    And failing....the Cheshire Cat has nothing on Mr Kenny....

  • IOSIOS Posts: 1,450
    Alan

    Essentially because people can't read graphs or statements. Labour was in a lot of trouble just after Blair nearly bankrupted us in 2005. But since then we have got it together.

    By the end of the next general election we will be debt free. When the Tories lose their major donations they will be screwed.
  • IOSIOS Posts: 1,450
    Alan.

    I can only guess you are a bit thick or intentionally trolling. The Co-op bank situation doesn't and won't really effect the Labour party.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    edited September 2013
    David Aaronovitch on Ed Miliband
    "In this moment of crisis it became clear — as it does — what Mr Miliband is. A personable man (and he is a very pleasant companion), politically he is not a presence at all, he is an absence. He is Oedipal Ed, the negator of the unpopular actions of the fathers; the anti-Blair, the non-Brown. His technique for victory to is follow behind the leader, wait for a slip-up and exploit his or her mistakes. He did it to his brother. He hopes to do it to David Cameron. He is neither hunter nor prey, he is scavenger. He is a political vulture. Mission creep? His mission is all about creeping."
    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/davidaaronovitch/article3860789.ece
  • IOSIOS Posts: 1,450
    God it's like people on this site don't have the ability to recognise when links have already been posted.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    IOS said:

    Alan.

    I can only guess you are a bit thick or intentionally trolling. The Co-op bank situation doesn't and won't really effect the Labour party.

    So not a touchy subject then as I can see.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    Hope Eric Pickles is moved to Chief Whip, he would be more effective in the role than George Young, and has failed to stand up enough for Local Government in his present role in my view
  • IOSIOS Posts: 1,450
    Alan

    It is just difficult trying to have a discussion with people who's only response seems to be "nah but I hear this in the press"
  • SMukeshSMukesh Posts: 1,650
    IOS

    Don`t we know how the two grave-diggers tried to strip a dead spinster of her hard-earned money
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,722
    Did someone say Ed is crap
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    IOS - been on the laudnum ?

    Lie back and think of the nailed on yougov lead.
  • IOSIOS Posts: 1,450
    Tim

    I don't know if it is the case that they are just a bit thick or think they are masterful rampers changing the course of history. Any ideas?


    You would think for a party with under 90,000 members and one that hadn't won a majority for 21 years and has a massive popularity and liked party deficit to the Labour Party that they would be a bit more aware of Labour's significantly better long term position.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    edited September 2013
    IOS said:

    Alan

    It is just difficult trying to have a discussion with people who's only response seems to be "nah but I hear this in the press"


    It's basic accountancy. You have debts, your funders are playing poker and your bank is in trouble. I'd call that an area for concern personally, but you seem less so. Good luck.
  • IOS said:

    Alan.

    I can only guess you are a bit thick or intentionally trolling. The Co-op bank situation doesn't and won't really effect the Labour party.

    So not a touchy subject then as I can see.
    Lol - Shouting “Don’t panic” whilst er, panicking. – He’s obviously too young to remember L/Cpl Jack Jones’ catch phrase from Dad’s Army.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    @Alanbrooke and @IOS

    Conclusion. Both parties (indeed all parties) have major problems.
  • IOS, I'm sure you're right, but are you saying there isn't an overdraft with the Coop Bank, or that you think it could easily be refinanced, or that there is zero chance of it being called in? It would be helpful if you explained, rather than just dissing the press reports.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    IOS Apologies have tried to remove the Boris link but without much success, I don't think the Aaranovitch link was posted though although it was commented on, also don't think the Toby Young story has been mentioned
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559

    IOS said:

    Alan.

    I can only guess you are a bit thick or intentionally trolling. The Co-op bank situation doesn't and won't really effect the Labour party.

    So not a touchy subject then as I can see.
    Lol - Shouting “Don’t panic” whilst er, panicking. – He’s obviously too young to remember L/Cpl Jack Jones’ catch phrase from Dad’s Army.
    I've been in a business when the bank has been in serious shit, it's not fun.
  • IOSIOS Posts: 1,450
    Alan

    It's basic accountancy. We have debts. We are clearing over 2 million a year of these debts. We will be debt free by the end of this parliament. If we need a new bank (which we won't) I see now reason why a bank wouldn't want to take on a major client that would be paying then over £30 million a year and wouldn't be asking for an overdraft.
  • HYUFD said:

    also don't think the Toby Young story has been mentioned

    It has been mentioned but everyone has been hoping that if we kept quiet, tim wouldn't notice...
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    edited September 2013
    IOS said:

    We have debts. We are clearing over 2 million a year of these debts.

    Does that include the £1m you are not getting from the GMB?
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    Jonathan said:

    @Alanbrooke and @IOS

    Conclusion. Both parties (indeed all parties) have major problems.

    Yes Jonathan that's about the sum of it but they have different financial problems:

    Conservatives: Over reliance on major individual funders ( some of whom might be wavering ) combined with falling membership fees.

    Labour : dispute with its major union funders, large overdraft with distressed bank.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,715
    SMukesh said:

    IOS

    Don`t we know how the two grave-diggers tried to strip a dead spinster of her hard-earned money

    I am reminded of the Spike Milligan character who died and left all his money to himself. The lawyers were VERY happy!

  • Jonathan said:

    @Alanbrooke and @IOS

    Conclusion. Both parties (indeed all parties) have major problems.

    Indeed, I have a we're all crap thread coming up.

    Just need to finish this Strictly Come Dancing thread one first.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    It may have been mentioned at some point in the last three years.

    Did someone say Ed is crap

  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    Jonathan said:

    @Alanbrooke and @IOS

    Conclusion. Both parties (indeed all parties) have major problems.

    Yes Jonathan that's about the sum of it but they have different financial problems:

    Conservatives: Over reliance on major individual funders ( some of whom might be wavering ) combined with falling membership fees.

    Labour : dispute with its major union funders, large overdraft with distressed bank.
    I does concern me that Labour are embarking on an Obama funding model, without an Obama figure to crystallise it.

    I suspect people will walk a million miles or donate for Obama, Not sure they will do the same for Ed.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    edited September 2013
    IOS= I Owe Squillions.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    IOS said:

    Alan

    It's basic accountancy. We have debts. We are clearing over 2 million a year of these debts. We will be debt free by the end of this parliament. If we need a new bank (which we won't) I see now reason why a bank wouldn't want to take on a major client that would be paying then over £30 million a year and wouldn't be asking for an overdraft.

    That's five years to clear your debts and an election in the middle. The banking issue won't really be anything you can influence. When banks are in distress they are unpredictable beasts.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    @Alanbrooke and @IOS

    Conclusion. Both parties (indeed all parties) have major problems.

    Yes Jonathan that's about the sum of it but they have different financial problems:

    Conservatives: Over reliance on major individual funders ( some of whom might be wavering ) combined with falling membership fees.

    Labour : dispute with its major union funders, large overdraft with distressed bank.
    I does concern me that Labour are embarking on an Obama funding model, without an Obama figure to crystallise it.

    I suspect people will walk a million miles or donate for Obama, Not sure they will do the same for Ed.
    The alternative is the Blair\Cameron model of prostrate yourself before rich men. To date none of the parties has cracked funding. Govt funding will be hard to sell to the public and is a bit of a non-starter. Really parties need to find a way to reduce costs of reaching voters. IT is probably the only way.
  • Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    @Alanbrooke and @IOS

    Conclusion. Both parties (indeed all parties) have major problems.

    Yes Jonathan that's about the sum of it but they have different financial problems:

    Conservatives: Over reliance on major individual funders ( some of whom might be wavering ) combined with falling membership fees.

    Labour : dispute with its major union funders, large overdraft with distressed bank.
    I does concern me that Labour are embarking on an Obama funding model, without an Obama figure to crystallise it.

    I suspect people will walk a million miles or donate for Obama, Not sure they will do the same for Ed.
    The alternative is the Blair\Cameron model of prostrate yourself before rich men. To date none of the parties has cracked funding. Govt funding will be hard to sell to the public and is a bit of a non-starter. Really parties need to find a way to reduce costs of reaching voters. IT is probably the only way.
    How long before they big parties propose State funding of political parties?
  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699

    IOS said:

    Alan

    It's basic accountancy. We have debts. We are clearing over 2 million a year of these debts. We will be debt free by the end of this parliament. If we need a new bank (which we won't) I see now reason why a bank wouldn't want to take on a major client that would be paying then over £30 million a year and wouldn't be asking for an overdraft.

    That's five years to clear your debts and an election in the middle. The banking issue won't really be anything you can influence. When banks are in distress they are unpredictable beasts.
    IOS is quite correct in that Labour are well on course for being completely debt free by the next GE . The main reason for this though is the vast amount of public money they are receiving via Short and similar payments . The Conservatives on the other hand will no doubt struggle on technically bankrupt with zero assets .
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    @Alanbrooke and @IOS

    Conclusion. Both parties (indeed all parties) have major problems.

    Yes Jonathan that's about the sum of it but they have different financial problems:

    Conservatives: Over reliance on major individual funders ( some of whom might be wavering ) combined with falling membership fees.

    Labour : dispute with its major union funders, large overdraft with distressed bank.
    I does concern me that Labour are embarking on an Obama funding model, without an Obama figure to crystallise it.

    I suspect people will walk a million miles or donate for Obama, Not sure they will do the same for Ed.
    The alternative is the Blair\Cameron model of prostrate yourself before rich men. To date none of the parties has cracked funding. Govt funding will be hard to sell to the public and is a bit of a non-starter. Really parties need to find a way to reduce costs of reaching voters. IT is probably the only way.
    How long before they big parties propose State funding of political parties?
    I think they all want it but nobody wants to go first. We will probably need a single party to be in govt and then watch it imposed in the first year to the sounds of an opposition saying "tut tut" while they high five the PM.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    RichardNavabi Well won't mention it again then!
  • Jonathan said:

    @Alanbrooke and @IOS

    Conclusion. Both parties (indeed all parties) have major problems.

    Indeed, I have a we're all crap thread coming up.

    Just need to finish this Strictly Come Dancing thread one first.
    The dumbing down of PB continues apace!

    (only kidding!)
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,715
    edited September 2013

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    @Alanbrooke and @IOS

    Conclusion. Both parties (indeed all parties) have major problems.

    Yes Jonathan that's about the sum of it but they have different financial problems:

    Conservatives: Over reliance on major individual funders ( some of whom might be wavering ) combined with falling membership fees.

    Labour : dispute with its major union funders, large overdraft with distressed bank.
    I does concern me that Labour are embarking on an Obama funding model, without an Obama figure to crystallise it.

    I suspect people will walk a million miles or donate for Obama, Not sure they will do the same for Ed.
    The alternative is the Blair\Cameron model of prostrate yourself before rich men. To date none of the parties has cracked funding. Govt funding will be hard to sell to the public and is a bit of a non-starter. Really parties need to find a way to reduce costs of reaching voters. IT is probably the only way.
    When I was a Liberal Party election agent in the 70's we advertised as follows: if you want Liberal Party election material, sponsor it.

    So much buys a poster, so much buys an election address to every house in your street.

    We got quite a lot of money in, and, from a standing start, beat Labour into 3rd, in what until then had been a 55-40 Tory held seat.

    National events played a very important part, of course. And I wouldn't do it for the current LibDems.
  • Jonathan said:

    @Alanbrooke and @IOS

    Conclusion. Both parties (indeed all parties) have major problems.

    Indeed, I have a we're all crap thread coming up.

    Just need to finish this Strictly Come Dancing thread one first.
    The dumbing down of PB continues apace!

    (only kidding!)
    My eurovision thread really did generate quite a lot of page views.

    (I think mostly people visiting the site and thinking they'd come to the wrong site, and trying again to view the site)
  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699
    edited September 2013

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    @Alanbrooke and @IOS

    Conclusion. Both parties (indeed all parties) have major problems.

    Yes Jonathan that's about the sum of it but they have different financial problems:

    Conservatives: Over reliance on major individual funders ( some of whom might be wavering ) combined with falling membership fees.

    Labour : dispute with its major union funders, large overdraft with distressed bank.
    I does concern me that Labour are embarking on an Obama funding model, without an Obama figure to crystallise it.

    I suspect people will walk a million miles or donate for Obama, Not sure they will do the same for Ed.
    The alternative is the Blair\Cameron model of prostrate yourself before rich men. To date none of the parties has cracked funding. Govt funding will be hard to sell to the public and is a bit of a non-starter. Really parties need to find a way to reduce costs of reaching voters. IT is probably the only way.
    How long before they big parties propose State funding of political parties?
    I think they all want it but nobody wants to go first. We will probably need a single party to be in govt and then watch it imposed in the first year to the sounds of an opposition saying "tut tut" while they high five the PM.
    The current system of State funding favours mainly opposition parties so yes they are likely to oppose any changes to more general funding .
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559

    IOS said:

    Alan

    It's basic accountancy. We have debts. We are clearing over 2 million a year of these debts. We will be debt free by the end of this parliament. If we need a new bank (which we won't) I see now reason why a bank wouldn't want to take on a major client that would be paying then over £30 million a year and wouldn't be asking for an overdraft.

    That's five years to clear your debts and an election in the middle. The banking issue won't really be anything you can influence. When banks are in distress they are unpredictable beasts.
    IOS is quite correct in that Labour are well on course for being completely debt free by the next GE . The main reason for this though is the vast amount of public money they are receiving via Short and similar payments . The Conservatives on the other hand will no doubt struggle on technically bankrupt with zero assets .
    All political parties have next to no assets, it's why asking for personal guarantees from the officers of the party has been a problem in the past.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    That would be going too far too fast. We must spend to save. The time is not right for a novice. Labour needs a fiscal stimulus etc etc.

    Labour will pay off their debts about the same time that they start to pay off the national debt.

    IOS said:

    Alan

    It's basic accountancy. We have debts. We are clearing over 2 million a year of these debts. We will be debt free by the end of this parliament. If we need a new bank (which we won't) I see now reason why a bank wouldn't want to take on a major client that would be paying then over £30 million a year and wouldn't be asking for an overdraft.

    That's five years to clear your debts and an election in the middle. The banking issue won't really be anything you can influence. When banks are in distress they are unpredictable beasts.
    IOS is quite correct in that Labour are well on course for being completely debt free by the next GE . The main reason for this though is the vast amount of public money they are receiving via Short and similar payments . The Conservatives on the other hand will no doubt struggle on technically bankrupt with zero assets .
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,279
    edited September 2013
    Institutional Conservative Party.
    Institutional Labour Party.
    Institutional Liberal Democratic Party.
    Institutionalised Monster Raving Loony Party.

  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    edited September 2013
    Jenni Russell invited on CH 4 News as a Miliband supporter. Says she does not support Miliband and has no idea what his position is.

    EDIT: describes Ed as "disastrous"
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,279
    Aaronovitch on Channel 4 News now.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,279
    edited September 2013
    JohnLoony has pointed out a problem with the latest episode of Who Do You Think You Are? regarding Hindi and Gujurati:

    http://vote-2012.proboards.com/post/99821/thread
  • SMukeshSMukesh Posts: 1,650
    If the U.S House of representatives votes against the bombing and the Senate approves it,what happens next?
  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699

    IOS said:

    Alan

    It's basic accountancy. We have debts. We are clearing over 2 million a year of these debts. We will be debt free by the end of this parliament. If we need a new bank (which we won't) I see now reason why a bank wouldn't want to take on a major client that would be paying then over £30 million a year and wouldn't be asking for an overdraft.

    That's five years to clear your debts and an election in the middle. The banking issue won't really be anything you can influence. When banks are in distress they are unpredictable beasts.
    IOS is quite correct in that Labour are well on course for being completely debt free by the next GE . The main reason for this though is the vast amount of public money they are receiving via Short and similar payments . The Conservatives on the other hand will no doubt struggle on technically bankrupt with zero assets .
    All political parties have next to no assets, it's why asking for personal guarantees from the officers of the party has been a problem in the past.
    That is incorrect , Labour have property valued at £ 6.7 million at the end of 2012 . Conservatives have none having sold off their properies a few years ago .
  • Jonathan said:

    @Alanbrooke and @IOS

    Conclusion. Both parties (indeed all parties) have major problems.

    Indeed, I have a we're all crap thread coming up.

    Just need to finish this Strictly Come Dancing thread one first.
    The dumbing down of PB continues apace!

    (only kidding!)
    My eurovision thread really did generate quite a lot of page views.

    (I think mostly people visiting the site and thinking they'd come to the wrong site, and trying again to view the site)
    I confess to being a big Eurovision fan, I think I've watched every single contest for the best part of 25 years. However, Strictly does nothing for me, Susanna Reid notwithstanding.
  • SMukesh said:

    If the U.S House of representatives votes against the bombing and the Senate approves it,what happens next?

    The Senate launches an invasion of the House?

    :)
  • If Boris Johnson stands again, he'll be a white hot favourite, given that no Labour figure commands anything like the same visibility. So if you think he'll stand, you'll be able to lay at very favourable prices when he announces it.

    5/2 is a bit mean, but not ludicrously so.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    edited September 2013

    IOS said:

    Alan

    It's basic accountancy. We have debts. We are clearing over 2 million a year of these debts. We will be debt free by the end of this parliament. If we need a new bank (which we won't) I see now reason why a bank wouldn't want to take on a major client that would be paying then over £30 million a year and wouldn't be asking for an overdraft.

    That's five years to clear your debts and an election in the middle. The banking issue won't really be anything you can influence. When banks are in distress they are unpredictable beasts.
    IOS is quite correct in that Labour are well on course for being completely debt free by the next GE . The main reason for this though is the vast amount of public money they are receiving via Short and similar payments . The Conservatives on the other hand will no doubt struggle on technically bankrupt with zero assets .
    All political parties have next to no assets, it's why asking for personal guarantees from the officers of the party has been a problem in the past.
    That is incorrect , Labour have property valued at £ 6.7 million at the end of 2012 . Conservatives have none having sold off their properies a few years ago .
    You surprise me Mark. I'm rather surpirsed any party feels the need to hold property, I'd have thought it would make more sense for Labour to ditch their property and pay down their debts. A bank would have told anyone else to do it. What's the LDs position do they hold property ?
  • SMukeshSMukesh Posts: 1,650

    IOS said:

    Alan

    It's basic accountancy. We have debts. We are clearing over 2 million a year of these debts. We will be debt free by the end of this parliament. If we need a new bank (which we won't) I see now reason why a bank wouldn't want to take on a major client that would be paying then over £30 million a year and wouldn't be asking for an overdraft.

    That's five years to clear your debts and an election in the middle. The banking issue won't really be anything you can influence. When banks are in distress they are unpredictable beasts.
    IOS is quite correct in that Labour are well on course for being completely debt free by the next GE . The main reason for this though is the vast amount of public money they are receiving via Short and similar payments . The Conservatives on the other hand will no doubt struggle on technically bankrupt with zero assets .
    All political parties have next to no assets, it's why asking for personal guarantees from the officers of the party has been a problem in the past.
    That is incorrect , Labour have property valued at £ 6.7 million at the end of 2012 . Conservatives have none having sold off their properies a few years ago .
    Atleast they treat the country and party exactly the same-Sell off all it`s assets.They have sold Royal Mail,the nation`s blood supply and more to come am sure
  • SMukeshSMukesh Posts: 1,650

    IOS said:

    Alan

    It's basic accountancy. We have debts. We are clearing over 2 million a year of these debts. We will be debt free by the end of this parliament. If we need a new bank (which we won't) I see now reason why a bank wouldn't want to take on a major client that would be paying then over £30 million a year and wouldn't be asking for an overdraft.

    That's five years to clear your debts and an election in the middle. The banking issue won't really be anything you can influence. When banks are in distress they are unpredictable beasts.
    IOS is quite correct in that Labour are well on course for being completely debt free by the next GE . The main reason for this though is the vast amount of public money they are receiving via Short and similar payments . The Conservatives on the other hand will no doubt struggle on technically bankrupt with zero assets .
    All political parties have next to no assets, it's why asking for personal guarantees from the officers of the party has been a problem in the past.
    That is incorrect , Labour have property valued at £ 6.7 million at the end of 2012 . Conservatives have none having sold off their properies a few years ago .
    You surprise me Mark. I'm rather surpirsed any party feels the need to hold property, I'd have thought it would make more sense for Labour to ditch their property and pay down their debts. A bank would have told anyone else to do it. What's the LDs position do they hold property ?
    Perhaps they knew Osborne was going to bring about a property bubble.I hope they sell it off before the inevitable bust.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    SMukesh said:

    IOS said:

    Alan

    It's basic accountancy. We have debts. We are clearing over 2 million a year of these debts. We will be debt free by the end of this parliament. If we need a new bank (which we won't) I see now reason why a bank wouldn't want to take on a major client that would be paying then over £30 million a year and wouldn't be asking for an overdraft.

    That's five years to clear your debts and an election in the middle. The banking issue won't really be anything you can influence. When banks are in distress they are unpredictable beasts.
    IOS is quite correct in that Labour are well on course for being completely debt free by the next GE . The main reason for this though is the vast amount of public money they are receiving via Short and similar payments . The Conservatives on the other hand will no doubt struggle on technically bankrupt with zero assets .
    All political parties have next to no assets, it's why asking for personal guarantees from the officers of the party has been a problem in the past.
    That is incorrect , Labour have property valued at £ 6.7 million at the end of 2012 . Conservatives have none having sold off their properies a few years ago .
    You surprise me Mark. I'm rather surpirsed any party feels the need to hold property, I'd have thought it would make more sense for Labour to ditch their property and pay down their debts. A bank would have told anyone else to do it. What's the LDs position do they hold property ?
    Perhaps they knew Osborne was going to bring about a property bubble.I hope they sell it off before the inevitable bust.
    It sort of depends where it is. If it's central London they're in the money, if it's central Rochdale it's probably declining in value.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    In Australia the Coalition promises to cut $4bn from overseas aid, a move likely to increase pressure on Cameron in the event of its likely victory
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    Sunil - Obama could take action for a limited time without backing of either house, if the House votes against it would be damaging but he may go ahead using the Senate as cover, if both voted it down, unlikely though that is, I doubt he would go ahead at all
  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699

    IOS said:

    Alan

    It's basic accountancy. We have debts. We are clearing over 2 million a year of these debts. We will be debt free by the end of this parliament. If we need a new bank (which we won't) I see now reason why a bank wouldn't want to take on a major client that would be paying then over £30 million a year and wouldn't be asking for an overdraft.

    That's five years to clear your debts and an election in the middle. The banking issue won't really be anything you can influence. When banks are in distress they are unpredictable beasts.
    IOS is quite correct in that Labour are well on course for being completely debt free by the next GE . The main reason for this though is the vast amount of public money they are receiving via Short and similar payments . The Conservatives on the other hand will no doubt struggle on technically bankrupt with zero assets .
    All political parties have next to no assets, it's why asking for personal guarantees from the officers of the party has been a problem in the past.
    That is incorrect , Labour have property valued at £ 6.7 million at the end of 2012 . Conservatives have none having sold off their properies a few years ago .
    You surprise me Mark. I'm rather surpirsed any party feels the need to hold property, I'd have thought it would make more sense for Labour to ditch their property and pay down their debts. A bank would have told anyone else to do it. What's the LDs position do they hold property ?
    Lib Dems do not have any property . Labour are paying down their debts rapidly and there is no need for them to sell their property assets . Their problems will come when/if they form the government after 2015 and lose the income from Short and similar money some £ 6 million a year .
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559

    IOS said:

    Alan

    It's basic accountancy. We have debts. We are clearing over 2 million a year of these debts. We will be debt free by the end of this parliament. If we need a new bank (which we won't) I see now reason why a bank wouldn't want to take on a major client that would be paying then over £30 million a year and wouldn't be asking for an overdraft.

    That's five years to clear your debts and an election in the middle. The banking issue won't really be anything you can influence. When banks are in distress they are unpredictable beasts.
    IOS is quite correct in that Labour are well on course for being completely debt free by the next GE . The main reason for this though is the vast amount of public money they are receiving via Short and similar payments . The Conservatives on the other hand will no doubt struggle on technically bankrupt with zero assets .
    All political parties have next to no assets, it's why asking for personal guarantees from the officers of the party has been a problem in the past.
    That is incorrect , Labour have property valued at £ 6.7 million at the end of 2012 . Conservatives have none having sold off their properies a few years ago .
    You surprise me Mark. I'm rather surpirsed any party feels the need to hold property, I'd have thought it would make more sense for Labour to ditch their property and pay down their debts. A bank would have told anyone else to do it. What's the LDs position do they hold property ?
    Lib Dems do not have any property . Labour are paying down their debts rapidly and there is no need for them to sell their property assets . Their problems will come when/if they form the government after 2015 and lose the income from Short and similar money some £ 6 million a year .
    So Labour are the only major party with property.
  • VerulamiusVerulamius Posts: 1,429
    Just done a phone opinion poll survey for Populus. Standard questions, but included at the end whether I had received communications from the main parties.

    I was not aware that Populus were still doing phone polls, is this a cross check against their online polling, or part of a Ashcroft mega poll?
  • Just done a phone opinion poll survey for Populus. Standard questions, but included at the end whether I had received communications from the main parties.

    I was not aware that Populus were still doing phone polls, is this a cross check against their online polling, or part of a Ashcroft mega poll?

    More than likely an Ashcroft poll or a Tory party poll, as they use Populus as well
  • Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    @Alanbrooke and @IOS

    Conclusion. Both parties (indeed all parties) have major problems.

    Yes Jonathan that's about the sum of it but they have different financial problems:

    Conservatives: Over reliance on major individual funders ( some of whom might be wavering ) combined with falling membership fees.

    Labour : dispute with its major union funders, large overdraft with distressed bank.
    I does concern me that Labour are embarking on an Obama funding model, without an Obama figure to crystallise it.

    I suspect people will walk a million miles or donate for Obama, Not sure they will do the same for Ed.
    The alternative is the Blair\Cameron model of prostrate yourself before rich men. To date none of the parties has cracked funding. Govt funding will be hard to sell to the public and is a bit of a non-starter. Really parties need to find a way to reduce costs of reaching voters. IT is probably the only way.
    How long before they big parties propose State funding of political parties?
    Not long. As the main parties become less popular they get less money from party members meaning they have to cosy up more to the rich in exchange for favours. This in turn makes them even less popular.

    Better to have the general public fund them under threat of inprisonment whilst claiming the moral high ground.
  • Bah, Andy Murray is very Scottish in the first set.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,688
    It's all very well heading a thread 'betting round up' but how much betting are we actually doing? I have the odd few quid here and there on long-standing betfair markets, but I really find it impossibly tricky to have any significant political bets away from things like the GE.

    It's also worth mentioning that Paddy Power (and perhaps others) offer odds in pennies only if you have any history of winning with them. It would seem reasonable if prices quoted in thread headers here were available to the wider market rather than just if you have a losing history.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815
    edited September 2013

    IOS said:

    Alan

    It's basic accountancy. We have debts. We are clearing over 2 million a year of these debts. We will be debt free by the end of this parliament. If we need a new bank (which we won't) I see now reason why a bank wouldn't want to take on a major client that would be paying then over £30 million a year and wouldn't be asking for an overdraft.

    That's five years to clear your debts and an election in the middle. The banking issue won't really be anything you can influence. When banks are in distress they are unpredictable beasts.
    IOS is quite correct in that Labour are well on course for being completely debt free by the next GE . The main reason for this though is the vast amount of public money they are receiving via Short and similar payments . The Conservatives on the other hand will no doubt struggle on technically bankrupt with zero assets .
    No one should be surprised that Labour's debts are being paid down by taxpayers under a Coalition government.

    Taxpayers and other parties are always left to deal with the debts incurred by Labour.

  • Who or what is Short and why are they giving Labour £6m a year?
  • Who or what is Short and why are they giving Labour £6m a year?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_Money
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815

    Bah, Andy Murray is very Scottish in the first set.

    Smashes his racquet twice.

    Like PB after a IndyRef poll.

  • AveryLP said:

    Bah, Andy Murray is very Scottish in the first set.

    Smashes his racquet twice.

    Like PB after a IndyRef poll.

    Is this a good time to mention I'm backing both Scottish Independence and Wawrinka (though not as an accumulator)
  • VerulamiusVerulamius Posts: 1,429
    @TSE

    Thanks, that makes sense given my constituency (St Albans).

    I wonder whether Professor Davy has been polled as he also lives in St Albans, but I have not seen him on here recently.

    Probably he's keeping quiet as a Labour supporter.
  • AveryLPAveryLP Posts: 7,815

    AveryLP said:

    Bah, Andy Murray is very Scottish in the first set.

    Smashes his racquet twice.

    Like PB after a IndyRef poll.

    Is this a good time to mention I'm backing both Scottish Independence and Wawrinka (though not as an accumulator)
    Which do you expect to collect first?

  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,688
    AveryLP said:

    Taxpayers and other parties are always left to deal with the debts incurred by Labour.

    Labour particularly, but all parties have this curse. As far as I know there has never been an instance of a politician apologising for spending more than we could afford, and yet there are rather few who have failed to commit this sin.

  • @TSE

    Thanks, that makes sense given my constituency (St Albans).

    I wonder whether Professor Davy has been polled as he also lives in St Albans, but I have not seen him on here recently.

    Probably he's keeping quiet as a Labour supporter.

    Did you get any push polling questions (after the VI)

    Such as "Do you think Ed Miliband is weak?" or "Are you surprised Ed Miliband stabbed the Syrian in the back over the commons vote, considering he stabbed his brother in the back?"
  • AveryLP said:

    AveryLP said:

    Bah, Andy Murray is very Scottish in the first set.

    Smashes his racquet twice.

    Like PB after a IndyRef poll.

    Is this a good time to mention I'm backing both Scottish Independence and Wawrinka (though not as an accumulator)
    Which do you expect to collect first?

    Wawrinka.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,279
    Is it possible to watch the US Open online?
  • I'm sorry to our Liberal friends, for mentioning (Waw) Rinka the dog
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    tim said:

    In PB Tory land Short money is known as Surge Money.
    The Tories got over four million in the year before the last election and spent it all on airbrushing huge images of David Camerons face and posting them up on ring roads all around the country

    And now he's Prime Minister. Normally I think posters are a waste of money but in this instance it appears to have worked.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 2,869
    Omnium said:

    ... if prices quoted in thread headers here were available to the wider market rather than just if you have a losing history.

    That offers a very promising line of anti-discriminatory protest & legislation .....
  • tim said:

    Who or what is Short and why are they giving Labour £6m a year?

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_Money
    So we basically already have public funding of political parties through the back door. The Short Money was apparently set up "to enable Opposition parties more effectively to fulfil their Parliamentary functions".

    I'm sure most of the cash ends up going on stuff that has nothing to do with their parliamentary functions, completely against the original idea of the fund.

    Probably not long until they extend it to cover the parties in government too.

  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,688
    Re:Short;

    Am I right in thinking that this is supposed to be a balance against the 'public interest' type publicity campaigns that a government might choose to mount? (I was aware that there was a payment that supported the opposition, but I wasn't aware it was so large, )

    @tim - if they did as you say then you should keep quiet and let them waste their money shouldn't you?
This discussion has been closed.