Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » In the absence of divine intervention defeated Alabama Republi

13»

Comments

  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,723

    Telegraph...

    The Conservatives were denied an outright majority at the last general election because of a voting system which is slanted in favour of the Labour party, new analysis has shown.

    The new figures reveal that the Tories would have been left with a clear majority of 14 if the boundary reforms - which have been frustrated by Labour and the Liberal Democrats - had been in place.

    The voting system is not favourable to Lab anymore is it?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    No, Barlow obviously has good taste, he is a Tory too
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 3,949
    Dear All, especially anyone with industry experience:

    A family member of mine has been inspired/corrupted by my betting and wishes to open their own accounts. Being youngish I lived with them a couple of years ago, though have since moved on, so their account address would be the same as mine were once.

    There is genuinely no intent to use their accounts as proxies for me, but is there a risk I get gubbed anyway if (as is likely) they often bet following my tips so we have similar patterns? Is this risk noticeably changed if I use referral links to open the accounts?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    Quincel said:

    HYUFD said:

    viewcode said:

    viewcode said:

    viewcode said:

    Alabama was the biggest betting event since GE2017 - nice to see the winnings being paid out

    Great, that's paid for my shopping trip today.
    Excellent! How much, or is it rude to ask?

    Over £50 but under £100.
    Cool!
    Its a nice, if not enormous, amount.

    There will be PBers who will have made many multiples of that in this election.

    PB is good for little tips like that which should bring in a few hundred pounds each year even without the big elections.

    Laying the draw in the cricket is something I learnt to do on PB as an example.
    I think other similar rules of thumb are "lay the favourite for Conservative leader" and "lay the favorite in a Republican primary"
    Certainly not the Republican primary, Reagan, Bush Snr, Dole, W Bush and Romney were all favourite and all ended up nominee. Trump also led polls from summer 2015 even if Rubio was favourite.

    Even the last Tory leadership race saw the favourite, May, ultimately win.
    The Tory leadership race holds up if you lay the favourite repeatedly until the race actually starts though. So you lay Moggmentum, lay Davis when he becomes favourite etc. Boris was favourite last year right up until he pulled out.
    However I think one of Boris, Mogg or Davis will ultimately get it next time, as Mogg is currently favourite that makes Boris or Davis good bets, especially as they likely have more MP backing
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,958

    Telegraph...

    The Conservatives were denied an outright majority at the last general election because of a voting system which is slanted in favour of the Labour party, new analysis has shown.

    The new figures reveal that the Tories would have been left with a clear majority of 14 if the boundary reforms - which have been frustrated by Labour and the Liberal Democrats - had been in place.

    Reforms that would have robbed the DUP of their chance for a billion quid of pork.

    A good reason they will fail this time too.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,400

    Telegraph...

    The Conservatives were denied an outright majority at the last general election because of a voting system which is slanted in favour of the Labour party, new analysis has shown.

    The new figures reveal that the Tories would have been left with a clear majority of 14 if the boundary reforms - which have been frustrated by Labour and the Liberal Democrats - had been in place.

    Not that they had much chance of going through anyway, but a story like that will make even more certain it won't I should think.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    edited December 2017
    viewcode said:

    Barnesian said:

    viewcode said:

    viewcode said:

    Alabama was the biggest betting event since GE2017 - nice to see the winnings being paid out

    Great, that's paid for my shopping trip today.
    Excellent! How much, or is it rude to ask?

    Over £50 but under £100.
    Cool!
    Mine was over £100 but under £200.

    EDIT: My betting is an interesting hobby rather than a source of income.

    My total winnings this year, just transferred from various accounts is a four figure sum. It would really need to be a five figure sum to count as an income but I'd have to hide it from my wife.
    Mine this year is three figures. I need to examine how to do it more professionally (so to speak)
    Down about £500 this year, but, amazingly, and largely because of tremendous value tips mentioned here, despite losing a packet on constituency bets in the GE, would have been up had Richmond Park voted for Olney and the young Tory chap beaten Nuttall in Stoke.

    Each was 10s of votes, IIRC.


    Edit to add: (But still up overall, and 4 figures up on a three year rolling account)
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 3,949
    edited December 2017

    Telegraph...

    The Conservatives were denied an outright majority at the last general election because of a voting system which is slanted in favour of the Labour party, new analysis has shown.

    The new figures reveal that the Tories would have been left with a clear majority of 14 if the boundary reforms - which have been frustrated by Labour and the Liberal Democrats - had been in place.

    The voting system is not favourable to Lab anymore is it?
    No. The Tories would have won a majority at the last election with boundary reform, but only because it would make the system now favour them. The system did used to favour Labour reasonably considerably, but various factors mean the Tories overperformed votes -> seats in 2017 not Labour.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    Telegraph...

    The Conservatives were denied an outright majority at the last general election because of a voting system which is slanted in favour of the Labour party, new analysis has shown.

    The new figures reveal that the Tories would have been left with a clear majority of 14 if the boundary reforms - which have been frustrated by Labour and the Liberal Democrats - had been in place.

    The voting system is not favourable to Lab anymore is it?
    That's not what the study quoted said ;)
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited December 2017
    HYUFD said:

    No, Barlow obviously has good taste, he is a Tory too
    Good taste in the same way as peter wright has good taste in haircuts!

    image
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 3,949
    edited December 2017
    HYUFD said:

    Quincel said:

    HYUFD said:

    viewcode said:

    viewcode said:

    viewcode said:

    Alabama was the biggest betting event since GE2017 - nice to see the winnings being paid out

    Great, that's paid for my shopping trip today.
    Excellent! How much, or is it rude to ask?

    Over £50 but under £100.
    Cool!
    Its a nice, if not enormous, amount.

    There will be PBers who will have made many multiples of that in this election.

    PB is good for little tips like that which should bring in a few hundred pounds each year even without the big elections.

    Laying the draw in the cricket is something I learnt to do on PB as an example.
    I think other similar rules of thumb are "lay the favourite for Conservative leader" and "lay the favorite in a Republican primary"
    Certainly not the Republican primary, Reagan, Bush Snr, Dole, W Bush and Romney were all favourite and all ended up nominee. Trump also led polls from summer 2015 even if Rubio was favourite.

    Even the last Tory leadership race saw the favourite, May, ultimately win.
    The Tory leadership race holds up if you lay the favourite repeatedly until the race actually starts though. So you lay Moggmentum, lay Davis when he becomes favourite etc. Boris was favourite last year right up until he pulled out.
    However I think one of Boris, Mogg or Davis will ultimately get it next time, as Mogg is currently favourite that makes Boris or Davis good bets, especially as they likely have more MP backing
    I think Boris would win it easily if he had the guts to openly grab it. I should add that I've never bet on a Tory leadership election at all if memory serves, certainly very little if ever.

    But honestly Boris - it can't be 'Your turn' forever. Eventually his moment will pass if he doesn't take it.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709

    HYUFD said:

    No, Barlow obviously has good taste, he is a Tory too
    Good taste in the same way as peter wright has good taste in haircuts!

    image
    Well at least he is distinctive. I thought the Last Jedi was excellent, far better than the tedious and dull Rogue One
  • Mortimer said:

    viewcode said:

    Barnesian said:

    viewcode said:

    viewcode said:

    Alabama was the biggest betting event since GE2017 - nice to see the winnings being paid out

    Great, that's paid for my shopping trip today.
    Excellent! How much, or is it rude to ask?

    Over £50 but under £100.
    Cool!
    Mine was over £100 but under £200.

    EDIT: My betting is an interesting hobby rather than a source of income.

    My total winnings this year, just transferred from various accounts is a four figure sum. It would really need to be a five figure sum to count as an income but I'd have to hide it from my wife.
    Mine this year is three figures. I need to examine how to do it more professionally (so to speak)
    Down about £500 this year, but, amazingly, and largely because of tremendous value tips mentioned here, despite losing a packet on constituency bets in the GE, would have been up had Richmond Park voted for Olney and the young Tory chap beaten Nuttall in Stoke.

    Each was 10s of votes, IIRC.


    Edit to add: (But still up overall, and 4 figures up on a three year rolling account)
    What constituencies were you betting on ? The Conservatives in London ?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    Quincel said:

    HYUFD said:

    Quincel said:

    HYUFD said:

    viewcode said:

    viewcode said:

    viewcode said:

    Alabama was the biggest betting event since GE2017 - nice to see the winnings being paid out

    Great, that's paid for my shopping trip today.
    Excellent! How much, or is it rude to ask?

    Over £50 but under £100.
    Cool!
    Its a nice, if not enormous, amount.

    There will be PBers who will have made many multiples of that in this election.

    PB is good for little tips like that which should bring in a few hundred pounds each year even without the big elections.

    Laying the draw in the cricket is something I learnt to do on PB as an example.
    I think other similar rules of thumb are "lay the favourite for Conservative leader" and "lay the favorite in a Republican primary"
    Certainly not the Republican primary, Reagan, Bush Snr, Dole, W Bush and Romney were all favourite and all ended up nominee. Trump also led polls from summer 2015 even if Rubio was favourite.

    Even the last Tory leadership race saw the favourite, May, ultimately win.
    The Tory leadership race holds up if you lay the favourite repeatedly until the race actually starts though. So you lay Moggmentum, lay Davis when he becomes favourite etc. Boris was favourite last year right up until he pulled out.
    However I think one of Boris, Mogg or Davis will ultimately get it next time, as Mogg is currently favourite that makes Boris or Davis good bets, especially as they likely have more MP backing
    I think Boris would win it easily if he had the guts to openly grab it. I should add that I've never bet on a Tory leadership election at all if memory serves, certainly very little if ever.

    But honestly Boris - it can't be 'Your turn' forever. Eventually his moment will pass if he doesn't take it.
    Boris at least has charisma, which is certainly more than most of the rest of the potential candidates can say
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879
    edited December 2017
    Quincel said:

    Telegraph...

    The Conservatives were denied an outright majority at the last general election because of a voting system which is slanted in favour of the Labour party, new analysis has shown.

    The new figures reveal that the Tories would have been left with a clear majority of 14 if the boundary reforms - which have been frustrated by Labour and the Liberal Democrats - had been in place.

    The voting system is not favourable to Lab anymore is it?
    No. The Tories would have won a majority at the last election with boundary reform, but only because it would make the system now favour them. The system did used to favour Labour reasonably considerably, but various factors mean the Tories overperformed votes -> seats in 2017 not Labour.

    They got over 50% of the seats in 2015 on under 40% of the vote. In 2017 they got close to 50% of the seats on around 42% of the vote. It’s a struggle to see how this could be said to be anything other than hugely favourable to the Tories.

  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 3,949

    Quincel said:

    Telegraph...

    The Conservatives were denied an outright majority at the last general election because of a voting system which is slanted in favour of the Labour party, new analysis has shown.

    The new figures reveal that the Tories would have been left with a clear majority of 14 if the boundary reforms - which have been frustrated by Labour and the Liberal Democrats - had been in place.

    The voting system is not favourable to Lab anymore is it?
    No. The Tories would have won a majority at the last election with boundary reform, but only because it would make the system now favour them. The system did used to favour Labour reasonably considerably, but various factors mean the Tories overperformed votes -> seats in 2017 not Labour.

    They got over 50% of the seats in 2015 on under 40% of the vote. In 2027 they got close to 50% of the seats on around 42% of the vote. It’s a struggle to see how this could be said to be anything other than hugely favourable to the Tories.

    Yes, I should have said 'only because it would make the current system favour them more'. It already does by a good margin, though may not permanently. Imho no change needed to boundaries.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,837
    Quincel said:

    Quincel said:

    Telegraph...

    The Conservatives were denied an outright majority at the last general election because of a voting system which is slanted in favour of the Labour party, new analysis has shown.

    The new figures reveal that the Tories would have been left with a clear majority of 14 if the boundary reforms - which have been frustrated by Labour and the Liberal Democrats - had been in place.

    The voting system is not favourable to Lab anymore is it?
    No. The Tories would have won a majority at the last election with boundary reform, but only because it would make the system now favour them. The system did used to favour Labour reasonably considerably, but various factors mean the Tories overperformed votes -> seats in 2017 not Labour.

    They got over 50% of the seats in 2015 on under 40% of the vote. In 2027 they got close to 50% of the seats on around 42% of the vote. It’s a struggle to see how this could be said to be anything other than hugely favourable to the Tories.

    Yes, I should have said 'only because it would make the current system favour them more'. It already does by a good margin, though may not permanently. Imho no change needed to boundaries.
    Boundary reform is overdue. No one is opposing the principle. They are opposing the particular series of over-prescriptive rule changes designed to favour the largest Party.
    Thus making Parliament less proportional than before.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921

    Quincel said:

    Telegraph...

    The Conservatives were denied an outright majority at the last general election because of a voting system which is slanted in favour of the Labour party, new analysis has shown.

    The new figures reveal that the Tories would have been left with a clear majority of 14 if the boundary reforms - which have been frustrated by Labour and the Liberal Democrats - had been in place.

    The voting system is not favourable to Lab anymore is it?
    No. The Tories would have won a majority at the last election with boundary reform, but only because it would make the system now favour them. The system did used to favour Labour reasonably considerably, but various factors mean the Tories overperformed votes -> seats in 2017 not Labour.

    They got over 50% of the seats in 2015 on under 40% of the vote. In 2017 they got close to 50% of the seats on around 42% of the vote. It’s a struggle to see how this could be said to be anything other than hugely favourable to the Tories.

    Labour pile up far more votes in winning seats; Tory vote is currently a little bit more efficient, but that doesn't mean the boundaries are in any way fair or even. They're still based on 2000 figures - no one except partisans can surely defend their use any more....
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,400

    Quincel said:

    Telegraph...

    The Conservatives were denied an outright majority at the last general election because of a voting system which is slanted in favour of the Labour party, new analysis has shown.

    The new figures reveal that the Tories would have been left with a clear majority of 14 if the boundary reforms - which have been frustrated by Labour and the Liberal Democrats - had been in place.

    The voting system is not favourable to Lab anymore is it?
    No. The Tories would have won a majority at the last election with boundary reform, but only because it would make the system now favour them. The system did used to favour Labour reasonably considerably, but various factors mean the Tories overperformed votes -> seats in 2017 not Labour.

    They got over 50% of the seats in 2015 on under 40% of the vote. In 2017 they got close to 50% of the seats on around 42% of the vote. It’s a struggle to see how this could be said to be anything other than hugely favourable to the Tories.

    That doesn't seem very convincing. That's how our system works for both sides, you can get majorities on less than a majority of the vote, its not indicative of advantage to a particular party. The test would surely be whether it is easier for one side to get a majority on the same or less of the vote, and if the reason for that is unfair to the other or down to some other factor, eg their vote happens to be more efficiently distributed?

    If there is a discernible advantage to one side, a correction to that would advantage the other, but only (in an ideal situation) to redress an existing imbalance. I confess as much as I actually enjoy boundary matters, its been ongoing so long and there's so much noise that I'm far from confident how much if any imbalance exists and how well the proposals redress it. On the face of it the principles seem reasonable, and reform is long overdue, but its all wasted effort anyway, nothing will happen now.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    edited December 2017

    Quincel said:

    Telegraph...

    The Conservatives were denied an outright majority at the last general election because of a voting system which is slanted in favour of the Labour party, new analysis has shown.

    The new figures reveal that the Tories would have been left with a clear majority of 14 if the boundary reforms - which have been frustrated by Labour and the Liberal Democrats - had been in place.

    The voting system is not favourable to Lab anymore is it?
    No. The Tories would have won a majority at the last election with boundary reform, but only because it would make the system now favour them. The system did used to favour Labour reasonably considerably, but various factors mean the Tories overperformed votes -> seats in 2017 not Labour.

    They got over 50% of the seats in 2015 on under 40% of the vote. In 2017 they got close to 50% of the seats on around 42% of the vote. It’s a struggle to see how this could be said to be anything other than hugely favourable to the Tories.

    That's a feature of FPTP, it doesn't demonstrate that it's skewed in favour of the Tories. I think we all remember Labour's 66-seat majority on 35% of the vote.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,837
    edited December 2017
    OK. Boundaries from first principles.
    Imagine direct democracy, where each of the 46m+ voters was an MP. Perfect proportionality.
    At the other extreme 1 MP by FPTP. That MP would be Mrs. May. 100 % Conservative in 2017. (Of course that could change).
    Between those points there will be a curve.
    But, broadly, the fewer MP's the greater the advantage for the largest Party.

    Would be more sympathetic to the case for fewer MP's had there been a similar reduction of 1/13 th of Cabinet Ministers, Junior Ministers, PPS and assorted bag carriers. No such reduction was proposed.
    Thus, it also increases the Power of the payroll over backbenchers. (As they constitute a larger %age).

    We are leaving the EU. Therefore, it could be argued we need more, not fewer MP's. (I do not agree, but one can see the logic).

    If the problem is the cost of politics/politicians, then surely one should begin with the bigger, less busy Chamber, the House of Lords for a serious culling.

    But that Chamber seems to grow.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,083
    HYUFD said:

    Quincel said:

    HYUFD said:

    Quincel said:

    HYUFD said:

    viewcode said:

    viewcode said:

    viewcode said:

    Alabama was the biggest betting event since GE2017 - nice to see the winnings being paid out

    Great, that's paid for my shopping trip today.
    Excellent! How much, or is it rude to ask?

    Over £50 but under £100.
    Cool!
    Its a nice, if not enormous, amount.

    There will be PBers who will have made many multiples of that in this election.

    PB is good for little tips like that which should bring in a few hundred pounds each year even without the big elections.

    Laying the draw in the cricket is something I learnt to do on PB as an example.
    I think other similar rules of thumb are "lay the favourite for Conservative leader" and "lay the favorite in a Republican primary"
    Certainly not the Republican primary, Reagan, Bush Snr, Dole, W Bush and Romney were all favourite and all ended up nominee. Trump also led polls from summer 2015 even if Rubio was favourite.

    Even the last Tory leadership race saw the favourite, May, ultimately win.
    The Tory leadership race holds up if you lay the favourite repeatedly until the race actually starts though. So you lay Moggmentum, lay Davis when he becomes favourite etc. Boris was favourite last year right up until he pulled out.
    However I think one of Boris, Mogg or Davis will ultimately get it next time, as Mogg is currently favourite that makes Boris or Davis good bets, especially as they likely have more MP backing
    I think Boris would win it easily if he had the guts to openly grab it. I should add that I've never bet on a Tory leadership election at all if memory serves, certainly very little if ever.

    But honestly Boris - it can't be 'Your turn' forever. Eventually his moment will pass if he doesn't take it.
    Boris at least has charisma, which is certainly more than most of the rest of the potential candidates can say
    Charisma that atttacts and repels in equal measure is the very exemplar of a mixed blessing.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    edited December 2017
    dixiedean said:

    OK. Boundaries from first principles.
    Imagine direct democracy, where each of the 46m+ voters was an MP. Perfect proportionality.
    At the other extreme 1 MP by FPTP. That MP would be Mrs. May. 100 % Conservative in 2017. (Of course that could change).
    Between those points there will be a curve.
    But, broadly, the fewer MP's the greater the advantage for the largest Party.

    Would be more sympathetic to the case for fewer MP's had there been a similar reduction of 1/13 th of Cabinet Ministers, Junior Ministers, PPS and assorted bag carriers. No such reduction was proposed.
    Thus, it also increases the Power of the payroll over backbenchers.

    We are leaving the EU. Therefore, it could be argued we need more, not fewer MP's (I do not agree, but one can see the logic).

    If the problem is the cost of politics/politicians, then surely one should begin with the bigger, less busy Chamber, the Hof Lords for a serious culling.

    Isn't the house of lords as busy, as all legislation has to go through committee/report/readings up there, too? Having a wide pool of expertise to draw on should be a good thing for the Lords to have, not something that should be restricted.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,837
    RobD said:

    dixiedean said:

    OK. Boundaries from first principles.
    Imagine direct democracy, where each of the 46m+ voters was an MP. Perfect proportionality.
    At the other extreme 1 MP by FPTP. That MP would be Mrs. May. 100 % Conservative in 2017. (Of course that could change).
    Between those points there will be a curve.
    But, broadly, the fewer MP's the greater the advantage for the largest Party.

    Would be more sympathetic to the case for fewer MP's had there been a similar reduction of 1/13 th of Cabinet Ministers, Junior Ministers, PPS and assorted bag carriers. No such reduction was proposed.
    Thus, it also increases the Power of the payroll over backbenchers.

    We are leaving the EU. Therefore, it could be argued we need more, not fewer MP's (I do not agree, but one can see the logic).

    If the problem is the cost of politics/politicians, then surely one should begin with the bigger, less busy Chamber, the Hof Lords for a serious culling.

    Isn't the house of lords as busy, as all legislation has to go through committee/report/readings up there, too? Having a wide pool of expertise to draw on should be a good thing for the Lords to have, not something that should be restricted.
    No constituency work though....
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,400
    RobD said:

    dixiedean said:

    OK. Boundaries from first principles.
    Imagine direct democracy, where each of the 46m+ voters was an MP. Perfect proportionality.
    At the other extreme 1 MP by FPTP. That MP would be Mrs. May. 100 % Conservative in 2017. (Of course that could change).
    Between those points there will be a curve.
    But, broadly, the fewer MP's the greater the advantage for the largest Party.

    Would be more sympathetic to the case for fewer MP's had there been a similar reduction of 1/13 th of Cabinet Ministers, Junior Ministers, PPS and assorted bag carriers. No such reduction was proposed.
    Thus, it also increases the Power of the payroll over backbenchers.

    We are leaving the EU. Therefore, it could be argued we need more, not fewer MP's (I do not agree, but one can see the logic).

    If the problem is the cost of politics/politicians, then surely one should begin with the bigger, less busy Chamber, the Hof Lords for a serious culling.

    Isn't the house of lords as busy, as all legislation has to go through committee/report/readings up there, too?
    Hundreds are members but do not regularly show up. A very easy reform step would be to retire all those Lords who have not participated in a certain level of business in the past few years unless signed off long term sick or something. Since they are not accountable to any electorate like MPs, and have no terms to serve, it is surely acceptable to impose a minimum work requirement. If someone wishes to serve in the House, they need to actually serve, not barely show up.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,400
    Ha, that opening to the day's play.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    kle4 said:

    RobD said:

    dixiedean said:

    OK. Boundaries from first principles.
    Imagine direct democracy, where each of the 46m+ voters was an MP. Perfect proportionality.
    At the other extreme 1 MP by FPTP. That MP would be Mrs. May. 100 % Conservative in 2017. (Of course that could change).
    Between those points there will be a curve.
    But, broadly, the fewer MP's the greater the advantage for the largest Party.

    Would be more sympathetic to the case for fewer MP's had there been a similar reduction of 1/13 th of Cabinet Ministers, Junior Ministers, PPS and assorted bag carriers. No such reduction was proposed.
    Thus, it also increases the Power of the payroll over backbenchers.

    We are leaving the EU. Therefore, it could be argued we need more, not fewer MP's (I do not agree, but one can see the logic).

    If the problem is the cost of politics/politicians, then surely one should begin with the bigger, less busy Chamber, the Hof Lords for a serious culling.

    Isn't the house of lords as busy, as all legislation has to go through committee/report/readings up there, too?
    Hundreds are members but do not regularly show up. A very easy reform step would be to retire all those Lords who have not participated in a certain level of business in the past few years unless signed off long term sick or something. Since they are not accountable to any electorate like MPs, and have no terms to serve, it is surely acceptable to impose a minimum work requirement. If someone wishes to serve in the House, they need to actually serve, not barely show up.
    I think that's fair enough. No reason not to fill it with experts from various fields though.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,709
    edited December 2017
    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Quincel said:

    HYUFD said:

    Quincel said:

    HYUFD said:

    viewcode said:

    viewcode said:

    viewcode said:

    Alabama was the biggest betting event since GE2017 - nice to see the winnings being paid out

    Great, that's paid for my shopping trip today.
    Excellent! How much, or is it rude to ask?

    Over £50 but under £100.
    Cool!
    Its a nice, if not enormous, amount.

    There will be PBers who will have made many multiples of that in this election.

    PB is good for little tips like that which should bring in a few hundred pounds each year even without the big elections.

    Laying the draw in the cricket is something I learnt to do on PB as an example.
    I think other similar rules of thumb are "lay the favourite for Conservative leader" and "lay the favorite in a Republican primary"
    Certainly not the Republican primary, Reagan, Bush Snr, Dole, W Bush and Romney were all favourite and all ended up nominee. Trump also led polls from summer 2015 even if Rubio was favourite.

    Even the last Tory leadership race saw the favourite, May, ultimately win.
    The Tory leadership race holds up if you lay the favourite repeatedly until the race actually starts though. So you lay Moggmentum, lay Davis when he becomes favourite etc. Boris was favourite last year right up until he pulled out.
    However I think one of Boris, Mogg or Davis will ultimately get it next time, as Mogg is currently favourite that makes Boris or Davis good bets, especially as they likely have more MP backing
    I think Boris would win it easily if he had the guts to openly grab it. I should add that I've never bet on a Tory leadership election at all if memory serves, certainly very little if ever.

    But honestly Boris - it can't be 'Your turn' forever. Eventually his moment will pass if he doesn't take it.
    Boris at least has charisma, which is certainly more than most of the rest of the potential candidates can say
    Charisma that atttacts and repels in equal measure is the very exemplar of a mixed blessing.
    Not necessarily, that did Trump and Berlusconi no harm. If you go through all the general elections since 1945 most have been won by the more charismatic party leader with the exception of 1945, 1950, 1970 and 1992 (in 2017 Corbyn was probably more charismatic but May failed to win outright)
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,400
    RobD said:

    kle4 said:

    RobD said:

    dixiedean said:

    OK. Boundaries from first principles.
    Imagine direct democracy, where each of the 46m+ voters was an MP. Perfect proportionality.
    At the other extreme 1 MP by FPTP. That MP would be Mrs. May. 100 % Conservative in 2017. (Of course that could change).
    Between those points there will be a curve.
    But, broadly, the fewer MP's the greater the advantage for the largest Party.

    Would be more sympathetic to the case for fewer MP's had there been a similar reduction of 1/13 th of Cabinet Ministers, Junior Ministers, PPS and assorted bag carriers. No such reduction was proposed.
    Thus, it also increases the Power of the payroll over backbenchers.

    We are leaving the EU. Therefore, it could be argued we need more, not fewer MP's (I do not agree, but one can see the logic).

    If the problem is the cost of politics/politicians, then surely one should begin with the bigger, less busy Chamber, the Hof Lords for a serious culling.

    Isn't the house of lords as busy, as all legislation has to go through committee/report/readings up there, too?
    Hundreds are members but do not regularly show up. A very easy reform step would be to retire all those Lords who have not participated in a certain level of business in the past few years unless signed off long term sick or something. Since they are not accountable to any electorate like MPs, and have no terms to serve, it is surely acceptable to impose a minimum work requirement. If someone wishes to serve in the House, they need to actually serve, not barely show up.
    I think that's fair enough. No reason not to fill it with experts from various fields though.
    I'm in favour of a HoL generally in part for that reason - I think it can be very useful to appoint notables from the sciences, charity, industry, military, etc, who would not normally, for various reasons, find themselves drawn into political service. However, while we want their expertise to aid in matters relating to their fields, they do, in my view, need to justify their presence by treating it with the seriousness that it deserves and so also contribute more generally to the scrutiny of legislation.

    What would be a reasonable minimum commitment is, of course, a more difficult question.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263
    kle4 said:



    Hundreds are members but do not regularly show up. A very easy reform step would be to retire all those Lords who have not participated in a certain level of business in the past few years unless signed off long term sick or something. Since they are not accountable to any electorate like MPs, and have no terms to serve, it is surely acceptable to impose a minimum work requirement. If someone wishes to serve in the House, they need to actually serve, not barely show up.

    I agree. Also, they could be more active. A big difference from the Commons seems (I don't know the Lords well) to be far fewer Select Committees. They are a relaively new big thing in the Commons but have developed into respected challengers of public policy (innovators not so much). Oddly, as the Lords has lots of experts, they leave major fields not covered - for instance there is no Treasury Select Committee in the Lords.

    http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/lords-select/
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,837
    kle4 said:

    RobD said:

    kle4 said:

    RobD said:

    dixiedean said:

    OK. Boundaries from first principles.
    Imagine direct democracy, where each of the 46m+ voters was an MP. Perfect proportionality.
    At the other extreme 1 MP by FPTP. That MP would be Mrs. May. 100 % Conservative in 2017. (Of course that could change).
    Between those points there will be a curve.
    But, broadly, the fewer MP's the greater the advantage for the largest Party.

    Would be more sympathetic to the case for fewer MP's had there been a similar reduction of 1/13 th of Cabinet Ministers, Junior Ministers, PPS and assorted bag carriers. No such reduction was proposed.
    Thus, it also increases the Power of the payroll over backbenchers.

    We are leaving the EU. Therefore, it could be argued we need more, not fewer MP's (I do not agree, but one can see the logic).

    If the problem is the cost of politics/politicians, then surely one should begin with the bigger, less busy Chamber, the Hof Lords for a serious culling.

    Isn't the house of lords as busy, as all legislation has to go through committee/report/readings up there, too?
    Hundreds are members but do not regularly show up. A very easy reform step would be to retire all those Lords who have not participated in a certain level of business in the past few years unless signed off long term sick or something. Since they are not accountable to any electorate like MPs, and have no terms to serve, it is surely acceptable to impose a minimum work requirement. If someone wishes to serve in the House, they need to actually serve, not barely show up.
    I think that's fair enough. No reason not to fill it with experts from various fields though.
    I'm in favour of a HoL generally in part for that reason - I think it can be very useful to appoint notables from the sciences, charity, industry, military, etc, who would not normally, for various reasons, find themselves drawn into political service. However, while we want their expertise to aid in matters relating to their fields, they do, in my view, need to justify their presence by treating it with the seriousness that it deserves and so also contribute more generally to the scrutiny of legislation.

    What would be a reasonable minimum commitment is, of course, a more difficult question.
    However, certain members treat it as an honour, or a nice little earner. Such as this guy.
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/andrew-lloyd-webber-conservative-peer-says-he-is-fed-up-he-keeps-being-asked-to-vote-in-house-of-a7404401.html
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    kle4 said:

    RobD said:

    kle4 said:

    RobD said:

    dixiedean said:

    OK. Boundaries from first principles.
    Imagine direct democracy, where each of the 46m+ voters was an MP. Perfect proportionality.
    At the other extreme 1 MP by FPTP. That MP would be Mrs. May. 100 % Conservative in 2017. (Of course that could change).
    Between those points there will be a curve.
    But, broadly, the fewer MP's the greater the advantage for the largest Party.

    Would be more sympathetic to the case for fewer MP's had there been a similar reduction of 1/13 th of Cabinet Ministers, Junior Ministers, PPS and assorted bag carriers. No such reduction was proposed.
    Thus, it also increases the Power of the payroll over backbenchers.

    We are leaving the EU. Therefore, it could be argued we need more, not fewer MP's (I do not agree, but one can see the logic).

    If the problem is the cost of politics/politicians, then surely one should begin with the bigger, less busy Chamber, the Hof Lords for a serious culling.

    Isn't the house of lords as busy, as all legislation has to go through committee/report/readings up there, too?
    Hundreds are members but do not regularly show up. A very easy reform step would be to retire all those Lords who have not participated in a certain level of business in the past few years unless signed off long term sick or something. Since they are not accountable to any electorate like MPs, and have no terms to serve, it is surely acceptable to impose a minimum work requirement. If someone wishes to serve in the House, they need to actually serve, not barely show up.
    I think that's fair enough. No reason not to fill it with experts from various fields though.
    I'm in favour of a HoL generally in part for that reason - I think it can be very useful to appoint notables from the sciences, charity, industry, military, etc, who would not normally, for various reasons, find themselves drawn into political service. However, while we want their expertise to aid in matters relating to their fields, they do, in my view, need to justify their presence by treating it with the seriousness that it deserves and so also contribute more generally to the scrutiny of legislation.

    What would be a reasonable minimum commitment is, of course, a more difficult question.
    Yeah. Life terms are fine, but if you don't keep up your attendance to some level you're out.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,400
    edited December 2017
    dixiedean said:

    kle4 said:

    RobD said:

    kle4 said:

    RobD said:

    dixiedean said:

    OK. Boundaries from first principles.
    Imagine direct democracy, where each of the 46m+ voters was an MP. Perfect proportionality.
    At the other extreme 1 MP by FPTP. That MP would be Mrs. May. 100 % Conservative in 2017. (Of course that could change).
    Between those points there will be a curve.
    But, broadly, the fewer MP's the greater the advantage for the largest Party.

    Would be mo

    If the problem is the cost of politics/politicians, then surely one should begin with the bigger, less busy Chamber, the Hof Lords for a serious culling.

    Isn't the house of lords as busy, as all legislation has to go through committee/report/readings up there, too?
    Hundreds aw up.
    I think that's fair enough. No reason not to fill it with experts from various fields though.
    I'm in favour of a HoL generally in part for that reason - I think it can be very useful
    What would be a reasonable minimum commitment is, of course, a more difficult question.
    However, certain members treat it as an honour, or a nice little earner. Such as this guy.
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/andrew-lloyd-webber-conservative-peer-says-he-is-fed-up-he-keeps-being-asked-to-vote-in-house-of-a7404401.html
    Indeed, and he is one I had in mind - it should not be treated as a nice little earner, nor should it merely be seen as some ceremonial honour. That's what gongs are for; if you are a peer, you have a level of legislative authority over the entire country, however small, and even if you choose not to exercise it. If you don't exercise it, there are plenty of worthy people who would. Now there is a mechanism for lords to retire from the House but keep the title (like Lord Ashcroft has done) its a small step to removing those who do not contribute.

    It would save the cost of when they do infrequently show, it would cull a bloated house at a stroke, and encourage those who do not wish to treat it seriously to either start doing so, or make way, hopefully sparking improved scrutiny of legislation generally.

    Frankly, I don't know what the downsides would be, other than quibbling over how little work is too little, and when you'd start judging people's attendance by, and how often it would be reviewed (when a new GE is scheduled, I would suggest - you've got 5 years to assess people on) - things that are not beyond the wit of man, even with the black pit of reform ideas that is the HoL reform.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263
    MaxPB said:

    nielh said:

    Hi all. Thinking about the end of the year.

    I just wonder if 2016 was a populist high water mark.

    2016 saw Brexit, then Trump.

    In 2017, we've had a few terrorist attacks, but no populist breakthroughs. Le Pen was beaten in France. The AfD had no serious effect in Germany. Nothing happened in Austria that we haven't seen before. There is certainly instability, particularly in Spain, but they seemed to have muddled through.

    Back in the UK, UKIP are a non entity. Both of the main parties support some sort of sensible Brexit. Aaron Banks and Nigel Farage are howling in the wind as they did for years. The SNP are in retreat.

    Is the genie back in the bottle?

    AfD had no effect?
    Not substantively. They won some seats and took enough CDU votes to deny Merkel an easy majority. But they've made little progress in influencing the agenda of the other parties - it's typical that the coalition talks are partly about how far to be *more* helpful to refugees - and it's possible to argue that the AfD has made tougher immigration policies harder because they're seen as pandering to them. They appear to be both isolated and stalled in the polls, too, though it's clearly an achievement to have got as far as they have.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,263
    kle4 said:


    Surely there's no way the EU will actually seriously censure them, or them pushing it that far, even with all the tough talk so far?

    They can be censured and Poland almost certainly will be for blatant interference in the judiciary, but actual meaningful sanctions can be vetoed by one other member, and Hungary will protect Poland and vice versa. That said, if Poland or Hungary have any pet projects they'd like the EU to fund, they might find it heavy going.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Depressing if true:

    "Britain is 'becoming hooked on anti-depressant medicines dubbed “Happy Pills”' as patients seek quick fix"
    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/britain-becoming-hooked-anti-depressant-11765180
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited December 2017
    Curran is nowhere near good enough to be a test match bowler....mark wood must be bowling total pies in the nets not to get picked ahead of Overton and Curran.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    viewcode said:

    On a more cheerful note, may I recommend again the "Turning Points - Unscripted Reflections by Steve Richards" from the BBC. They're no heartbreaking works of staggering genius, but they are reasonable insights simply put, and I'll take that as a win. You can find them at the links below;

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/b09l5687
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09l5687

    It is a very good series but Steve Richards does make some errors. For some reason, in episode 1 he keeps repeating that Callaghan replaced Wilson in October 1976 - when ,in fact, Callaghan became PM on 5th April 1976!
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527

    Telegraph...

    The Conservatives were denied an outright majority at the last general election because of a voting system which is slanted in favour of the Labour party, new analysis has shown.

    The new figures reveal that the Tories would have been left with a clear majority of 14 if the boundary reforms - which have been frustrated by Labour and the Liberal Democrats - had been in place.

    The voting system is not favourable to Lab anymore is it?
    It would swing back quite a bit to Labour if they manage big gains from the SNP next time.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,232
    HYUFD said:

    viewcode said:



    I think other similar rules of thumb are "lay the favourite for Conservative leader" and "lay the favorite in a Republican primary"

    Certainly not the Republican primary, Reagan, Bush Snr, Dole, W Bush and Romney were all favourite and all ended up nominee. Trump also led polls from summer 2015 even if Rubio was favourite..
    It should have been better phrased as "lay the early favorite in a Republican primary". But your sentence raises a very interesting question: where did you get the odds for Reagan, Bush Snr, Dole from?. I've tracked odds over time for 2010*, 2012*, 2015, 2016 and 2017 and getting that data is like pulling teeth. Where do you get those numbers from?

    (serious question, btw: I'm not jerking your chain, I genuinely want to know)

    * sparse data, possibly single date only
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,771
    MaxPB said:

    nielh said:

    Hi all. Thinking about the end of the year.

    I just wonder if 2016 was a populist high water mark.

    2016 saw Brexit, then Trump.

    In 2017, we've had a few terrorist attacks, but no populist breakthroughs. Le Pen was beaten in France. The AfD had no serious effect in Germany. Nothing happened in Austria that we haven't seen before. There is certainly instability, particularly in Spain, but they seemed to have muddled through.

    Back in the UK, UKIP are a non entity. Both of the main parties support some sort of sensible Brexit. Aaron Banks and Nigel Farage are howling in the wind as they did for years. The SNP are in retreat.

    Is the genie back in the bottle?

    AfD had no effect?
    Excepting Donald Trump for a moment, my view is that the insurgents prosper because there is some pressing issue the incumbents have ignored. (Say the EU and UKIP, or Syrian immigration for the AfD.)

    Usually, people want to the main parties to listen to that issue, but they usually don't want (for example) Geert Wilders actually to be Prime Minister (or equivalent).

    You tend, therefore, to see two things:

    1. The main parties quickly (but quietly) change their view on the hot button issue, or seek to neutralise it. (So the German and Dutch governments have become much more immigration, particularly Muslim immigration, sceptic. And Mr Cameron organised for an EU referendum.)

    2. A fall off in support for the insurgent in the last few weeks of the campaign, see FN, AfD, and PVV.

    Neither of those things are laws, merely observations. But it does suggest to me that in Italy, for example, Beppe Grillo is likely to underperform his current polling.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,771
    dixiedean said:

    OK. Boundaries from first principles.
    Imagine direct democracy, where each of the 46m+ voters was an MP. Perfect proportionality.
    At the other extreme 1 MP by FPTP. That MP would be Mrs. May. 100 % Conservative in 2017. (Of course that could change).
    Between those points there will be a curve.
    But, broadly, the fewer MP's the greater the advantage for the largest Party.

    Would be more sympathetic to the case for fewer MP's had there been a similar reduction of 1/13 th of Cabinet Ministers, Junior Ministers, PPS and assorted bag carriers. No such reduction was proposed.
    Thus, it also increases the Power of the payroll over backbenchers. (As they constitute a larger %age).

    We are leaving the EU. Therefore, it could be argued we need more, not fewer MP's. (I do not agree, but one can see the logic).

    If the problem is the cost of politics/politicians, then surely one should begin with the bigger, less busy Chamber, the House of Lords for a serious culling.

    But that Chamber seems to grow.

    I think 650 MPs with boundaries of a certain size +/- 7.5% would be perfect. I think the reduction to 600 MPs is a mistake, as it benefits the big two at the expense of everyone else.
  • AndyJS said:

    Depressing if true:

    "Britain is 'becoming hooked on anti-depressant medicines dubbed “Happy Pills”' as patients seek quick fix"
    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/britain-becoming-hooked-anti-depressant-11765180

    It's not especially true - there are other reasons for taking antidepressants, and also some prescriptions have gone down from 3 month to 2 month which makes it look like 50% more prescriptions.

    Even if it is, we don't get moral panic about medicine for physical illness...
This discussion has been closed.