Scientific Politics Poll

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

I am hoping to make a guitar's worth of money from a £100 stake in general election betting, so I'll be totally ignoring this poll. It might give an insight into Oldham's voting intentions, or it might not, but it'll be interesting to me if no one else.

 

My current bets are as follows:

 

Lib Dems to get between 70 and 79 seats, £20 at 16s (William Hill).

Gordon Brown to be Prime Minister in a hung Parliament, £10 at 12s (Ladbrokes).

[garcon]

On the policies I voted 'other' in the absence of an 'all of the above' option. I honestly believe they're all as important and I don't think I've ever voted with only one of those in mind.

[garcon]

My current bets are as follows:

 

Lib Dems to get between 70 and 79 seats, £20 at 16s (William Hill).

Gordon Brown to be Prime Minister in a hung Parliament, £10 at 12s (Ladbrokes).

Both unlikely, but then that's the way you have to go to have a chance of making any decent money out of it.

 

The Lib Dems seldom make much progress at a general election, but do tend to pick up seats in by-elections. A hung parliament isn't entirely unlikely, and could be interesting - if you find political chaos interesting...

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

Both unlikely, but then that's the way you have to go to have a chance of making any decent money out of it.

 

The Lib Dems seldom make much progress at a general election, but do tend to pick up seats in by-elections. A hung parliament isn't entirely unlikely, and could be interesting - if you find political chaos interesting...

 

The Lib Dems are good at exploiting voter anger, of which there is plenty, hence the big headline stake. If that one comes in, it's enough for a second-hand Jackson or so.

 

Don't get me wrong: I want these outcomes for betting reasons only.

[leeslover]

All things even the Lib Dems stand to lose more vs last time from the stronger Tories than they will gain from a weaker Labour. Still not a bad bet at 16/1 though.

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

All things even the Lib Dems stand to lose more vs last time from the stronger Tories than they will gain from a weaker Labour. Still not a bad bet at 16/1 though.

 

It's gone down to 9-4 since I put my bet on. COMRES and YouGov polling recently showed it to be within the margin of error. I'm still convinced I'm going to lose like.

[leeslover]

It just occured to me how deeply ironic it would be if Labour got in off the back of a Falklands war...

[garcon]

They've left it a bit late...

[jsslatic]

On the policies I voted 'other' in the absence of an 'all of the above' option.

 

Snap.

 

On the assumption the one BNP voter and the one immigration voter are the same person, I wonder if they were one of the twenty who would stop going to BP if more members of ethnic communities started turning up...

 

 

[garcon]

On the assumption the one BNP voter and the one immigration voter are the same person, I wonder if they were one of the twenty who would stop going to BP if more members of ethnic communities started turning up...

Possibly, but that doesn't necessarily make them a repressed homosexual.

 

 

(Just thought I'd get that in before leeslover does... )

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

Possibly, but that doesn't necessarily make them a repressed homosexual.

 

 

(Just thought I'd get that in before leeslover does... )

 

It also says nothing whatever about the colour of their hair or the distance between their eyes.

[rudemedic]

I am hoping to make a guitar's worth of money from a £100 stake in general election betting, so I'll be totally ignoring this poll. It might give an insight into Oldham's voting intentions, or it might not, but it'll be interesting to me if no one else.

 

My current bets are as follows:

 

Lib Dems to get between 70 and 79 seats, £20 at 16s (William Hill).

Gordon Brown to be Prime Minister in a hung Parliament, £10 at 12s (Ladbrokes).

 

2 lots of other for me and my reasons are personal, although I wouldn't vote for someone who had a poicy in any of the areas that I particularly disagreed with. Personally, I think that's quite a good bet- Lib Dems will gain more seats this time round for two reasons- Vince Cable (I think his name is) who has come out of the economic crisis very well and Nick Clegg's stance on the expenses. If the first one happens I think the second one might because of the numbers involved- it would mean one party gaining 330+ seats from the remaining 580+ which doesn't seem likely especially when you factor in the performance of the nationalist parties.

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

I see that someone has declared they're not voting on the basis of one of the listed policy areas. Is this not an offence to reason itself?

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

2 lots of other for me and my reasons are personal, although I wouldn't vote for someone who had a poicy in any of the areas that I particularly disagreed with. Personally, I think that's quite a good bet- Lib Dems will gain more seats this time round for two reasons- Vince Cable (I think his name is) who has come out of the economic crisis very well and Nick Clegg's stance on the expenses. If the first one happens I think the second one might because of the numbers involved- it would mean one party gaining 330+ seats from the remaining 580+ which doesn't seem likely especially when you factor in the performance of the nationalist parties.

 

650 - (70 to 79) = 571 to 580. Half of that is 285.5 to 290. If the Lib Dems get 79, that makes the magic number for an overall majority...

 

Jesus. I don't know what I'm doing. I need a spreadsheet.

 

I think the bets are basically the same, assuming Clegg sides with Broon in a hung Parliament, but I can' get the hang of it. (No pun intended.)

[leeslover]

I see that someone has declared they're not voting on the basis of one of the listed policy areas. Is this not an offence to reason itself?

Personally I blame whatever chode-smoker set the poll up so that you have to do it that way.

 

Unless there is any chance of MY vote changing the outcome of my constituency, and my constituency changing the overall result, I will achieve as much pissing into the wind as going and putting another piece of paper onto a pile of another 13 million pieces of paper.

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

Personally I blame whatever chode-smoker set the poll up so that you have to do it that way.

 

Unless there is any chance of MY vote changing the outcome of my constituency, and my constituency changing the overall result, I will achieve as much pissing into the wind as going and putting another piece of paper onto a pile of another 13 million pieces of paper.

 

Aren't you in Tooting? That means you have a real chance of changing things and getting rid of a Minister and a member of the Privy Council to boot. Get voting!

[leeslover]

Aren't you in Tooting? That means you have a real chance of changing things and getting rid of a Minister and a member of the Privy Council to boot. Get voting!

Tooting? That's a quarter as bad as calling me ginger Although it seems I am in Steatham, which isn't too glamorous either. I you like I will have stake you a wager of £10 to the effect that one vote does not affect any outcome in the next General Election at 100-1?

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

Tooting? That's a quarter as bad as calling me ginger Although it seems I am in Steatham, which isn't too glamorous either. I you like I will have stake you a wager of £10 to the effect that one vote does not affect any outcome in the next General Election at 100-1?

 

But how many people are going to vote? Not one is it, but many more than one. They all count in the end.

 

Streatham. No incumbent vote and a small-ish notional majority. I'd get out there and vote tactically for the Lib Dems if I were you, but then I'd laugh my head right off at you if you did that. You might just help me across the line into the 70s. The choice is yours.

[leeslover]

But how many people are going to vote? Not one is it, but many more than one. They all count in the end.

 

Streatham. No incumbent vote and a small-ish notional majority. I'd get out there and vote tactically for the Lib Dems if I were you, but then I'd laugh my head right off at you if you did that. You might just help me across the line into the 70s. The choice is yours.

They are all counted, but mine will only, "count," in any meaningful way if the final outcome comes down to one vote and it was mine that gave/denied the result to a candidate. I don't care that some student has counted mine among a pile of pieces of paper, what's in that for me? I could be athome reading a book or studying art and craft instead of wasting my time going to the polling booth.

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

They are all counted, but mine will only, "count," in any meaningful way if the final outcome comes down to one vote and it was mine that gave/denied the result to a candidate. I don't care that some student has counted mine among a pile of pieces of paper, what's in that for me? I could be athome reading a book or studying art and craft instead of wasting my time going to the polling booth.

 

On that basis - and on the basis that the Marmite poll had a way heavier turnout than this one - I'm putting some money on less than 55% turnout. Top class information takes time and nous to gather.

[rudemedic]

650 - (70 to 79) = 571 to 580. Half of that is 285.5 to 290. If the Lib Dems get 79, that makes the magic number for an overall majority...

 

Jesus. I don't know what I'm doing. I need a spreadsheet.

 

I think the bets are basically the same, assuming Clegg sides with Broon in a hung Parliament, but I can' get the hang of it. (No pun intended.)

 

The magic number for an overall majority is 325 (half of 650- though I was certain it was 660 but I guess you'd know). If one side gets 290 they can still be in opposition- even if its in opposition in a hung parliament. I certainly think we won't have to wait 5 years after this election for the next one as its going to be close that bi-elections (usually around 15 in a parliament) can drastically affect the make-up of parliament

[leeslover]

The magic number for an overall majority is 325 (half of 650- though I was certain it was 660 but I guess you'd know). If one side gets 290 they can still be in opposition- even if its in opposition in a hung parliament. I certainly think we won't have to wait 5 years after this election for the next one as its going to be close that bi-elections (usually around 15 in a parliament) can drastically affect the make-up of parliament

IMO the decisive factor in a hung parliament will be what the Scots Nats can wring out of Labour in return for support. They may well do Gordy a lot of damage up there and they won't give themselves away cheaply. Not that they are cheap anyway, the scrounging two-faced bastards.

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

IMO the decisive factor in a hung parliament will be what the Scots Nats can wring out of Labour in return for support. They may well do Gordy a lot of damage up there and they won't give themselves away cheaply. Not that they are cheap anyway, the scrounging two-faced bastards.

 

There's only seven of them, and Salmond is standing down, and I question how much they can gain since they're the party of government oop north. It's doubtful that Angus Robertson will find himself kingmaker come 7 May.

[Stitch_KTF]

I'll not be voting, primarily on the issue of 'other'.

 

If anybody would like to purchase an additional vote then please PM me.

[24hoursfromtulsehill]

I'll not be voting, primarily on the issue of 'other'.

 

If anybody would like to purchase an additional vote then please PM me.

 

No need for PM-ing. I'll pay you to vote Labour for 50p.