Ladbrokes comprehensive betting on the General Election website for many constituencies and they appear to be giving David Kirwan the best odds for any Independent or fringe Party. They are consistently giving UKIP, Greens & BNP throughout the 649 constituencies 100/1. In both Wirral South & Wallasey UKIP is on 100/1.
David Kirwan is an independent endorsed by the Libertarian Party
In Wirral West the betting is….
Conservatives 1/10
Labour 5/1
DSK 50/1
Liberal Democrats 100/1
UKIP 100/1
Jury Team 100/1
David appears to be the only Independent or fringe Party etc ahead of the Liberal Democrats anywhere? This is a great opportunity to break the political mould and elect an Independent.
David Kirwan's website is www.davidkirwan.co.uk
8 comments:
Totally incorrect, the Greens are favourites to win Brighton Pavilion, and have decent odds in their other target seats including Norwich South. Farage for UKIP is rated highly in Buckingham.
Using a hyperbolic title like "Libertarian Party Endorsed Candidate Surges To Third Place In The Betting Stakes" when the odds are 50/1 in what is obviously a safe tory seat just makes the party look like a bunch of amateurs.
So, Jon, you are saying the Greens and UKIP are "fringe"?
Thanks for that clarification. It is noted.
Why are on Earth are the LPUK endorsing Dave Kirwan?
Listen to his podcast on Afghanistan.
No unilateral withdrawal?
Talk to the US and EU about it?
Give our boys the best kit?
Sheesh, no wonder he didn't run as an LPUK candidate.
His warmongering is diametrically opposed to the "armed neutrality" stance of the LPUK.
sound money man,
Did you listen to the first part of the podcast? As far as I can make out his is a good stance. He was against the war but now accepts that that we have obligations.
Would we (LPUK) have gone in - IMHO, no. However as the old saying goes, we are where we are so we have to look at what next.
"No unilateral withdrawal? Talk to the US and EU (actually he says EU states) about it?"
As a libertarian I believe we have to honour contracts, even ones we didn't enter in to. Like it or not we have agreements with these two bodies to do a job and any unilateral withdrawal would expose their forces to increased risk. We have also made a commitment to support the Afghan government.
This means that we would have to negotiate with all these parties to make sure our withdrawal was planned and carried out in an agreed way that didn't exacerbate the situation.
"Give our boys the best kit?" We have a covenant with our armed forces - they do our shit we give them our full support and the best kit. Whilst we are negotiating their withdrawal we should give them everything they need even if, as David says, we have to go without at home.
What's unlibertarian with that?
I'd agree that the Greens are fringe since they have no MPs, yes. I was really going off what the original post said where it compared the result to the ratings of the Greens.
@Simon: Britain has no obligation to KILL AFGHANS or OCCUPY THEIR COUNTRY.
The podcast on Afghanistan seems perfectly sensible to me. We're in Afghanistan, what should have been a quick in-and-out operation to disrupt Al Queda has got bogged down, and we should probably get out as quickly as possible. But that doesn't mean retreating on Day 1, leaving our allies in the lurch. Withdrawal has to be properly planned. That's not "warmongering", that's just a recognition of the situation as it is.
Ron Paul: Afghanistan is a No-Win Situation
Post a Comment