Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If the next CON leader betting is anything to go by Theresa
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If the next CON leader betting is anything to go by Theresa May had the best conference
Click on the change tab to see the movement since last Sunday.
0
Comments
As Atul Hatwal points out, the logical corollary of her positioning herself against her own previous record is that she will eventually declare for Brexit.
In a three or four horse race being an 8% chance never made much sense, I think a boost was inevitable as she's reminded people she's a contender but still not rated highly. Plus unlike the Labour Party we might actually elect a woman.
Her problems are (a) she's dull (b) she waffles and doesn't answer the question and (c) her record and history, but, if she overcomes that, she has a chance of getting to the final two if up against a pro-EU, pro-immigration Boris/Osborne.
On the plus side for May, she's a survivor, she got rid of Abu Qatada, she squared up to both the US over McKinnon - and the Police Federation too.
She works hard, and has guts. That will make her a tough opponent.
Rest assured: his 'uber-moderniser' past - and metropolitan sympathies - will be brought up, and used against him. Perhaps that's why he's trying to bulldoze his opponents.
It will take more than a diet and a haircut to extend his appeal in the public's imagination to Cameron's level. Fortunately for him, against Corbyn, it might not matter.
The race will not be run for some considerable time yet. By the time it is, exactly what she said at a party conference years ago will be long forgotten.
Or against whichever loser replaces Corbyn
EDIT. Are we allowed to wish for Lucy Powell?
The trouble is: will the party believe her? I'm not sure I do, and I think she was playing to the gallery a little bit*.
*I hasten to add I don't think there was anything wrong with what she said, and how she said it. I'm just not convinced of the beef and the follow-through.
A free market in services is crucial for us, whereas for our EU friends it's of no importance (in fact they'd probably rather not have one with the UK). So not only is there a negotiation mis-match there - they can tell us to get stuffed on services with zero downside from their point of view - but also it's very hard to see how you can have a free market in services without a free right to move people around to provide those services. The two go together.
Put those two points together, add in the fact that the existing trade treaties (EEA and the EU-Swiss agreement) include free movement of labour: I really don't see how anyone can plausibly claim that the final outcome would not involve free movement of labour in whatever trade treaty we ended up signing.
Of course there might be some tweaking at the edges, compared with what we have now. But Cameron is likely to get those anyway.
Zoe Williams is off her rocker. There *is* a magic money tree in her mythical pixie-land, and spitting on journalists is ok, apparently.
Daft sod.
I don't think Priti will do that, this isn't her last shot. While she could still win I personally think her time hasn't come yet, she should build for being a leader after next, not next leader.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESxaGRjXhCk
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/tom-watson-mp/tom-watson-leon-brittan_b_8268818.html
What a disingenuous load of disgusting self-justification it is too. No-one has ever suggested for a moment that he shouldn't have passed on the allegations to the police. That isn't what he is being criticised for.
If they don't want a free market in services then what quid pro quo are we offering to get them to agree to it?
Plenty of services - like finance, insurance and banking - do not require it. All of it can be done from London. What freedom of services gives us is the ability to see those products on equal terms around the EU. Freedom of movement allows anyone to live and work anywhere they wish, and the two are not coterminous.
I accept that services that require a physical presence like hairdressing and ski instructing do, but that's hardly an economic dealbreaker.
The two existing trade treaties include free movement of labour because they are all small countries, and it's what they all want. It's like saying there wouldn't be a choice of joining the EU without the euro, if the UK had never joined the EU and consequently hadn't negotiated Maastrict in a way that created a mini non-Eurozone within it. Every EU member state would be a member or eventual member.
If the UK had never left EFTA - we were a member from 1960 to 1973 - you can bet your bottom dollar we'd have negotiated practical limits of FoM by now.
By smearing someone in the HoC under the guise of Parliamentary Privilege, rather than simply passing the information on to the Home Office or police? The man's a complete tosser.
Further investigation into Exaro's strange role in this whole affair would be in order too.
I see from Guido (via Harry's Place) that McDonnell supports spitting in people's drinks if you do not like them.
Self-serving, twisted little man.
I couldn't have more contempt for him if I tried.
http://www.efta.int/legal-texts/efta-convention/detailed-overview-of-the-efta-convention
And there are special rules for Switzerland anyway. To suggest EFTA and freedom of movement are irreconcilable, yet alone not open for modification for the UK, is ludicrous.
She just embodies what people like most about the Tories: she exudes competence and "sensible-ness". Plus, even though the metropolitan bubble might have different views, the public are closer to her right-wing immigration views than they are to Osborne's right-wing economic views.
Bear in mind these negotiations will take up to 2 years under Article 50 which means EU manufacturers will gave plenty if time to see the approaching end to their exports (currently a surplus of around £80 billion) and put the appropriate pressure on their leaders.
You make three points here:
- The EU has no interest in free trade in services
- Existing trade treaties require free movement
- You need free movement to have free trade in services
These can all be proven wrong by the fact that all the recent and currently in negotiation trade treaties contain free trade in services but don't include free movement, including non-tariff barriers: South Korea, Ecuador, Colombia, Peru, Canada, the USA.
Not having no 'freedom of movement' does not mean there's *no* movement of staff and workers. It just means its limited, temporary and controlled. It doesn't inhibit business.
Is there a bit of extra paperwork? Yes. In the same way that not having the euro means there's a UK/Euro exchange rate risk and accounting challenge: we deal with it fine.
To be honest, I think you're saying leaving the EU won't make any difference to immigration control as you've already made up your mind and are trying to dissuade fellow Conservatives from voting to Leave whose decision will be made primarily on that basis.
Try reversing it to see how silly it is:
"If the UK tries to block free movement of labour, you can be absolutely certain they will get nowhere with negotiations on any other aspect of the agreement
I think there was more. The bed rock of modern toryism is the Thatcher Settlement. If the Thatcher legacy could be poisoned by child sex crime at the top of her government, then the whole body of modern toryism could be poisoned.
It's a bit early to get betting, but if we do get a Leave result I'll be happy to bet substantial amounts of money at Evens that the eventual trade treaty will contain similar provisions on free movement of labour as the EEA agreement.
Before the EU, movement was impossible. The Romans only founded Gallia Narbonensis after the Commission gave them a visa to enter Gaul.
Khan and Zac neck and neck according to the Standard
Being serious (Patel/Greening may not, in fact, be the next PM), I find it quite difficult to pick a winner. Might be May, though I'd not back her. Boris is a non-starter unless he can build his position in the PCP rapidly.
Hammond sounds steady but is very dull and looks old.
Incidentally, how did Patel do on QT? I only saw a little bit (I can't take large doses of Farron's self-righteous zeal).
The same pose as Mr Osborne, of course, and the same applies to him.
I cannot see either of them becoming leader of the Conservative Party.
Farron proposed a £12/hour minimum wage
She also made herself an idiot when she refused 3 times to answer the question about whether the tax credit cuts would make people worse off.
Some people might like having an icy woman in charge.
Edited extra bit: Mr. 565, the Daleks get a very bad press.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZVCj2gaerk
Of course, it would be economically disastrous.
But it would boost UK productivity.
(Note: this is because "productivity" is a stupid measure, that doesn't measure anything interesting.)
1. EEA
2. EU
3. Bilateral agreements
Farage is toxic for Out because he makes it a choice between:
1. EEA
2. EU
3. Bilateral agreements
I'm not sure that the Westminster bubble really has a realistic feeling for Continental politics. I remember arguing here for years that the EU wouldn't do a new constitution with us by 2017, and that Continental governments wouldn't be so desperate for us to stay in that they'd want to do anything special, and lots of people said no, they'll be really keen and we can cut an excellent deal. It's not proving possible now, and it won't be possible after we withdraw either.
Obviously we can refuse to join EFTA and TRY to negotiate an entirely separate deal, but what do we do if it's not on offer on terms that we like?
Conversely, the Leave.EU website features 'control of our borders' quite prominently. It's also done in a more populist style.
How much it matters having two dfferent campaigns is not clear to me, but only one of them is going to get the official designation as the Leave campaign group.
That being said, the EU's exports to the UK are c. £250bn p.a., and its GDP (ex the UK) is about £9 trillion. That makes exports to the UK around 3% of EU GDP.
For us, exports to the EU are are going to be £150bn out of GDP of £1.8trn, or 8% of UK GDP.
So, technically exports to the EU are a much bigger deal for us, than exports to the UK are a deal for the EU.
Having a cleaner employed at £10/hour drags down UK productivity. If she doesn't work our measured productivity is higher.
I am firmly of the opinion that the "old guard", in which I include Johnson, May and Hammond, will not produce the next Conservative Party Leader. They are people whose time has come and gone (albit for different reasons). No, we must look to the next generation for the winning bet.
I think there are five to consider - Patel, Greening, Truss, Javid and Stewart.
Stewart, for whom I had high hopes when he entered parliament has disappeared. He might yet surprise but I think not.
Of the ladies, Greening has allowed herself to be house-trained by the DfID, a department that is not held in high regard by very many Conservative Party members. Patel is just too hard and that leaves Truss. She of the sapphire blue eyes and that knowing half-smile (she could win an awful lot of male votes on that alone), but she is also, I think a clever lady who we will be seeing and hearing a lot more of over the next couple of years.
Javid, has the back-story that the Conservative ladies will love, he is also very clever, and has the right instincts to appeal to the membership. If he can make a go of his present job then I think he will do.
Lots might happen between now and the contest, of course, but if there are good odds to be had and cash that can be locked up I'd get on Javid and Truss.
Labour never learn, do they?