Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Betting on which year will the UK actually leave the EU
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Betting on which year will the UK actually leave the EU
William Hill have a market up on when the UK will actually leave the EU. This is one of those horrible for punters markets where the bookie has probably priced it right.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
It looked good.
It smelled good.
He asked the waiter, "What is that you just served?"
The waiter replied, "Ah senor, you have excellent taste! Those are testicles from the bull fight this morning. A delicacy!"
The visitor, though momentarily daunted, said, "What the heck, I'm on holiday down here! Bring me a portion!"
The waiter replied, "I am so sorry senor. There is only one serving per day because there is only one bull fight each morning. If you come early tomorrow and place your order, we will be sure to save you this delicacy!"
The next morning, the man returned, placed his order, and then that evening was served the one and only special delicacy of the day.
After a few bites, and inspecting the contents of his platter, he called to the waiter and said, "These are delicious, but they are much, much smaller than the ones I saw you serve yesterday!"
The waiter shrugged his shoulders and replied, "Si, Senor. Sometimes the bull... he wins."''
As far as the UKIP considerations go, the Tories generally like to go into elections offering something the kippers want, but may not get if they fail to vote Conservative and let Labour in. This makes more sense than trying to fight the election on an actual deal, which UKIP will legitimately be saying betrays some portion of the Leave vote, most likely the anti-immigration part.
The downside is that 2020 is a long time to be your money with William Hill, although the great thing about betting on continued EU membership is that the pounds you win if you're right are worth substantially more than the pounds you lose if you're wrong.
Leadsom won plaudits from Eurosceptics for her performance in two televised debates during the referendum campaign. However, the source said: “She had to be coached within an inch of her life. Anyone who had any experience of her during the campaign from the professional side is dreading the idea that she would be prime minister because she is not up to it and a lightweight. She would be a f****** disaster as prime minister.”
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/leadsoms-enemies-stick-the-knife-in-g0psn6s73
If we do get a debate, it will be fun to see Leadsom answering every questions with "As a mother, let's take back control..."
“No time for the kids but time to play tennis for an hour...” came one reply, referencing the fact that her diary also mentioned taking the time to go for a game.
It’s easy to understand why people are angry and lashing out at her comments in The Times, it was not a sensible thing to say, especially when couched in sympathy for Theresa. And a nanny is typically a sign of wealth and privilege, so it’s also understandable people feel angry about hers, given that Leadsom has repeatedly voted in favour of austerity cuts that have made life much harder for poorer families.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/criticise-andrea-leadsom-for-her-policies-not-her-parenting-a7128641.html
Never trust a Tory, they're full of it.
I see Mensch has gone curiously quiet on the Times "lies" and Montie is trying to close down CVGate as one of her previous bosses has said she's "honest"
Anyone seen her tax return?
The delay suggests "presentational problems"...
Ms Leadsom was one of the Vote Leave representatives in the two TV debate during the referendum campaign. That's the relevant fact.
It looks like she's going to get a rough ride from the media for the next few weeks, but she'll still be the Leave candidate, and Ms May will still be the Remain candidate.
Probably someone in the Times newsroom.
This should be a great chance for the LDs. The two main parties with "problematic" leaders, Ukip now seeing its reason for existing diminished, Tim will never have another opening like this.
But I respect them for not dropping their fanatical devotion to Europe. Death before dishonour.
None of Blair's accomplices in Downing Street has been blamed by Chilcot for the carnage.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/chilcots-smokescreen-bm75qbvx2
Maybe she resembles Hodge's tax affairs too, hence the absence of the return?
I see also in today's ST that a reasonable batch of Tory MPs say they will leave the party if she wins. And it took them so long to get their majority, too.
We are now in the situation where it is May or nothing, I think.
Harder to call nationwide, but in pro-remain seats which are LD vs Lab, or 3-way competitions you can see a lot of Labour switchers if Eagle (or whoever) goes into the GE with some handwringing patheticness of "yes, leaving the EU is a disaster, but we can't actually oppose it". OTOH, it's hard to see much Tory pickup as they broadly had the Leave voters anyway. So overall seems like an LD position that could be pretty effective.
You make some good points but note that I described them as being devoted to Europe. In 2020, with the UK already out and the EU in crisis, crawling back and begging to kiss their arse won't be such an election winning strategy.
If they had both just happened to be men, would you also regard that as ludicrous?
Politically there is a key opportunity precisely because Labour is unable to commit to the pro-European side of the argument. The LibDems' challenge is organisational, since the loss of MPs and councillors during the coalition leaves them weak on the ground. Their membership has risen significantly since last year (it must be getting on for having doubled) but most of these are new people with little or no campaigning experience.
F1: found it hard to bet on the race, and had a bit of a guess.
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/united-kingdom-pre-race-2016.html
On-topic: 2019 seems eminently possible but the odds don't tempt me because of the time scale.
Leadsom is being assailed on all sides and I'm beginning to feel sorry for her, in the same way I began to have some sympathy for Jezza. I wouldn't vote for either, but the baying of the hysterical 'Establishment' can be counter-productive. It's why I voted Leave.
The problems (and there are many) start with the premise the rest of the EU would allow us back on the same terms we rejected last month - that seems implausible.
There's the small matter of the democracy thing - we voted to LEAVE, some may be suffering buyers' remorse but it was a decision taken freely and fairly and with a respectable turnout behind it.
The question then becomes under what terms would we be allowed back - assuming we call it STAY and RETURN - what would be the basis of RETURN ? The Euro ? Schengen ? I doubt the EU would be that stupid or vindictive but it stretches magnamity to assume there would be no price to pay at all.
An LD position of " we will support a minority Conservative or Labour administration only if it commits to a second Referendum on negotiated terms of re-entry to the EU within 24 months" would be clear but I can't see either of the main parties being comfortable though the reality of the acquisition or retention of power often changes minds quite effectively.
Baldwin won on much the same basis in 1923, by being less hopeless than Curzon (and being an MP). Macmillan because he wasn't Butler. Thatcher because she wasn't Heath.
A dynamic leader might be nice, but the fact is that none was available (no, Boris is not dynamic). Therefore competence and unflappability are a decent second best.
And they are a small party that does not have to have worked out all the details of their stance. After all UKIP have had a policy of exit for years and no-one really bothered them about what type of exit!
And also worth considering what UKIP policy would be, had they lost the vote? Yes, that's right, still to leave the EU, and another vote asap (Farage even said as much during the campaign).
A sensible suggestion about an electoral pact, but far too sensible for the current Labour leaders. The SWP hate the LDs as much as the Tories.
Why would the LDs want this? Labour taking over as a Party Within A Party? Forcing a change of leader to elect their man? Destroying whatever identity the LDs still have?
Sounds a lot like Momentun and Labour to me. I hope the LDs have looked at their leadership election rules and ensured that they can't be infiltrated by those planning a hostile takeover.
But then there is the real world. We have been in EU and EFTA before it since 1960. You cannot just realign your entire economy overnight, regardless of who gets hurt.
There is no reasonable choice other than EFTA/EEA. Join that, make use of its rules to stop people coming over to do unskilled work that they could not live on without benefits and the immigration problem largely goes away. It will also allow us to block immigration from any new country joining the EU.
Meanwhile we can steadily agree bilateral trade deals with non EU countries and re establish the Commonwealth as a supranational institution. In time hopefully we will see free movement (but without benefits/NHS until 5 year residency unless reciprocal offered (eg Australian NHS) with Australia, Nz, Canada and even South Africa and who knows, if the commonwealth becomes a powerful world institution even the US and Ireland might want to join (and maybe even China might decide it suits its purposes for HK to do so).
But none of this can be done overnight and we have to keep stability in the meanwhile. The stronger we get the less we can be pushed around, EEA/EFTA gives us this stable platform to relaunch to the world.
If we go for a maoist purity of doctrine and reject even EEA/EFTA now it could be a disaster which will prevent Brexit.
Slowly, gently, catchy Monkey.
Vote May.
We need a JFK and the nearest we have to that is Stephen Crabb, judging by his recent tweets.
May will be PM until 2020 and it will be softly as she goes.
Essentially it is the same position as in the 1980s - the number of potential defectors (assuming your scenario is valid) is such that some sort of new party is the only real option. And since they are largely devoid of a platform, other than being against Corbyn, I would expect the LDs to be a lot more wary about them than they were about the SDP (and for those old enough to remember, there was a good helping of wariness back then).
The tip last night on May at over 80% of the vote at 18/1 is tasty! (Skybet)
The sooner this racket is binned the better, we can spend the licence money on something we want and need not taxis and takeaways for Yentob.
His brother?
On some matters, the LDs are to the left [ as are the SNP ] of many Labour MPs.
You have supported Leave. Where do you place Gisela on the ideological scale ?
Those who say the UKIP will sweep the North misses one point. The SNP ejected Labour not just because of independence, but also they attacked Labour from the Left. UKIP will not be doing that. Apart from driving out foreigners, they have absolutely nothing in common. Agreed they will get a higher share of the vote and hand over a few seats to the Tories.
As for Paul Nuttall....
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/heres-paul-nuttall-says-wont-11591953
JFK was a bad President, by the way, all spin and no substance. He allowed Cuba to escalate to the point where it nearly cause WWIII, failed to get significant domestic reform through and spent most of his time chasing young women including teenage girls.
If you want a tough, effective negotiator, try LBJ before about 1966, when he began to believe his own hype and take credit for the weather.
There have always been a few MPs who swap parties and that cannot be ruled out. However if a large number of Labour MPs jump ship then they will almost certainly follow the SDP route and set up a separate party with an electoral alliance with the LibDems.
I'm very confident Stephen Woolfe will win, a top bloke, few on here will be able to shout yah boo in the way they do at Nigel, doubtless they'll try.
The way the LDs see it, their opponents are politicians who are authoritarian, centralising, narrow minded or intolerant. Labour has a lot of authoritarian centralisers and New Labour more so (hence why they drowned the entire public sector in micro-managed targetry).
Meanwhile , in the HoC , the Speaker will go by the numbers. If 150 Labour MPs said they were the LPP, then that will be it. The Speaker will only be interested in the HoC. What are Labour rules is not important to him.
All the more, I am gobsmacked about Angela Eagle. The above is the only viable scenario for the rebels. By doing the same after losing the Leadership election heavily, it would seem like sour grapes.
a) Putting the policy in their various manifestos before the election
b) Take the fact that they have a majority to put the matter to a referendum (following the precedent of the AV referendum)
Who's on Marr this morning?
It is of course possible that they are just reacting from emotion and don't actually have a plan. This would explain a lot about their actions so far.
Or they just hope against hope that the membership comes round to what they see as the inevitable.
Or, if they are to consider something drastic like leaving, or trying to take the brand away from the left as you suggest, they need to have exhausted (and be seen to have exhausted) all other options first. It is a big leap and not one you would take if you had an alternative?
IIRC we agreed that there was quite a lot of “top-down-ness”; Labour MP’s who became SDP/Alliance didn’t, generally, bring many of their constituency activits with them.
Equally I think unanimous agreement can extend the negotiation period longer.
At 4/6 - that's presumably tying up your money for three years or so...
that looks very unattractive I would say.
OK. what happens if the Tories are 15 short of a majority and the LDs have 20 MPs ? The Tories may not accept the 2nd referendum, but then they will not be getting their bills through either.
If Woolfe wins the UKIP leadership and is pretty good, with Nuttall and Evans (assuming she gets back in) they'll have a better 'team' [ok, fairly dinky] than the Shadow Cabinet.
The Conservative frontbenches aren't overflowing with talent either.