politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If the courts remove Corbyn from the ballot then LAB would have lost an electoral liability but gained £4.5m
Next Wednesday a court will hear a case brought by a major LAB donor that the NEC was wrong to have allowed Corbyn to be on the ballot without securing the support of 51 MPs and MEPs.
I know the Labour Party and NEChas stretched the concept of fairness to the limit in order to diminish the chances of Corbyn being re-elected, but I doubt that even they could declare Smith the winner as last man standing. Whether Corbyn would have got the 51 required nomination is a moot point, but the fact is that because of the NEC ruling that he would automatically be on the ballot, he was never even given an opportunity to get those nominations. The election would have to be declared null and void under those circumstances. Fresh election, fresh nominations, which may or may not include Mr Smith this time around.
If JC looked unlikely to ge the required nominations in those circumstances it is unlikely other MP's will give him a free ride and I would expect two or three other candidates to show an interest.
IANAL but to me, the court case seems based on flimsy foundations. The NEC undoubtedly had the right to rule on how the rules were interpreted so a court would have to find that the interpretation was beyond reasonable bounds of interpretation. That's surely a pretty high bar. Most people looking at the wording impartially would, I suspect, conclude that the nominations were only required for a challenger and not the incumbent but even if they thought it was the weaker case, it's still a stretch from there to claim that it was an unreasonable one.
IANAL but it seems very unlikely the courts would overrule the NEC over what looks like a perfectly reasonable reading of their own rules.
Concern within the current leadership that the court might rule against them is probably not good evidence that it might, as most of these people seem to have been fairly mad to begin with, and are currently the victims of a fairly large establishment conspiracy, which they may be assuming is even vaster than it actually is.
I know the Labour Party and NEChas stretched the concept of fairness to the limit in order to diminish the chances of Corbyn being re-elected, but I doubt that even they could declare Smith the winner as last man standing. Whether Corbyn would have got the 51 required nomination is a moot point, but the fact is that because of the NEC ruling that he would automatically be on the ballot, he was never even given an opportunity to get those nominations. The election would have to be declared null and void under those circumstances. Fresh election, fresh nominations, which may or may not include Mr Smith this time around.
If JC looked unlikely to ge the required nominations in those circumstances it is unlikely other MP's will give him a free ride and I would expect two or three other candidates to show an interest.
And that is one very good reason why the interpretation placed on the rule by the NEC was the right one.
A challenger only needs to lodge the challenge, supported by a sufficient number of legitimate nominations, in order to appear on the ballotpaper. He or she can do so at any point in the lead up to conference before the deadline which I assume the NEC places on the process. By contrast, a leader would only know that they needed to act once the challenge was in - if they were indeed required to act. What happens if the challenge were lodged at five minutes to the deadline? It'd be a nonsense.
@MichaelLCrick: Legal sources say Jeremy Corbyn plans to attend in person next Tuesday's High Court hearing over Michael Foster action against Labour NEC
When it comes to the sensible Labourites I am torn between sympathy and a sense of poetic justice. With a side helping of grim amusement.
Obviously what's happening to their party is tragic. Mr Nabavi accurately described it as a parasite eating the host from the inside. And it doesn't do much for good government to have no Opposition.
But the poetic justice is in seeing them hoist by the same petard they used against us for so long - an almost blind questioning of their motives as self-interested i.e. being a F***ING TORY. This othering of people who sincerely disagree with you rarely ends well.
@MichaelLCrick: Legal sources say Jeremy Corbyn plans to attend in person next Tuesday's High Court hearing over Michael Foster action against Labour NEC
I don't know how many times this has to be said but lets get this clear. UK public sector debt started rising in 2002, the year after Brown abandoned his pledge to match Conservative spending plans.
Debt rose steadily from 2002 to 2008 at which point in time it took off like a rocket.
From the trough in early 2001 until the time Brown handed over to Darling in 2007 our national debt increased by over £200 billion.
Anyone saying that our national debt did not rise under Gordon Brown as CotE is quite simply wrong, and a flaming idiot of the highest order.
They need to split now, Corbyn can't be beaten with the way the rules are set up and the climate of the membership.
Why waste the time and effort for what is a forgone conclusion and with rising levels of intimidation and threats of deselection?
You have to show you made the effort to get people who have devoted their lives to Labour - including some of the MPs - to follow you out of the party.
Indeed, one leadership election may not be enough to do that.
I don't know how many times this has to be said but lets get this clear. UK public sector debt started rising in 2002, the year after Brown abandoned his pledge to match Conservative spending plans.
Debt rose steadily from 2002 to 2008 at which point in time it took off like a rocket.
From the trough in early 2001 until the time Brown handed over to Darling in 2007 our national debt increased by over £200 billion.
Anyone saying that our national debt did not rise under Gordon Brown as CotE is quite simply wrong, and a flaming idiot of the highest order.
@MichaelLCrick: Legal sources say Jeremy Corbyn plans to attend in person next Tuesday's High Court hearing over Michael Foster action against Labour NEC
There was a story yesterday that he is a named defendant
@MichaelLCrick: Legal sources say Jeremy Corbyn plans to attend in person next Tuesday's High Court hearing over Michael Foster action against Labour NEC
He's not going pro se is he?
That would be epic.
I've done it for a couple of motoring offences ^^;
@MichaelLCrick: Legal sources say Jeremy Corbyn plans to attend in person next Tuesday's High Court hearing over Michael Foster action against Labour NEC
There was a story yesterday that he is a named defendant
I think he added himself as a defendant, to be allowed to present his position.
That would be nonsense. You pay the membership fee to join the organisation and to vote according to the rules of that organisation. If those rules are validated by a court, following the rules will be no justification for members getting their money back.
Interestingly, they took £3m on Brexit and ended up with a £400k loss.
That's not bookmaking.
It is modern bookmaking. Bookies don't try to balance their books*, they try to lay at odds they consider advantageous. Which - on liquid markets - largely involves deciding which side of Betfair to sit (or to price neutrally).
*If they did, the draw would be 4/1+ in every Premier League match
Interestingly, they took £3m on Brexit and ended up with a £400k loss.
That's not bookmaking.
It is modern bookmaking. Bookies don't try to balance their books*, they try to lay at odds they consider advantageous. Which - on liquid markets - largely involves deciding which side of Betfair to sit (or to price neutrally).
*If they did, the draw would be 4/1+ in every Premier League match
"If they did, the draw would be 4/1+ in every Premier League match"
Not sure I follow? Too few people bet on draws?
I remember listening to a program about an oddsetter that almost broke Ladbrokes in the 70s/80s I think... surely £400k is a huge amount for their political side
@MichaelLCrick: Legal sources say Jeremy Corbyn plans to attend in person next Tuesday's High Court hearing over Michael Foster action against Labour NEC
He's not going pro se is he?
That would be epic.
I've done it for a couple of motoring offences ^^;
Something tells me you'd do a better job of it that Jez.
@MichaelLCrick: Legal sources say Jeremy Corbyn plans to attend in person next Tuesday's High Court hearing over Michael Foster action against Labour NEC
He's not going pro se is he?
That would be epic.
I've done it for a couple of motoring offences ^^;
Judges don't make decisions on behalf of regulatory bodies like Labour's NEC.
The only decision a judge might make is that the NEC did not follow the correct process in coming to a decision and should re-hear the arguments and vote on the decision again.
Given that the anti Corbyn group's lawyer was present at the meeting but not the pro Corbyn lawyer, I don't see the judge regarding the process as unfair to the anti Corbyns.
Interestingly, they took £3m on Brexit and ended up with a £400k loss.
That's not bookmaking.
It is modern bookmaking. Bookies don't try to balance their books*, they try to lay at odds they consider advantageous. Which - on liquid markets - largely involves deciding which side of Betfair to sit (or to price neutrally).
*If they did, the draw would be 4/1+ in every Premier League match
"If they did, the draw would be 4/1+ in every Premier League match"
Not sure I follow? Too few people bet on draws?
I remember listening to a program about an oddsetter that almost broke Ladbrokes in the 70s/80s I think... surely £400k is a huge amount for their political side
Indeed, "too few" people bet on draws. So the draw is usually a good result [whereas a 1/5 favourite winning is, perhaps surprisingly, usually bad]. But bookies don't go 4/1 the draw, because they would make less in the long run.
Ladbrokes made 6 figures on the EU referendum - Hills lost £400k. Both are very big numbers in the political betting context, but small fry overall.
Interestingly, they took £3m on Brexit and ended up with a £400k loss.
That's not bookmaking.
It is modern bookmaking. Bookies don't try to balance their books*, they try to lay at odds they consider advantageous. Which - on liquid markets - largely involves deciding which side of Betfair to sit (or to price neutrally).
*If they did, the draw would be 4/1+ in every Premier League match
"If they did, the draw would be 4/1+ in every Premier League match"
Not sure I follow? Too few people bet on draws?
I remember listening to a program about an oddsetter that almost broke Ladbrokes in the 70s/80s I think... surely £400k is a huge amount for their political side
Indeed, "too few" people bet on draws. So the draw is usually a good result [whereas a 1/5 favourite winning is, perhaps surprisingly, usually bad]. But bookies don't go 4/1 the draw, because they would make less in the long run.
Ladbrokes made 6 figures on the EU referendum - Hills lost £400k. Both are very big numbers in the political betting context, but small fry overall.
Annie Power tripping at Cheltenham was a very lucky escape for the bookies.
@MichaelLCrick: Legal sources say Jeremy Corbyn plans to attend in person next Tuesday's High Court hearing over Michael Foster action against Labour NEC
There was a story yesterday that he is a named defendant
I think he added himself as a defendant, to be allowed to present his position.
Yes, he did. It was a legal victory for him to get himself added.
The good news for Labour is that with all the new members and supporters they don't need Foster's money any more and Foster's influence on the party is eliminated.
If you are of the opinion that the court case might result in the NEC changing their decision and ruling that JC must get 51 nomination in a new contest, the betting value (certainly on Betfair, where the market stands until the end of 2016) would be not in laying Corbyn or backing Smith (who may not even be on the ballot second time around) The value would be on other Labour MP's who might be opportunistic and ambitious enough to throw their hat into the ring if there is a new contest sans JC
Labour will be facing a big class action if they keep those £25 and there is no ballot.
If Owen still goes to the ballots to be voted on, then legally there is no issue surely? as long as they provide a vote, even if it's with just 1 candidate.
If you are of the opinion that the court case might result in the NEC changing their decision and ruling that JC must get 51 nomination in a new contest, the betting value (certainly on Betfair, where the market stands until the end of 2016) would be not in laying Corbyn or backing Smith (who may not even be on the ballot second time around) The value would be on other Labour MP's who might be opportunistic and ambitious enough to throw their hat into the ring if there is a new contest sans JC
Hope so, as I have a nice spread of small bets on the usual suspects plus a few outsiders for fun.
Interestingly, they took £3m on Brexit and ended up with a £400k loss.
That's not bookmaking.
It is modern bookmaking. Bookies don't try to balance their books*, they try to lay at odds they consider advantageous. Which - on liquid markets - largely involves deciding which side of Betfair to sit (or to price neutrally).
*If they did, the draw would be 4/1+ in every Premier League match
"If they did, the draw would be 4/1+ in every Premier League match"
Not sure I follow? Too few people bet on draws?
I remember listening to a program about an oddsetter that almost broke Ladbrokes in the 70s/80s I think... surely £400k is a huge amount for their political side
Indeed, "too few" people bet on draws. So the draw is usually a good result [whereas a 1/5 favourite winning is, perhaps surprisingly, usually bad]. But bookies don't go 4/1 the draw, because they would make less in the long run.
Ladbrokes made 6 figures on the EU referendum - Hills lost £400k. Both are very big numbers in the political betting context, but small fry overall.
Annie Power tripping at Cheltenham was a very lucky escape for the bookies.
"Ladbrokes made 6 figures on the EU referendum - Hills lost £400k. Both are very big numbers in the political betting context, but small fry overall."
That's interesting, you would have thought that oddsetters in major companies would demonstrate some kind of herding mentality (like pollsters sometimes) and thus losses would be similar.
A thread on oddsetting at the big boys would be most interesting.
If you are of the opinion that the court case might result in the NEC changing their decision and ruling that JC must get 51 nomination in a new contest, the betting value (certainly on Betfair, where the market stands until the end of 2016) would be not in laying Corbyn or backing Smith (who may not even be on the ballot second time around) The value would be on other Labour MP's who might be opportunistic and ambitious enough to throw their hat into the ring if there is a new contest sans JC
Who is there that could gain 51 nominations and is not regarded by Momentum as a traitor? The Venn diagram of those two groups will look something like this, won't it:
If you are of the opinion that the court case might result in the NEC changing their decision and ruling that JC must get 51 nomination in a new contest, the betting value (certainly on Betfair, where the market stands until the end of 2016) would be not in laying Corbyn or backing Smith (who may not even be on the ballot second time around) The value would be on other Labour MP's who might be opportunistic and ambitious enough to throw their hat into the ring if there is a new contest sans JC
This is an interesting point. Betfair have two markets: 'Next [permanent] Labour Leader', which is straightforward enough, and 'Labour leadership contest winner'. If for some reason the current contest has to be aborted, then the small print of the rules comes into play:
Who will win the Labour Party leadership contest?
This market will be settled based on the first official announcement of the next permanent Labour Party leader as chosen by a Labour Party leadership contest. Betfair reserves the right to suspend, cancel unmatched bets and turn in-play or re-open this market as and when information becomes available to it. Additional runners may be added upon request.
If a Labour Party leadership contest does not take place in 2016 then all bets will be void.
So it's not impossible that someone than Corbyn/Smith could be the winner in this market, if the court case does require Labour to hold a re-run. It's an outside chance, certainly, but perhaps not as remote as the odds on Watson, Lewis and Nandy indicate. I've invested a speculative £6.
If you are of the opinion that the court case might result in the NEC changing their decision and ruling that JC must get 51 nomination in a new contest, the betting value (certainly on Betfair, where the market stands until the end of 2016) would be not in laying Corbyn or backing Smith (who may not even be on the ballot second time around) The value would be on other Labour MP's who might be opportunistic and ambitious enough to throw their hat into the ring if there is a new contest sans JC
Who is there that could gain 51 nominations and is not regarded by Momentum as a traitor? The Venn diagram of those two groups will look something like this, won't it:
If you are of the opinion that the court case might result in the NEC changing their decision and ruling that JC must get 51 nomination in a new contest, the betting value (certainly on Betfair, where the market stands until the end of 2016) would be not in laying Corbyn or backing Smith (who may not even be on the ballot second time around) The value would be on other Labour MP's who might be opportunistic and ambitious enough to throw their hat into the ring if there is a new contest sans JC
Who is there that could gain 51 nominations and is not regarded by Momentum as a traitor?
Corbyn is representing himself at the high court having successfully petitioned that the General Secretary of the Labour Party wouldn't represent his interests.
The leader doesn't trust the General Secretary. The members don't trust the PLP or the NEC. The PLP don't trust the leader. Members are divided in that members who've been in more than a year are anti-Corbyn and less than a year pro-Corbyn. A rally last night attended by the Great Leader was told that 172 Labour MPs were "Tory Sleeper Agents" (the trigger word to activate them being "MOMENTUM")
And so this September Corbyn will be re-crowned as Great Leader and then the hate mob really fires up its campaign. You remember that LibDem conference in Sheffield where they had to be protected from residents behind a ring of steel? At this year's Labour conference it will be a similar security set up protecting Labour delegates against the vengeful mob of Labour members outside. Because MPs and their staffers are already being subjected to abuse and death threats and intimidation, but this is branded as "Tory lies" and the evidence ignored
And then the week after our chaotic conference May announces her intention to secure an early general election at the Tory conference. And after winning a 750 seat Tory majority in November, Corbyn announces that with the overwhelming backing of the membership he is carrying on.
So here's what will happen.
There has been a coup. But not the chicken coup by Blairites as alleged. The coup is Momentum. So the solution is simple.
Proscribe Momentum. Rules do not allow for a party within a party which with its own membership structures aims and constitution it is (sort-of, its only partially in the party). Momentum are expelled. The PLP declare Smith their leader in the Commons. He's backed by CLPs and the NEC and party officers. We keep the name and the buildings, and Momentum are ejected to form their own protest party.
Which - when Smith is proposing the very socialist left policies Momentum demand but done in a way thats actually effective and communicable - means Momentum get crushed by Labour at the ballot box. May even help split the anti-Labour protest vote in our "heartland" seats threatened by UKIP.
Its a battle for survival. An Extinction Level Event. A battle fought a century ago - does the Labour movement pursue the parliamentary route, or the revolutionary route? Momentum want revolution.
If you are of the opinion that the court case might result in the NEC changing their decision and ruling that JC must get 51 nomination in a new contest, the betting value (certainly on Betfair, where the market stands until the end of 2016) would be not in laying Corbyn or backing Smith (who may not even be on the ballot second time around) The value would be on other Labour MP's who might be opportunistic and ambitious enough to throw their hat into the ring if there is a new contest sans JC
Who is there that could gain 51 nominations and is not regarded by Momentum as a traitor? The Venn diagram of those two groups will look something like this, won't it:
O O
In a race involving only those regarded as traitors by Momentum, then the influence of Momentum and JC supporters is negligible. So in the scenario I have outlined, "traitors" are very good value at high odds.
Andrew Neil @afneil 23m23 minutes ago Trump tells NYT he was ready to scrap North American Free Trade Agreement with Mexico and Canada if he could not negotiate much better terms
Which would create collateral benefits for us, I imagine.
Interestingly, they took £3m on Brexit and ended up with a £400k loss.
That's not bookmaking.
It is modern bookmaking. Bookies don't try to balance their books*, they try to lay at odds they consider advantageous. Which - on liquid markets - largely involves deciding which side of Betfair to sit (or to price neutrally).
*If they did, the draw would be 4/1+ in every Premier League match
"If they did, the draw would be 4/1+ in every Premier League match"
Not sure I follow? Too few people bet on draws?
I remember listening to a program about an oddsetter that almost broke Ladbrokes in the 70s/80s I think... surely £400k is a huge amount for their political side
Indeed, "too few" people bet on draws. So the draw is usually a good result [whereas a 1/5 favourite winning is, perhaps surprisingly, usually bad]. But bookies don't go 4/1 the draw, because they would make less in the long run.
Ladbrokes made 6 figures on the EU referendum - Hills lost £400k. Both are very big numbers in the political betting context, but small fry overall.
Annie Power tripping at Cheltenham was a very lucky escape for the bookies.
"Ladbrokes made 6 figures on the EU referendum - Hills lost £400k. Both are very big numbers in the political betting context, but small fry overall."
That's interesting, you would have thought that oddsetters in major companies would demonstrate some kind of herding mentality (like pollsters sometimes) and thus losses would be similar.
A thread on oddsetting at the big boys would be most interesting.
It comes down to opinion. For example, on the Labour leadership election, the firms which are 3/1 Owen Smith fancy his chances, and the firms that are 4/1 or 9/2 don't. But everyone is operating in the context of Betfair making Smith around a 20% chance.
Opinion can of course be changed by the bets taken - though that's as much about who's betting as the stake size.
The firms with the shortest odds on Smith may well take disproportionate money on Corbyn, and vice versa. Though this doesn't always follow: the nature of their customer base (shop vs online; UK vs international) matters too.
Lack of legal experience. Not that stopped Gove or Grayling.
Oh so it's one rule for the 2 blokes and a different one for the woman. Textbook definition of sexism. Oaf.
“The most amenable lord chancellor that a prime minister could find would be one who looks to her for promotion: an ambitious, middle-ranking cabinet minister whose main ambition is to go further up the greasy pole, with no known signs of independence. Liz Truss appears to fit the bill perfectly"
@MichaelLCrick: Legal sources say Jeremy Corbyn plans to attend in person next Tuesday's High Court hearing over Michael Foster action against Labour NEC
Corbyn is representing himself at the high court having successfully petitioned that the General Secretary of the Labour Party wouldn't represent his interests.
The leader doesn't trust the General Secretary. The members don't trust the PLP or the NEC. The PLP don't trust the leader. Members are divided in that members who've been in more than a year are anti-Corbyn and less than a year pro-Corbyn. A rally last night attended by the Great Leader was told that 172 Labour MPs were "Tory Sleeper Agents" (the trigger word to activate them being "MOMENTUM")
And so this September Corbyn will be re-crowned as Great Leader and then the hate mob really fires up its campaign. You remember that LibDem conference in Sheffield where they had to be protected from residents behind a ring of steel? At this year's Labour conference it will be a similar security set up protecting Labour delegates against the vengeful mob of Labour members outside. Because MPs and their staffers are already being subjected to abuse and death threats and intimidation, but this is branded as "Tory lies" and the evidence ignored
And then the week after our chaotic conference May announces her intention to secure an early general election at the Tory conference. And after winning a 750 seat Tory majority in November, Corbyn announces that with the overwhelming backing of the membership he is carrying on.
So here's what will happen.
There has been a coup. But not the chicken coup by Blairites as alleged. The coup is Momentum. So the solution is simple.
Proscribe Momentum. Rules do not allow for a party within a party which with its own membership structures aims and constitution it is (sort-of, its only partially in the party). Momentum are expelled. The PLP declare Smith their leader in the Commons. He's backed by CLPs and the NEC and party officers. We keep the name and the buildings, and Momentum are ejected to form their own protest party.
Which - when Smith is proposing the very socialist left policies Momentum demand but done in a way thats actually effective and communicable - means Momentum get crushed by Labour at the ballot box. May even help split the anti-Labour protest vote in our "heartland" seats threatened by UKIP.
Its a battle for survival. An Extinction Level Event. A battle fought a century ago - does the Labour movement pursue the parliamentary route, or the revolutionary route? Momentum want revolution.
They will have to go.
Another excellent post, Pioneers. What are the mechanics to "Proscribe Momentum" within the Labour Party. Is is something that it is beyond the power of the Corbynites to block?
Corbyn is representing himself at the high court having successfully petitioned that the General Secretary of the Labour Party wouldn't represent his interests.
The leader doesn't trust the General Secretary. The members don't trust the PLP or the NEC. The PLP don't trust the leader. Members are divided in that members who've been in more than a year are anti-Corbyn and less than a year pro-Corbyn. A rally last night attended by the Great Leader was told that 172 Labour MPs were "Tory Sleeper Agents" (the trigger word to activate them being "MOMENTUM")
And so this September Corbyn will be re-crowned as Great Leader and then the hate mob really fires up its campaign. You remember that LibDem conference in Sheffield where they had to be protected from residents behind a ring of steel? At this year's Labour conference it will be a similar security set up protecting Labour delegates against the vengeful mob of Labour members outside. Because MPs and their staffers are already being subjected to abuse and death threats and intimidation, but this is branded as "Tory lies" and the evidence ignored
And then the week after our chaotic conference May announces her intention to secure an early general election at the Tory conference. And after winning a 750 seat Tory majority in November, Corbyn announces that with the overwhelming backing of the membership he is carrying on.
So here's what will happen.
There has been a coup. But not the chicken coup by Blairites as alleged. The coup is Momentum. So the solution is simple.
Proscribe Momentum. Rules do not allow for a party within a party which with its own membership structures aims and constitution it is (sort-of, its only partially in the party). Momentum are expelled. The PLP declare Smith their leader in the Commons. He's backed by CLPs and the NEC and party officers. We keep the name and the buildings, and Momentum are ejected to form their own protest party.
Which - when Smith is proposing the very socialist left policies Momentum demand but done in a way thats actually effective and communicable - means Momentum get crushed by Labour at the ballot box. May even help split the anti-Labour protest vote in our "heartland" seats threatened by UKIP.
Its a battle for survival. An Extinction Level Event. A battle fought a century ago - does the Labour movement pursue the parliamentary route, or the revolutionary route? Momentum want revolution.
He thinks the Lord Chancellor should have some legal background.
Did he say the same about Chris Grayling or Michael Gove?
Call me old fashioned, but I think the Lord Chancellor should be a peer.
Nah, The Lord Privy Seal, is neither a Lord nor a Privy nor a Seal.
This is all Blair's fault, when he tried to abolish the position of Lord Chancellor only to find out he needed primary legalisation to do so.
Makes you wonder what they teach on the Oxford jurisprudence degree.
Keep on telling you Oxford is a compete dump.
I used to work for the civil servant in charge of Blair's attempt to abolish the Lord Chancellor. For some reason he then spent the remaining years of his career sitting in a grubby office in Gray's Inn Road, about as far away from Whitehall (well, Victoria Street) as they could send him.
@MichaelLCrick: Legal sources say Jeremy Corbyn plans to attend in person next Tuesday's High Court hearing over Michael Foster action against Labour NEC
He's not going pro se is he?
That would be epic.
Pro se? Why can't you lawyers speak the Queen's?!
Because we like to show off.
I've come up with an awesome pop music pun for Sunday.
Interestingly, they took £3m on Brexit and ended up with a £400k loss.
That's not bookmaking.
It is modern bookmaking. Bookies don't try to balance their books*, they try to lay at odds they consider advantageous. Which - on liquid markets - largely involves deciding which side of Betfair to sit (or to price neutrally).
*If they did, the draw would be 4/1+ in every Premier League match
"If they did, the draw would be 4/1+ in every Premier League match"
Not sure I follow? Too few people bet on draws?
I remember listening to a program about an oddsetter that almost broke Ladbrokes in the 70s/80s I think... surely £400k is a huge amount for their political side
Indeed, "too few" people bet on draws. So the draw is usually a good result [whereas a 1/5 favourite winning is, perhaps surprisingly, usually bad]. But bookies don't go 4/1 the draw, because they would make less in the long run.
Ladbrokes made 6 figures on the EU referendum - Hills lost £400k. Both are very big numbers in the political betting context, but small fry overall.
Annie Power tripping at Cheltenham was a very lucky escape for the bookies.
"Ladbrokes made 6 figures on the EU referendum - Hills lost £400k. Both are very big numbers in the political betting context, but small fry overall."
That's interesting, you would have thought that oddsetters in major companies would demonstrate some kind of herding mentality (like pollsters sometimes) and thus losses would be similar.
A thread on oddsetting at the big boys would be most interesting.
It comes down to opinion. For example, on the Labour leadership election, the firms which are 3/1 Owen Smith fancy his chances, and the firms that are 4/1 or 9/2 don't. But everyone is operating in the context of Betfair making Smith around a 20% chance.
Opinion can of course be changed by the bets taken - though that's as much about who's betting as the stake size.
The firms with the shortest odds on Smith may well take disproportionate money on Corbyn, and vice versa. Though this doesn't always follow: the nature of their customer base (shop vs online; UK vs international) matters too.
@MichaelLCrick: Legal sources say Jeremy Corbyn plans to attend in person next Tuesday's High Court hearing over Michael Foster action against Labour NEC
He's not going pro se is he?
That would be epic.
Pro se? Why can't you lawyers speak the Queen's?!
Because we like to show off.
I've come up with an awesome pop music pun for Sunday.
Corbyn is representing himself at the high court having successfully petitioned that the General Secretary of the Labour Party wouldn't represent his interests.
The leader doesn't trust the General Secretary. The members don't trust the PLP or the NEC. The PLP don't trust the leader. Members are divided in that members who've been in more than a year are anti-Corbyn and less than a year pro-Corbyn. A rally last night attended by the Great Leader was told that 172 Labour MPs were "Tory Sleeper Agents" (the trigger word to activate them being "MOMENTUM")
And so this September Corbyn will be re-crowned as Great Leader and then the hate mob really fires up its campaign. You remember that LibDem conference in Sheffield where they had to be protected from residents behind a ring of steel? At this year's Labour conference it will be a similar security set up protecting Labour delegates against the vengeful mob of Labour members outside. Because MPs and their staffers are already being subjected to abuse and death threats and intimidation, but this is branded as "Tory lies" and the evidence ignored
And then the week after our chaotic conference May announces her intention to secure an early general election at the Tory conference. And after winning a 750 seat Tory majority in November, Corbyn announces that with the overwhelming backing of the membership he is carrying on.
So here's what will happen.
There has been a coup. But not the chicken coup by Blairites as alleged. The coup is Momentum. So the solution is simple.
Proscribe Momentum. Rules do not allow for a party within a party which with its own membership structures aims and constitution it is (sort-of, its only partially in the party). Momentum are expelled. The PLP declare Smith their leader in the Commons. He's backed by CLPs and the NEC and party officers. We keep the name and the buildings, and Momentum are ejected to form their own protest party.
Which - when Smith is proposing the very socialist left policies Momentum demand but done in a way thats actually effective and communicable - means Momentum get crushed by Labour at the ballot box. May even help split the anti-Labour protest vote in our "heartland" seats threatened by UKIP.
Its a battle for survival. An Extinction Level Event. A battle fought a century ago - does the Labour movement pursue the parliamentary route, or the revolutionary route? Momentum want revolution.
They will have to go.
Not going to happen, unfortunately. The unions would not go for it as it would cost the union leaders their very well paid jobs.
Corbyn is representing himself at the high court having successfully petitioned that the General Secretary of the Labour Party wouldn't represent his interests.
The leader doesn't trust the General Secretary. The members don't trust the PLP or the NEC. The PLP don't trust the leader. Members are divided in that members who've been in more than a year are anti-Corbyn and less than a year pro-Corbyn. A rally last night attended by the Great Leader was told that 172 Labour MPs were "Tory Sleeper Agents" (the trigger word to activate them being "MOMENTUM")
And so this September Corbyn will be re-crowned as Great Leader and then the hate mob really fires up its campaign. You remember that LibDem conference in Sheffield where they had to be protected from residents behind a ring of steel? At this year's Labour conference it will be a similar security set up protecting Labour delegates against the vengeful mob of Labour members outside. Because MPs and their staffers are already being subjected to abuse and death threats and intimidation, but this is branded as "Tory lies" and the evidence ignored
And then the week after our chaotic conference May announces her intention to secure an early general election at the Tory conference. And after winning a 750 seat Tory majority in November, Corbyn announces that with the overwhelming backing of the membership he is carrying on.
So here's what will happen.
There has been a coup. But not the chicken coup by Blairites as alleged. The coup is Momentum. So the solution is simple.
Proscribe Momentum. Rules do not allow for a party within a party which with its own membership structures aims and constitution it is (sort-of, its only partially in the party). Momentum are expelled. The PLP declare Smith their leader in the Commons. He's backed by CLPs and the NEC and party officers. We keep the name and the buildings, and Momentum are ejected to form their own protest party.
Which - when Smith is proposing the very socialist left policies Momentum demand but done in a way thats actually effective and communicable - means Momentum get crushed by Labour at the ballot box. May even help split the anti-Labour protest vote in our "heartland" seats threatened by UKIP.
Its a battle for survival. An Extinction Level Event. A battle fought a century ago - does the Labour movement pursue the parliamentary route, or the revolutionary route? Momentum want revolution.
They will have to go.
Excellent post.
I have an article coming up soon at Total Politics on a similar subject.
@MichaelLCrick: Legal sources say Jeremy Corbyn plans to attend in person next Tuesday's High Court hearing over Michael Foster action against Labour NEC
He's not going pro se is he?
That would be epic.
Pro se? Why can't you lawyers speak the Queen's?!
Because we like to show off.
I've come up with an awesome pop music pun for Sunday.
EU can't hurry Leave.
What is GOVE? Baby don't hurt me Don't hurt me No more
Comments
But doubt it'll happen.
We need a new Bush v Gore.
Seems a bit off saying "£25 for a vote" and then "LOL! No vote. But thanks for the cash".
Anyway, I am going to attempt exercise. Cooler than before, so hopefully I will achieve success rather than confirming mortality.
Imagine the worst possible outcome. Triple it. That will then happen.
It is quite possible that in a few months we will look back at the Corbyn era as the good old days. Much as we now do with Ed Milliband's tenure.
Not sure I understand the logic there. Surely it should either be
The mere fact of the court case and the uncertainty it creates suggests that Corbyn at a betting chance of 76%+ is not value
or
Corbyn at a betting chance of 76%+ is value despite the mere fact of the court case and the uncertainty it creates.
http://election-data.co.uk/by-election-previews
If JC looked unlikely to ge the required nominations in those circumstances it is unlikely other MP's will give him a free ride and I would expect two or three other candidates to show an interest.
Concern within the current leadership that the court might rule against them is probably not good evidence that it might, as most of these people seem to have been fairly mad to begin with, and are currently the victims of a fairly large establishment conspiracy, which they may be assuming is even vaster than it actually is.
I hope.
titters.
A challenger only needs to lodge the challenge, supported by a sufficient number of legitimate nominations, in order to appear on the ballotpaper. He or she can do so at any point in the lead up to conference before the deadline which I assume the NEC places on the process. By contrast, a leader would only know that they needed to act once the challenge was in - if they were indeed required to act. What happens if the challenge were lodged at five minutes to the deadline? It'd be a nonsense.
@MichaelLCrick: Legal sources say Jeremy Corbyn plans to attend in person next Tuesday's High Court hearing over Michael Foster action against Labour NEC
That's 50% more than the total Labour membership.
Obviously what's happening to their party is tragic. Mr Nabavi accurately described it as a parasite eating the host from the inside. And it doesn't do much for good government to have no Opposition.
But the poetic justice is in seeing them hoist by the same petard they used against us for so long - an almost blind questioning of their motives as self-interested i.e. being a F***ING TORY. This othering of people who sincerely disagree with you rarely ends well.
That would be epic.
Why waste the time and effort for what is a forgone conclusion and with rising levels of intimidation and threats of deselection?
Debt rose steadily from 2002 to 2008 at which point in time it took off like a rocket.
From the trough in early 2001 until the time Brown handed over to Darling in 2007 our national debt increased by over £200 billion.
Anyone saying that our national debt did not rise under Gordon Brown as CotE is quite simply wrong, and a flaming idiot of the highest order.
Here are the official figures for anyone who doesn't already known this.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/timeseries/hf6x/pusf
Small Claims Court
https://www.gov.uk/make-court-claim-for-money/overview
Difficult for May to comment on that...
https://next.ft.com/content/a289834a-4f1a-11e6-8172-e39ecd3b86fc
Interestingly, they took £3m on Brexit and ended up with a £400k loss.
Two takeaways for me;
1) £3m was a surprisingly small market share.
2) They took a position on a very liquid market. They weren't bookmaking.
Indeed, one leadership election may not be enough to do that.
It started at around a billion and ended up around 30 billion. And was growing year on year. Totally unexpectedly.
An example of Brown's genius.
Not to mention the time/hassle
I think he added himself as a defendant, to be allowed to present his position.
*If they did, the draw would be 4/1+ in every Premier League match
Court fees are added for those claims, aren't they?
Not sure I follow? Too few people bet on draws?
I remember listening to a program about an oddsetter that almost broke Ladbrokes in the 70s/80s I think... surely £400k is a huge amount for their political side
The only decision a judge might make is that the NEC did not follow the correct process in coming to a decision and should re-hear the arguments and vote on the decision again.
Given that the anti Corbyn group's lawyer was present at the meeting but not the pro Corbyn lawyer, I don't see the judge regarding the process as unfair to the anti Corbyns.
Ladbrokes made 6 figures on the EU referendum - Hills lost £400k. Both are very big numbers in the political betting context, but small fry overall.
Thought she already had!!
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/20/jeremy-corbyn-wins-right-to-be-defendant-in-leadership-court-case
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/21/villagers-parish-councillors-and-retired-ladies-form-human-chain/
That's interesting, you would have thought that oddsetters in major companies would demonstrate some kind of herding mentality (like pollsters sometimes) and thus losses would be similar.
A thread on oddsetting at the big boys would be most interesting.
https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/755967178285907968
O O
Who will win the Labour Party leadership contest?
This market will be settled based on the first official announcement of the next permanent Labour Party leader as chosen by a Labour Party leadership contest. Betfair reserves the right to suspend, cancel unmatched bets and turn in-play or re-open this market as and when information becomes available to it. Additional runners may be added upon request.
If a Labour Party leadership contest does not take place in 2016 then all bets will be void.
So it's not impossible that someone than Corbyn/Smith could be the winner in this market, if the court case does require Labour to hold a re-run. It's an outside chance, certainly, but perhaps not as remote as the odds on Watson, Lewis and Nandy indicate. I've invested a speculative £6.
The leader doesn't trust the General Secretary. The members don't trust the PLP or the NEC. The PLP don't trust the leader. Members are divided in that members who've been in more than a year are anti-Corbyn and less than a year pro-Corbyn. A rally last night attended by the Great Leader was told that 172 Labour MPs were "Tory Sleeper Agents" (the trigger word to activate them being "MOMENTUM")
And so this September Corbyn will be re-crowned as Great Leader and then the hate mob really fires up its campaign. You remember that LibDem conference in Sheffield where they had to be protected from residents behind a ring of steel? At this year's Labour conference it will be a similar security set up protecting Labour delegates against the vengeful mob of Labour members outside. Because MPs and their staffers are already being subjected to abuse and death threats and intimidation, but this is branded as "Tory lies" and the evidence ignored
And then the week after our chaotic conference May announces her intention to secure an early general election at the Tory conference. And after winning a 750 seat Tory majority in November, Corbyn announces that with the overwhelming backing of the membership he is carrying on.
So here's what will happen.
There has been a coup. But not the chicken coup by Blairites as alleged. The coup is Momentum. So the solution is simple.
Proscribe Momentum. Rules do not allow for a party within a party which with its own membership structures aims and constitution it is (sort-of, its only partially in the party). Momentum are expelled. The PLP declare Smith their leader in the Commons. He's backed by CLPs and the NEC and party officers. We keep the name and the buildings, and Momentum are ejected to form their own protest party.
Which - when Smith is proposing the very socialist left policies Momentum demand but done in a way thats actually effective and communicable - means Momentum get crushed by Labour at the ballot box. May even help split the anti-Labour protest vote in our "heartland" seats threatened by UKIP.
Its a battle for survival. An Extinction Level Event. A battle fought a century ago - does the Labour movement pursue the parliamentary route, or the revolutionary route? Momentum want revolution.
They will have to go.
He thinks the Lord Chancellor should have some legal background.
Did he say the same about Chris Grayling or Michael Gove?
Police treating incident at RAF Marham, Norfolk, on Wednesday involving serviceman as attempted abduction https://t.co/V99ML6jtWd
Don't like the sound of this
Trump tells NYT he was ready to scrap North American Free Trade Agreement with Mexico and Canada if he could not negotiate much better terms
Which would create collateral benefits for us, I imagine.
Opinion can of course be changed by the bets taken - though that's as much about who's betting as the stake size.
The firms with the shortest odds on Smith may well take disproportionate money on Corbyn, and vice versa. Though this doesn't always follow: the nature of their customer base (shop vs online; UK vs international) matters too.
I will do a proper piece on this one day.
This is all Blair's fault, when he tried to abolish the position of Lord Chancellor only to find out he needed primary legalisation to do so.
Makes you wonder what they teach on the Oxford jurisprudence degree.
Keep on telling you Oxford is a compete dump.
It wouldn't surprise me if off duty servicemen were routinely armed in a few years time.
I mean, yuk.
Yeah, I remember that reshuffle (like the loser I am)
What are the mechanics to "Proscribe Momentum" within the Labour Party. Is is something that it is beyond the power of the Corbynites to block?
I've come up with an awesome pop music pun for Sunday.
EU can't hurry Leave.
I have an article coming up soon at Total Politics on a similar subject.
Baby don't hurt me
Don't hurt me
No more