Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The chances of Mrs May getting her own way on the Article 50 r

1234568»

Comments

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 120,407
    edited October 2016
    What a fine principled MP and all round good egg Stephen Phillips is, makes me proud to be a Tory

    We voted for Brexit to keep parliament sovereign – we won’t be gagged

    A lurch to the right since June is giving us tyranny not by EU but by government. MPs must take back control

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/11/we-voted-brexit-keep-parliament-sovereign-wont-be-gagged?CMP=twt_gu
  • tysontyson Posts: 6,120

    Jonathan said:

    There is something weirdly wrong about this England team. Somehow much worse than the ones that precede it, which all failed but at least had potential. The epitome of 'meh'.

    The Premier League is EU membership. We all slag it off as inauthentic and corrupt yetvoluntarily pay to enjoy the best globalised football anywhere here on English soil. The England team is Brexit. Recepticle of our dissatisfaction with the former and hope of romanticised Nationalism. But completely **** in reality.
    Um no. The England team is a symptom of the Premier League. It is poor exactly because the Premier League is the EU of Football and as a result the home nation suffers very badly. Your analogy is fundamentally correct, you just draw completely the wrong conclusion.

    You know my views well with Brexit.

    Well, re English football I have to admit it seems to have nothing to do with the EU. England are simply awful. I blame Donald Trump
  • MyBurningEarsMyBurningEars Posts: 3,651
    edited October 2016
    JohnO said:

    See the £ is now 1.21 to the $. At what level (if at all) should the Government/Bank of England start getting concerned?

    With or without Brexit, it's not like this is something completely out of the blue. Take this article from Dec 2016:

    Pound is 'most overvalued currency in the world', analysts claim

    The pound is one of the most overvalued currencies in the world and will suffer next year as the Government ramps up spending cuts and uncertainty about Britain’s future in the EU weighs on growth.

    Analysts at Deutsche Bank warned that the Bank of England may not be able to raise interest rates “at all” if Britain’s recovery slows. It believes the pound could fall as low as $1.27 next year and $1.15 in 2017 from about $1.485 today if the US Federal Reserve continues to tighten monetary policy and the Bank of England leaves interest rates on hold.

    “We have various different ways of looking at currency valuations and what we find is that sterling is the most expensive currency out there at the moment - even including the dollar,” said Oliver Harvey, foreign exchange strategist at Deutsche Bank. Earlier this year, the International Monetary Fund said the pound was between 5pc and 15pc overvalued. Several Bank policymakers, including Governor Mark Carney and even hawkish rate-setter Martin Weale have played down the prospect of a rate rise in the next few months as a renewed fall in oil prices and weak wage growth keep inflation well below the Bank's 2pc target.


    That's well before a Leave vote seemed likely. As ball-park figures, not too far off really.
  • Jonathan said:

    There is something weirdly wrong about this England team. Somehow much worse than the ones that precede it, which all failed but at least had potential. The epitome of 'meh'.

    The Premier League is EU membership. We all slag it off as inauthentic and corrupt yetvoluntarily pay to enjoy the best globalised football anywhere here on English soil. The England team is Brexit. Recepticle of our dissatisfaction with the former and hope of romanticised Nationalism. But completely **** in reality.
    Um no. The England team is a symptom of the Premier League. It is poor exactly because the Premier League is the EU of Football and as a result the home nation suffers very badly. Your analogy is fundamentally correct, you just draw completely the wrong conclusion.
    But that's my point Richard ! With Football we get to have our cake and eat it. We choose the Premier League willingly and use the England team as our scapegoat. That psychological trade off works brilliantly as long as we can do both. But we've just had a referendum on Premier League vs England team and have made a definitive choice.
  • *** Betting Post (remember those?) ****

    One of the great advantages of this site's obsession with raking over the coals of the referendum is that betting value can be found hidden in plain sight.

    http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-ukip-leader

    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/#/politics/market/1.127389697

    The chances of Steven Woolfe being the next UKIP leader appear to me to be pretty much zero, and I'm not alone in that view:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/11/senior-ukip-figures-back-paul-nuttall-for-leadership-after-steven-woolfe-storm
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,654

    Speedy said:

    Jonathan said:

    Right now this doesn't feel like a Clinton win.

    Trump should be out of the game. But he isn't. There is something seemingly irresistible about him.

    Chuck in a Clinton wobble and some shy Trumpers and he could do better than current polls.

    No real evidence, but doesn't feel right for Clinton.

    Perhaps we should look at what the candidates are doing today.

    Hillary is campaigning in Michigan, only her 3rd time since May, this speaks trouble, she shouldn't be in Michigan.

    Trump is campaigning in Florida, his 10th time since June.
    I can certainly believe there is a sizeable shy Trump vote out there - or at least, that the Clinton campaign lose sleep over it (with a string of recent polling failures going back to Netanyahu's surprise win). Whilst staying with him through thick or thin, I imagine a swathe of Trump's supporters would find it easier to admit to pollsters that they watch pornography or strangle kittens.

    What I have found surprising is the lack of excitement at America electing its first woman President. It's almost like it isn't a factor, which is astonishing.
    Netanyahu had quire the shy vote. Even IsraelI exit polls were wrong....
  • corporealcorporeal Posts: 2,549
    chestnut said:

    Jonathan said:

    There is something weirdly wrong about this England team. Somehow much worse than the ones that precede it, which all failed but at least had potential. The epitome of 'meh'.

    England do not have a single world class footballer. Not one. Not even close to having one either.
    I'd say they're quite close to having one.

    Gareth Bale was born in Cardiff so they're about 30 miles away.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,917

    Pound is 'most overvalued currency in the world', analysts claim

    That's well before a Leave vote seemed likely. As ball-park figures, not too far off really.

    If Britain wasn't living in such a fools' paradise, we probably wouldn't have voted for Brexit (nor had such great immigration pressure in the first place).
  • DromedaryDromedary Posts: 1,194
    edited October 2016
    Donald Trump has tweeted a disgusting video hammering Hillary Clinton and showing her stumbling on steps and when she had pneumonia. I reckon this will hit home. By far the biggest quick fall in Clinton's betting price was when she was shown near-collapsing with pneumonia.

    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/785913754194104320
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,296
    Re the football, at least we're not Scotland.
  • ThrakThrak Posts: 494
    edited October 2016
    There is a misguided sensibility when referring to Trump and polling that is based far too readily on British experience. There must be shy Trumpers because of shy conservatives or Brexit polling must equal US polling. No they don't, it is America not Britain, it is now not then. Firstly, there is little shyness about Trump support from any quarter and, arguably, it is equivalent to saying you support Clinton. Brexit is not Trump either, it had a coherence, an intellectual basis and a positive outlook that is a universe away from the Trump campaign.
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664

    Speedy said:

    Jonathan said:

    Right now this doesn't feel like a Clinton win.

    Trump should be out of the game. But he isn't. There is something seemingly irresistible about him.

    Chuck in a Clinton wobble and some shy Trumpers and he could do better than current polls.

    No real evidence, but doesn't feel right for Clinton.

    Perhaps we should look at what the candidates are doing today.

    Hillary is campaigning in Michigan, only her 3rd time since May, this speaks trouble, she shouldn't be in Michigan.

    Trump is campaigning in Florida, his 10th time since June.
    I can certainly believe there is a sizeable shy Trump vote out there - or at least, that the Clinton campaign lose sleep over it (with a string of recent polling failures going back to Netanyahu's surprise win). Whilst staying with him through thick or thin, I imagine a swathe of Trump's supporters would find it easier to admit to pollsters that they watch pornography or strangle kittens.

    What I have found surprising is the lack of excitement at America electing its first woman President. It's almost like it isn't a factor, which is astonishing.
    Is it that exciting? Every country and political party in the world (except the Labour Party, natch) seems to be headed by a woman atm. Having a black President should have been more exciting (I'd have bet a lot 20 years ago that the first woman President would come a generation before the first black) and the thrill of that wore of quite quickly. A woman who got the job on merit rather than by matrimony would also be more impressive. The thing about Hillary is, there is absolutely nothing new to discover about her.
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693

    *** Betting Post (remember those?) ****

    One of the great advantages of this site's obsession with raking over the coals of the referendum is that betting value can be found hidden in plain sight.

    http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-ukip-leader

    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/#/politics/market/1.127389697

    The chances of Steven Woolfe being the next UKIP leader appear to me to be pretty much zero, and I'm not alone in that view:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/11/senior-ukip-figures-back-paul-nuttall-for-leadership-after-steven-woolfe-storm

    Form (history) would indicate Nigel Farage is the value bet.

  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,658
    tyson said:

    tyson said:

    JohnO said:

    IanB2 said:

    Scott_P said:
    The fact they are amending rather than finding a reason to oppose the opposition motion is a small sign of weakness, indicating they know not all of their backbenchers are on board with parliament being bypassed.
    A govt amendment is standard when an opposition motion is debated.
    Can someone translate that pbCOM exchange please into something someone like me could understand.
    When the opposition proposes a motion, the government would rather amend it so that the Commons agrees something the government wants than simply defeating it, which would mean the Commons taking no position at all.
    I'm still baffled....

    I have to admit my stupidity on certain points sends my wife to distraction.
    Opposition Day motions are designed to embarrass the Govt regardless of the outcome of the vote. If the Government opposes it and loses then the embarrassment is obvious. If they oppose it and win then they are embarrassed because the headlined would be that they whipped their benches to oppose what sounds like a reasonable proposition (who can oppose the principle of Parliamentary scrutiny?). So they amend it in such a way that they now can support the "reasonable" motion, but as they now effectively own it they can use their interpretation for what it means, rather than the opposition's.

  • tysontyson Posts: 6,120
    Pulpstar said:

    Speedy said:

    Jonathan said:

    Right now this doesn't feel like a Clinton win.

    Trump should be out of the game. But he isn't. There is something seemingly irresistible about him.

    Chuck in a Clinton wobble and some shy Trumpers and he could do better than current polls.

    No real evidence, but doesn't feel right for Clinton.

    Perhaps we should look at what the candidates are doing today.

    Hillary is campaigning in Michigan, only her 3rd time since May, this speaks trouble, she shouldn't be in Michigan.

    Trump is campaigning in Florida, his 10th time since June.
    I can certainly believe there is a sizeable shy Trump vote out there - or at least, that the Clinton campaign lose sleep over it (with a string of recent polling failures going back to Netanyahu's surprise win). Whilst staying with him through thick or thin, I imagine a swathe of Trump's supporters would find it easier to admit to pollsters that they watch pornography or strangle kittens.

    What I have found surprising is the lack of excitement at America electing its first woman President. It's almost like it isn't a factor, which is astonishing.
    Netanyahu had quire the shy vote. Even IsraelI exit polls were wrong....
    There are only about 3 or 4 people living in Israel though....

  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Ishmael_X said:

    corporeal said:



    In the 1970s Trump made a point of renting to whites only.

    If true, that is different. Though NB that that was perfectly legal in this country until 1976.
    The 1968 act covered housing iirc.
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    edited October 2016
    tyson said:

    Jonathan said:

    There is something weirdly wrong about this England team. Somehow much worse than the ones that precede it, which all failed but at least had potential. The epitome of 'meh'.

    The Premier League is EU membership. We all slag it off as inauthentic and corrupt yetvoluntarily pay to enjoy the best globalised football anywhere here on English soil. The England team is Brexit. Recepticle of our dissatisfaction with the former and hope of romanticised Nationalism. But completely **** in reality.
    Um no. The England team is a symptom of the Premier League. It is poor exactly because the Premier League is the EU of Football and as a result the home nation suffers very badly. Your analogy is fundamentally correct, you just draw completely the wrong conclusion.

    You know my views well with Brexit.

    Well, re English football I have to admit it seems to have nothing to do with the EU. England are simply awful. I blame Donald Trump
    It has plenty.

    Rather than develop homegrown talent the PL clubs have often gone for the cheap and easy, single market, european option, ultimately to the detriment of our national interests. The British identity of some clubs is barely visible.

    Nothing wrong with bringing in Dimitri Payet, but there's no excuse for Nicklas Bendtner.

  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664

    Ishmael_X said:

    corporeal said:



    In the 1970s Trump made a point of renting to whites only.

    If true, that is different. Though NB that that was perfectly legal in this country until 1976.
    The 1968 act covered housing iirc.
    Golly, you are quite right; and there was also a RRA 1965. I thought 1976 was the first.
  • tysontyson Posts: 6,120
    alex. said:

    tyson said:

    tyson said:

    JohnO said:

    IanB2 said:

    Scott_P said:
    The fact they are amending rather than finding a reason to oppose the opposition motion is a small sign of weakness, indicating they know not all of their backbenchers are on board with parliament being bypassed.
    A govt amendment is standard when an opposition motion is debated.
    Can someone translate that pbCOM exchange please into something someone like me could understand.
    When the opposition proposes a motion, the government would rather amend it so that the Commons agrees something the government wants than simply defeating it, which would mean the Commons taking no position at all.
    I'm still baffled....

    I have to admit my stupidity on certain points sends my wife to distraction.
    Opposition Day motions are designed to embarrass the Govt regardless of the outcome of the vote. If the Government opposes it and loses then the embarrassment is obvious. If they oppose it and win then they are embarrassed because the headlined would be that they whipped their benches to oppose what sounds like a reasonable proposition (who can oppose the principle of Parliamentary scrutiny?). So they amend it in such a way that they now can support the "reasonable" motion, but as they now effectively own it they can use their interpretation for what it means, rather than the opposition's.

    I had my IQ assessed as a toddler, it was about 80. I think it seems it has deteriorated since. I am now more bemused than ever.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,917
    tlg86 said:

    Speedy said:

    Jonathan said:

    Right now this doesn't feel like a Clinton win.

    Trump should be out of the game. But he isn't. There is something seemingly irresistible about him.

    Chuck in a Clinton wobble and some shy Trumpers and he could do better than current polls.

    No real evidence, but doesn't feel right for Clinton.

    Perhaps we should look at what the candidates are doing today.

    Hillary is campaigning in Michigan, only her 3rd time since May, this speaks trouble, she shouldn't be in Michigan.

    Trump is campaigning in Florida, his 10th time since June.
    I can certainly believe there is a sizeable shy Trump vote out there - or at least, that the Clinton campaign lose sleep over it (with a string of recent polling failures going back to Netanyahu's surprise win). Whilst staying with him through thick or thin, I imagine a swathe of Trump's supporters would find it easier to admit to pollsters that they watch pornography or strangle kittens.

    What I have found surprising is the lack of excitement at America electing its first woman President. It's almost like it isn't a factor, which is astonishing.
    On your last point I think that's explained by the fact that she's been eyeing up the job for so long that it's not really that much of a shock.
    She'd be the first woman, but the second Clinton. There's not much novelty factor when the nominee has already been a powerful figure in the Oval Office once before.

    Regarding the polls, if you look at the graph of 'don't knows' it spikes every time a Trump scandal is at mass saturation. All that happens is that people get more shy about admitting they support him.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Just switched on the TV confidently expecting England to be at least 5-0 up. Instead they're clinging on for a scoreless draw.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    tlg86 said:

    Re the football, at least we're not Scotland.

    https://twitter.com/ekiebroon/status/785934157214060544
  • tysontyson Posts: 6,120
    @Alex and Three quidder

    Sorry, I've been rude. But genuinely, really thanks for trying (in vain) to help a dimwit numbskull like myself try and understand this aspect of Parliamentary etiquette.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 73,016
    Hmmm....

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/11/us/politics/donald-trump-gop-hillary-clinton.html

    Kellyanne Conway, Mr. Trump’s campaign manager, also offered an ominous warning for Republicans fleeing Mr. Trump. She noted on television that Mr. Ryan had been booed by Trump fans over the weekend in Wisconsin and said she knew of Republican lawmakers who had behaved inappropriately toward young women, and whose criticism of Mr. Trump was therefore hypocritical....
  • Ishmael_X said:

    corporeal said:

    Ishmael_X said:



    I dont like him but it is various things, not just because he is apparently racist. Its not that binary.

    Put it this way. If I had a friend who used racist language in conversation but not actually aimingit at a person I would not like it any more than any other swearing and my reaction would depend how often they did it and what they were generally like

    If I had a friend who used racist language to a person of colour, my response would depend on the reason. If it was casual because he considered such people untermenschen then I would look to keep different company, if it was because he got into a row with that person and had used the language because he knew it would wind them up I would take a more lenient view.

    If I discovered a friend thought hitler was right about the jews or a supremacist then I would break off all contact and avoid them.

    Life isnt as black and white as some make out.

    You seem to see someone expressing any racist sentiments, even mild ones, as completely disqualifying them, whatever other redeeming features they have. Even if the opponent was corrupt, but not racist.

    I dont tbink it is tbat simple. That said Trumps a rabble rousing boor.

    Using racist language is not the same as being a racist. Trump is a racist. He believes that a judge's racial descent should disbar him from trying certain cases.

    http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/article/2016/jun/08/donald-trumps-racial-comments-about-judge-trump-un/
    That is misleading: he is not saying that Mexicans are by virtue of their race too stupid or venal or corrupt to try certain cases, he is alleging the possibility of bias. The allegation is probably barking (it is clear from the transcript to which you link that Trump is in general barking), but it is not automatically racist. Compare let's say a trial in this country for WW2 war crimes connected with the death camps: I don't know whether it would be legally possible to ask a Jewish judge to recuse himself on the grounds of possibility of bias, but the application would not necessarily be racist.

    Einstein or someone said that “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.” Similarly we should portray Trump and Clinton as being as nasty as they are, but no nastier.
    In the 1970s Trump made a point of renting to whites only.
    If true, that is different. Though NB that that was perfectly legal in this country until 1976.
    Wasn't legal in the States...

    But the "if true" is interesting.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-the-governments-racial-bias-case-against-donald-trumps-company-and-how-he-fought-it/2016/01/23/fb90163e-bfbe-11e5-bcda-62a36b394160_story.html
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    AndyJS said:

    Just switched on the TV confidently expecting England to be at least 5-0 up. Instead they're clinging on for a scoreless draw.

    If it weren't for the derby element, this would be the toughest game of the qualifiers.

    But there's still no solution to the long-term problem of breaking down teams who park the bus.
  • tysontyson Posts: 6,120
    AndyJS said:

    Just switched on the TV confidently expecting England to be at least 5-0 up. Instead they're clinging on for a scoreless draw.

    Andy...it's a terrible, dour, emotionally listless, almost suicidally negative game.

    Think Macedonia vs Italia.....and then imagine the extreme opposite.

  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,740
    I'm confused re posts re NBC/WSJ poll.

    Per RCP, Clinton lead is 9 (4 way) or 10 (2 way).

    Yesterday same poll lead was 11 (4 way) or 14 (2 way).

    So how is her lead down by 7?

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,654

    Pound is 'most overvalued currency in the world', analysts claim

    That's well before a Leave vote seemed likely. As ball-park figures, not too far off really.

    If Britain wasn't living in such a fools' paradise, we probably wouldn't have voted for Brexit (nor had such great immigration pressure in the first place).
    Our ridiculous property market follows next
  • NEW THREAD

  • Paul_BedfordshirePaul_Bedfordshire Posts: 3,632
    edited October 2016
    Ishmael_X said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    corporeal said:



    In the 1970s Trump made a point of renting to whites only.

    If true, that is different. Though NB that that was perfectly legal in this country until 1976.
    The 1968 act covered housing iirc.
    Golly, you are quite right; and there was also a RRA 1965. I thought 1976 was the first.
    Technically the first was the Railway and Canal Traffic Act 1854.

    It designated the railway companies as common carriers transporting goods and persons for the public benefit. Each railway company was now required to take all trade offered and to set and publish the same levels of fares to all in respect of any particular service.

    While modern equality issues were not the reason behind it, the effect of the law was that railways couldnt refuse to sell you a ticket or charge you extra because you were black female or whatever.

  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,658
    AndyJS said:

    Just switched on the TV confidently expecting England to be at least 5-0 up. Instead they're clinging on for a scoreless draw.

    Regardless of whether England are or are not a good team, I hardly see why they should be 'expected' to beat Slovenia 5-0 away from home! They're hardly San Marino.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 53,270
    Ishmael_X said:

    Speedy said:

    Jonathan said:

    Right now this doesn't feel like a Clinton win.

    Trump should be out of the game. But he isn't. There is something seemingly irresistible about him.

    Chuck in a Clinton wobble and some shy Trumpers and he could do better than current polls.

    No real evidence, but doesn't feel right for Clinton.

    Perhaps we should look at what the candidates are doing today.

    Hillary is campaigning in Michigan, only her 3rd time since May, this speaks trouble, she shouldn't be in Michigan.

    Trump is campaigning in Florida, his 10th time since June.
    I can certainly believe there is a sizeable shy Trump vote out there - or at least, that the Clinton campaign lose sleep over it (with a string of recent polling failures going back to Netanyahu's surprise win). Whilst staying with him through thick or thin, I imagine a swathe of Trump's supporters would find it easier to admit to pollsters that they watch pornography or strangle kittens.

    What I have found surprising is the lack of excitement at America electing its first woman President. It's almost like it isn't a factor, which is astonishing.
    Is it that exciting? Every country and political party in the world (except the Labour Party, natch) seems to be headed by a woman atm. Having a black President should have been more exciting (I'd have bet a lot 20 years ago that the first woman President would come a generation before the first black) and the thrill of that wore of quite quickly. A woman who got the job on merit rather than by matrimony would also be more impressive. The thing about Hillary is, there is absolutely nothing new to discover about her.
    Her hidden reserves of competence and openness would be a pleasant discovery, but I can't see that happening.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    alex. said:

    AndyJS said:

    Just switched on the TV confidently expecting England to be at least 5-0 up. Instead they're clinging on for a scoreless draw.

    Regardless of whether England are or are not a good team, I hardly see why they should be 'expected' to beat Slovenia 5-0 away from home! They're hardly San Marino.
    Population is only 2 million IIRC.
  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 4,295
    tyson said:

    @Alex and Three quidder

    Sorry, I've been rude. But genuinely, really thanks for trying (in vain) to help a dimwit numbskull like myself try and understand this aspect of Parliamentary etiquette.

    One final go....if not I'll leave it to Trotsky Hound.

    Opposition move motion.....invariably critical of Govt
    Government moves amendment to motion...invariably saying how wonderful it is
    MPs debate for hours
    Vote takes place on Opposition motion.....99.99% of times is defeated
    Vote immediately takes place on Govt amendment....99.99% of times is carried.
    Off to the bar.

    Woof, woof.
This discussion has been closed.