Iain Dale impressed by the 170 questions. " Iain Dale @IainDale I detect the pen of @dpmcbride in the construction of Labour's 170 questions. This is a compliment, by the way."
But this list of 170 could eventually work in favour of the Govt by listing all the issues that need to be answered in one go and provide the catalyst for the civil servants and Ministers to create the framework for the Govt's Brexit policy and negotiating strategy.
What Labour may have done is to reveal 90%+ of the questions instead of issuing the questions one by one and possibly creating the opportunity for Govt to make mistakes in the individual replies.
Theresa May has been forced to give way in a row with MPs over how much influence Parliament has over her Brexit plan.
The Prime Minister was effectively pushed into allowing Tory MPs to vote for a Labour motion calling for greater scrutiny of her Brexit proposals, after it became clear some were planning to do so anyway.
Theresa's got to call a general election and secure a landslide.
She's not going to be able to achieve Brexit with Cameron's small majority, that much seems increasingly obvious.
I'm coming to the view that she needs to fight an election on a Brexit platform, with all official Conservative candidates signing up to it.
I think you're right. By leaving the decision over who can trigger Article 50 to the courts, she has effectively ceded the initiative to those are who likely to oppose Brexit. All the courts need to do is drag out the proceedings into Jan/Feb next year, and then rule it's not a prerogative power. Even if TM could get a one line Article 50 bill through Parliament, I doubt she'd be able to do it before her self-imposed deadline.
The public will not understand a delay of nearly a year in starting the process, and they will not be forgiving. Wholesale defection by Leave voters will see the Tory share slump, and UKIP rise.
Potentially, she is courting disaster.
If she avoids the need to complete negotiations before 2020 and gets to blame the courts for it then that would be ideal. Sooner or later either the pro-trade side or the anti-immigration side is going to have to open a box and find their beloved cat is dead; She'll have a much easier election if this doesn't happen until 2021.
I refer remainers to the best thing I have ever read on Brexit, Bogdanor's letter to the Times.
“Sir, I voted Remain, but clearly my standpoint has not found favour with the British people, 72 per cent of whom turned out in the referendum, the highest turnout since the the general election of 1992. Turnout seems to have been highest among Leave voters and lowest among Remain voters. Yet the former are now told by academics, lawyers and others that, as the Bishop of Durham suggests (letter, July 2), they were not voting on the EU at all but on “longstanding social grievances”. Others also have suggested that Leave voters did not know what they were doing, or were bigoted (though bigotry in the form of antisemitism is more likely to be found among university students or on the Labour left than in the pubs of Sunderland or Hartlepool).
The arguments against accepting the legitimacy of the outcome of the referendum are similar to those used in the 19th century against extending the franchise. Were they to succeed, the poorer members of the community might well begin to ask whether democracy has anything at all to offer them; and that would be a very dangerous development. VERNON BOGDANOR, Professor of Government, KCL”
That is - of course - absolutely correct.
The only argument now is about the nature of Brexit.
The corollary of that is that Parliament must be stuffed full of short-termist idiots, because if that's how it is then they should have said in the Referendum Act that the referendum result would be binding.
Witney by election appears to have the makings of the Sutton and Cheam by election in 1972.
What makes you say that? Comments on the Vote UK site from a Lib Dem activist campaigning there suggest that they're looking to a decent second place as the limit of their ambition.
Realistically, the conditions aren't right for a LD spectacular. The Conservatives are not sufficiently unpopular as a governing party and the Lib Dems are not sufficiently untainted from their time in government to act as the bucket protest vote party that they once were for Labour-inclined voters in seats like this.
The scenario where the LibDem wins looks like this:
1. Turnout collapses. Everyone assumes it's a safe Conservative victory, and few people go out to vote. Remember that Manchester Central in 2012 was 18.2%, and Leeds Central in 1999 was 19.6%. Perhaps Kensington & Chelsea (a similarly safe Tory seat) is the best analog, where turnout was below 30%.
2. A lot of Remain Tories lend their votes to the LibDems, either to try and discourage Hard Brexit or to reverse the result entirely.
3. Labour voters (a) see the LibDems as the challenge to the Conservatives in Witney, and/or (b) want to send a message that Mr Corbyn is not to their liking.
4. UKIP does surprisingly well, perhaps because Conservative Hard Brexit-ers want to send a message discouraging Mrs May from backsliding.
5. The LibDems do an incredible job of hoovering up the Green vote.
Do I think that's likely? No. Am I tempted by 8-1 on the LibDems? No.
Is it possible?
Yes.
Assume 30% turnout, and UKIP on 15 to 20%, and the LibDems would need about 9,000 votes to win the by-election. That's a possible in my book, but I'd want someone to offer me 25-1!
Incoming Trumpers decrying the veracity of the LA Times tracker...5-4-3-2-1
The poor LA Times Tracker gets a hard press! It has an unorthodox methodology and a GOP house effect but it's not necessarily a bad poll – and is fine for benchmarking.
Even its promoters explain why it shows such a lag – it uses the same 3,000 voters (IIRC) and every time each one is asked again they are given a week to answer!! Hence it's very 'stable' but also extremely slow to respond to events.
That Hillary is now ahead removes the final comfort blanket for (most) Trumpers. Plato, however, will pop up shortly to reassure her flock that Trump remains well ahead in Idaho.
Witney by election appears to have the makings of the Sutton and Cheam by election in 1972.
What makes you say that? Comments on the Vote UK site from a Lib Dem activist campaigning there suggest that they're looking to a decent second place as the limit of their ambition.
Realistically, the conditions aren't right for a LD spectacular. The Conservatives are not sufficiently unpopular as a governing party and the Lib Dems are not sufficiently untainted from their time in government to act as the bucket protest vote party that they once were for Labour-inclined voters in seats like this.
Yet you've felt the need to come on here and comment as a good Conservative activist. I must admit there's been very little coverage of Witney - that will probably change early next week.
I'm simply asking for the evidence. I don't like seeing unsupported assertions (ramping) on a betting discussion site. I've given my reasoning as to why I think it'll be a fairly comfortable hold, albeit with a smaller Con vote share and even bigger reduction in vote lead. What's the argument to think that the LDs will do even better?
We might pay for market access but we won't be in the "Single Market" for the reason I said and that was mentioned in that article CarlottaVance posted. It seems very unlikely that the EU will compromise in that regard.
He's hugely talented but goes walkabout. I watch his matches very carefully and usually bet against him early doors. Zverev Snr is a decent professional and will not be phased by the Oz antics.
I refer remainers to the best thing I have ever read on Brexit, Bogdanor's letter to the Times.
“Sir, I voted Remain, but clearly my standpoint has not found favour with the British people, 72 per cent of whom turned out in the referendum, the highest turnout since the the general election of 1992. Turnout seems to have been highest among Leave voters and lowest among Remain voters. Yet the former are now told by academics, lawyers and others that, as the Bishop of Durham suggests (letter, July 2), they were not voting on the EU at all but on “longstanding social grievances”. Others also have suggested that Leave voters did not know what they were doing, or were bigoted (though bigotry in the form of antisemitism is more likely to be found among university students or on the Labour left than in the pubs of Sunderland or Hartlepool).
The arguments against accepting the legitimacy of the outcome of the referendum are similar to those used in the 19th century against extending the franchise. Were they to succeed, the poorer members of the community might well begin to ask whether democracy has anything at all to offer them; and that would be a very dangerous development. VERNON BOGDANOR, Professor of Government, KCL”
That is - of course - absolutely correct.
The only argument now is about the nature of Brexit.
On which Mr Navabi linked to an excellent article:
Will Brexit take the U.K. out of the single market?
Membership of the single market, according to the EU treaty and settled EU doctrine, requires upholding four supposedly indivisible freedoms -- free trade in goods, services and capital, and free movement of people.
The fourth freedom is avowedly political, not economic: Its purpose is to dissolve the EU's internal borders. This supranational character of the European Union project is the very thing Britain objects to, and the very thing the EU insists on.
So yes, Brexit means rejecting the fourth freedom, which in turn means no longer being a member of the single market.
Nobody should have needed May's speech for clarification on this.
Presumably when Sterling approached parity with the US Dollar in the eighties it was stronger against other world countries?
Or to put it another way, was the eighties trough in the USD vs GBP due to the strength of the $ rather than the weakness of the £, unlike the current situation?
Witney by election appears to have the makings of the Sutton and Cheam by election in 1972.
What makes you say that? Comments on the Vote UK site from a Lib Dem activist campaigning there suggest that they're looking to a decent second place as the limit of their ambition.
Realistically, the conditions aren't right for a LD spectacular. The Conservatives are not sufficiently unpopular as a governing party and the Lib Dems are not sufficiently untainted from their time in government to act as the bucket protest vote party that they once were for Labour-inclined voters in seats like this.
The scenario where the LibDem wins looks like this:
1. Turnout collapses. Everyone assumes it's a safe Conservative victory, and few people go out to vote. Remember that Manchester Central in 2012 was 18.2%, and Leeds Central in 1999 was 19.6%. Perhaps Kensington & Chelsea (a similarly safe Tory seat) is the best analog, where turnout was below 30%.
2. A lot of Remain Tories lend their votes to the LibDems, either to try and discourage Hard Brexit or to reverse the result entirely.
3. Labour voters (a) see the LibDems as the challenge to the Conservatives in Witney, and/or (b) want to send a message that Mr Corbyn is not to their liking.
4. UKIP does surprisingly well, perhaps because Conservative Hard Brexit-ers want to send a message discouraging Mrs May from backsliding.
5. The LibDems do an incredible job of hoovering up the Green vote.
Do I think that's likely? No. Am I tempted by 8-1 on the LibDems? No.
Is it possible?
Yes.
Assume 30% turnout, and UKIP on 15 to 20%, and the LibDems would need about 9,000 votes to win the by-election. That's a possible in my book, but I'd want someone to offer me 25-1!
How did you get so quickly from a scenario which you said appeared to be in the making, to an assessment that its fair price likelihood is around a 4% chance?
We could have a fun day on PB predicting scenarios that would only come about one time in twenty five!
Although come to think of it, maybe that is what we actually do?
Incoming Trumpers decrying the veracity of the LA Times tracker...5-4-3-2-1
The poor LA Times Tracker gets a hard press! It has an unorthodox methodology and a GOP house effect but it's not necessarily a bad poll – and is fine for benchmarking.
Even its promoters explain why it shows such a lag – it uses the same 3,000 voters (IIRC) and every time each one is asked again they are given a week to answer!! Hence it's very 'stable' but also extremely slow to respond to events.
That Hillary is now ahead removes the final comfort blanket for (most) Trumpers. Plato, however, will pop up shortly to reassure her flock that Trump remains well ahead in Idaho.
So there's a fair chance that Pussygate and Debate II have still to completely blow through?
Incoming Trumpers decrying the veracity of the LA Times tracker...5-4-3-2-1
The poor LA Times Tracker gets a hard press! It has an unorthodox methodology and a GOP house effect but it's not necessarily a bad poll – and is fine for benchmarking.
Even its promoters explain why it shows such a lag – it uses the same 3,000 voters (IIRC) and every time each one is asked again they are given a week to answer!! Hence it's very 'stable' but also extremely slow to respond to events.
That Hillary is now ahead removes the final comfort blanket for (most) Trumpers. Plato, however, will pop up shortly to reassure her flock that Trump remains well ahead in Idaho.
That's my problem with it: if there are inherent problems with the 3000 people, then it's going to be wrong throughout, and it seems there are problems with their tabs.
538 say you should add 5 to Clinton's for it be more accurate ( though they don't put that adjusted figure in their poll of polls)
I'm sure Trump tripling down on his current campaign strategy will work wonders.
We might pay for market access but we won't be in the "Single Market" for the reason I said and that was mentioned in that article CarlottaVance posted. It seems very unlikely that the EU will compromise in that regard.
There are compromises that could be reached. Whether they will or not is another matter.
For example, the UK could say it respects Freedom of Movement while instituting changes that make it less free - i.e. no benefits for migrants (perhaps a move to contibutory), and a residency (or job offer) test on getting an NI card. Perhaps a requirement (as already exists for EU pensioners in the UK) to buy private health insurance. All these things would dramatically reduce the amount of unskilled immigration, while allowing the EU to claim we'd accepted the Four Freedoms.
Witney by election appears to have the makings of the Sutton and Cheam by election in 1972.
What makes you say that? Comments on the Vote UK site from a Lib Dem activist campaigning there suggest that they're looking to a decent second place as the limit of their ambition.
Realistically, the conditions aren't right for a LD spectacular. The Conservatives are not sufficiently unpopular as a governing party and the Lib Dems are not sufficiently untainted from their time in government to act as the bucket protest vote party that they once were for Labour-inclined voters in seats like this.
The scenario where the LibDem wins looks like this:
1. Turnout collapses. Everyone assumes it's a safe Conservative victory, and few people go out to vote. Remember that Manchester Central in 2012 was 18.2%, and Leeds Central in 1999 was 19.6%. Perhaps Kensington & Chelsea (a similarly safe Tory seat) is the best analog, where turnout was below 30%.
2. A lot of Remain Tories lend their votes to the LibDems, either to try and discourage Hard Brexit or to reverse the result entirely.
3. Labour voters (a) see the LibDems as the challenge to the Conservatives in Witney, and/or (b) want to send a message that Mr Corbyn is not to their liking.
4. UKIP does surprisingly well, perhaps because Conservative Hard Brexit-ers want to send a message discouraging Mrs May from backsliding.
5. The LibDems do an incredible job of hoovering up the Green vote.
Do I think that's likely? No. Am I tempted by 8-1 on the LibDems? No.
Is it possible?
Yes.
Assume 30% turnout, and UKIP on 15 to 20%, and the LibDems would need about 9,000 votes to win the by-election. That's a possible in my book, but I'd want someone to offer me 25-1!
I think that you also need to factor in a fall in the personal vote of a popular PM, and that voters do not like resignation by elections, while often back the incumbent party when the byelection is brought by the grim reaper.
It will be a comfortable Tory hold, and I think the LD vote will be about 25%, with the Corbynites keeping Labour above 10%.
A PB NOJAM contest would be a pleasant change from Brexit and Trump Tinfoilhattery re-tweets.
Presumably when Sterling approached parity with the US Dollar in the eighties it was stronger against other world countries?
Or to put it another way, was the eighties trough in the USD vs GBP due to the strength of the $ rather than the weakness of the £, unlike the current situation?
More that the dollar's position as global reserve currency has strengthened since then, with a general flight to (perceived) safety as the world moved into financial crisis. So the £ is as weak against currencies generally as it was in the 80s but weaker still against the $.
Incoming Trumpers decrying the veracity of the LA Times tracker...5-4-3-2-1
The poor LA Times Tracker gets a hard press! It has an unorthodox methodology and a GOP house effect but it's not necessarily a bad poll – and is fine for benchmarking.
Even its promoters explain why it shows such a lag – it uses the same 3,000 voters (IIRC) and every time each one is asked again they are given a week to answer!! Hence it's very 'stable' but also extremely slow to respond to events.
That Hillary is now ahead removes the final comfort blanket for (most) Trumpers. Plato, however, will pop up shortly to reassure her flock that Trump remains well ahead in Idaho.
So there's a fair chance that Pussygate and Debate II have still to completely blow through?
In all the polls, yes. Nate said on twitter that this Friday should have a clearer picture of how the race is post pussygate and debate. At the moment, based on national polls so far, and that UTAH one with them tied, it's looking REALLY bad for Trump
Witney by election appears to have the makings of the Sutton and Cheam by election in 1972.
What makes you say that? Comments on the Vote UK site from a Lib Dem activist campaigning there suggest that they're looking to a decent second place as the limit of their ambition.
Realistically, the conditions aren't right for a LD spectacular. The Conservatives are not sufficiently unpopular as a governing party and the Lib Dems are not sufficiently untainted from their time in government to act as the bucket protest vote party that they once were for Labour-inclined voters in seats like this.
The scenario where the LibDem wins looks like this:
1. Turnout collapses. Everyone assumes it's a safe Conservative victory, and few people go out to vote. Remember that Manchester Central in 2012 was 18.2%, and Leeds Central in 1999 was 19.6%. Perhaps Kensington & Chelsea (a similarly safe Tory seat) is the best analog, where turnout was below 30%.
2. A lot of Remain Tories lend their votes to the LibDems, either to try and discourage Hard Brexit or to reverse the result entirely.
3. Labour voters (a) see the LibDems as the challenge to the Conservatives in Witney, and/or (b) want to send a message that Mr Corbyn is not to their liking.
4. UKIP does surprisingly well, perhaps because Conservative Hard Brexit-ers want to send a message discouraging Mrs May from backsliding.
5. The LibDems do an incredible job of hoovering up the Green vote.
Do I think that's likely? No. Am I tempted by 8-1 on the LibDems? No.
Is it possible?
Yes.
Assume 30% turnout, and UKIP on 15 to 20%, and the LibDems would need about 9,000 votes to win the by-election. That's a possible in my book, but I'd want someone to offer me 25-1!
How did you get so quickly from a scenario which you said appeared to be in the making, to an assessment that its fair price likelihood is around a 4% chance?
We could have a fun day on PB predicting scenarios that would only come about one time in twenty five!
Although come to think of it, maybe that is what we actually do?
Those wishing a further negotiation or re-negotiation process can suggest that in their 2020 election manifestos and explain the areas of the Treaty with which they disagree or which they think can be improved.
Yes, take back control. Let Parliament Vote.
How realistic is it to expect something like this to be dealt with behind closed doors with the details kept secret for two years or more, anyway? In a modern media-driven democracy I would say it would be almost impossible. Just look at last night's Newsnight story, picked up elsewhere in today's media, about the possibility of our continuing to make payments to the EU through some kind of support fund for Eastern Europe. If you dig into the story the whole thing appears to be based on a comment by an unnamed cabinet minister and some off the record briefing by a civil servant.
The Government would be well advised to try a more open and transparent approach to A50 and the negotiations, since the alternative is years of similar stories and leaks based on unattributable comments, true or false, with the markets needlessly spooked as each new rumour starts going around.
If we say in public "this is our starting position, and this is our fallback position", the other side in the negotiations will start with the fallback position and work from there.
That's right. That's the problem of transparency of our negotiating strategy.
But the other big problem is the lack of trust in the three Brexiteers (and possibly May) in their objectives and priorities (beyond the bland "best deal for Britain").
As an example take reversion to free trading to WTO rules.
I suspect Fox sees that as a desirable objective so it is in his interest that the negotiations run out of time, or that we threaten WTO in our negotiation and the EU calls our bluff.
But Johnson might see the WTO option as an undesirable fallback position but acceptable. But one that could be used in the negotiations with the risk it actually happens.
Hammond might see the WTO option as economically crippling and would explicitly rule it out, even as a negotiating tactic.
The negotiators need a brief outlining the constraints within which they can negotiate. Some constraints have already been made public. Control of our borders. Access (not necessarily membership) of the single market. More could be made public without undermining our negotiating position.
Parliament has a role in this. If Parliament agrees on some constraints or priorities, it could actually strengthen the hand of the negotiators.
It is useful in negotiations to be able to say "The boss wouldn't agree to that", the boss in this case being Parliament.
I refer remainers to the best thing I have ever read on Brexit, Bogdanor's letter to the Times.
“Sir, I voted Remain, but clearly my standpoint has not found favour with the British people, 72 per cent of whom turned out in the referendum, the highest turnout since the the general election of 1992. Turnout seems to have been highest among Leave voters and lowest among Remain voters. Yet the former are now told by academics, lawyers and others that, as the Bishop of Durham suggests (letter, July 2), they were not voting on the EU at all but on “longstanding social grievances”. Others also have suggested that Leave voters did not know what they were doing, or were bigoted (though bigotry in the form of antisemitism is more likely to be found among university students or on the Labour left than in the pubs of Sunderland or Hartlepool).
The arguments against accepting the legitimacy of the outcome of the referendum are similar to those used in the 19th century against extending the franchise. Were they to succeed, the poorer members of the community might well begin to ask whether democracy has anything at all to offer them; and that would be a very dangerous development. VERNON BOGDANOR, Professor of Government, KCL”
That is - of course - absolutely correct.
The only argument now is about the nature of Brexit.
On which Mr Navabi linked to an excellent article:
Will Brexit take the U.K. out of the single market?
Membership of the single market, according to the EU treaty and settled EU doctrine, requires upholding four supposedly indivisible freedoms -- free trade in goods, services and capital, and free movement of people.
The fourth freedom is avowedly political, not economic: Its purpose is to dissolve the EU's internal borders. This supranational character of the European Union project is the very thing Britain objects to, and the very thing the EU insists on.
So yes, Brexit means rejecting the fourth freedom, which in turn means no longer being a member of the single market.
Nobody should have needed May's speech for clarification on this.
Apart from our own dear TSE, who still carries a candle for George, and is in mourning over Dave, I fear its 'David who?' and 'George I used to see him on the telly - where is he now?'
Witney by election appears to have the makings of the Sutton and Cheam by election in 1972.
What makes you say that? Comments on the Vote UK site from a Lib Dem activist campaigning there suggest that they're looking to a decent second place as the limit of their ambition.
Realistically, the conditions aren't right for a LD spectacular. The Conservatives are not sufficiently unpopular as a governing party and the Lib Dems are not sufficiently untainted from their time in government to act as the bucket protest vote party that they once were for Labour-inclined voters in seats like this.
The scenario where the LibDem wins looks like this:
1. Turnout collapses. Everyone assumes it's a safe Conservative victory, and few people go out to vote. Remember that Manchester Central in 2012 was 18.2%, and Leeds Central in 1999 was 19.6%. Perhaps Kensington & Chelsea (a similarly safe Tory seat) is the best analog, where turnout was below 30%.
2. A lot of Remain Tories lend their votes to the LibDems, either to try and discourage Hard Brexit or to reverse the result entirely.
3. Labour voters (a) see the LibDems as the challenge to the Conservatives in Witney, and/or (b) want to send a message that Mr Corbyn is not to their liking.
4. UKIP does surprisingly well, perhaps because Conservative Hard Brexit-ers want to send a message discouraging Mrs May from backsliding.
5. The LibDems do an incredible job of hoovering up the Green vote.
Do I think that's likely? No. Am I tempted by 8-1 on the LibDems? No.
Is it possible?
Yes.
Assume 30% turnout, and UKIP on 15 to 20%, and the LibDems would need about 9,000 votes to win the by-election. That's a possible in my book, but I'd want someone to offer me 25-1!
How did you get so quickly from a scenario which you said appeared to be in the making, to an assessment that its fair price likelihood is around a 4% chance?
We could have a fun day on PB predicting scenarios that would only come about one time in twenty five!
Although come to think of it, maybe that is what we actually do?
OK. I've just chucked a fiver on Betfair at 24s!
Seems like a reasonably random bet
I don't bet randomly! So I don't bet as often as some folk.
True odds of ~1.01 (99% for a Tory win) and odds offered of 1.33/1.5 always tempt me though as at last election. If you work in the financial field, I'd have thought you too would be more 'an investor in the politics market' than a bettor.
I really think a lot of people imagined we would invoke A50 on the morning of Friday 24th June and had we done so, I think we would have been in an infinitely worse position than we are.
I'm sorry, but that is complete bollocks.
You're not getting away with that - which part of it, in what way ?
Are you suggesting that had we invoked A50 on June 24th, we would be in a better position now ? How so ? In what way ?
Well, for a start, we wouldn't have had three months of bad losers trying to stop A50 being invoked...
Apart from the application for judicial review
If A50 had been invoked on June 24th (or, more likely, June 27th) and accepted by the EU, there couldn't have been a judicial review.
Yes there could. The remedy would for the government to contact the Commission again to tell them the letter had been sent unlawfully and ask for it to be unaccepted. What if someone slipped something into Theresa May's drink and made her write a letter because she thought the aliens were telling her to, and the Commission didn't realise? Would it be a matter of "Sorry. Done's done"?
Given that now we've voted to Leave they're rather keen for us to get on with it...
Comments
" Iain Dale @IainDale I detect the pen of @dpmcbride in the construction of Labour's 170 questions. This is a compliment, by the way."
But this list of 170 could eventually work in favour of the Govt by listing all the issues that need to be answered in one go and provide the catalyst for the civil servants and Ministers to create the framework for the Govt's Brexit policy and negotiating strategy.
What Labour may have done is to reveal 90%+ of the questions instead of issuing the questions one by one and possibly creating the opportunity for Govt to make mistakes in the individual replies.
1. Turnout collapses. Everyone assumes it's a safe Conservative victory, and few people go out to vote. Remember that Manchester Central in 2012 was 18.2%, and Leeds Central in 1999 was 19.6%. Perhaps Kensington & Chelsea (a similarly safe Tory seat) is the best analog, where turnout was below 30%.
2. A lot of Remain Tories lend their votes to the LibDems, either to try and discourage Hard Brexit or to reverse the result entirely.
3. Labour voters (a) see the LibDems as the challenge to the Conservatives in Witney, and/or (b) want to send a message that Mr Corbyn is not to their liking.
4. UKIP does surprisingly well, perhaps because Conservative Hard Brexit-ers want to send a message discouraging Mrs May from backsliding.
5. The LibDems do an incredible job of hoovering up the Green vote.
Do I think that's likely? No.
Am I tempted by 8-1 on the LibDems? No.
Is it possible?
Yes.
Assume 30% turnout, and UKIP on 15 to 20%, and the LibDems would need about 9,000 votes to win the by-election. That's a possible in my book, but I'd want someone to offer me 25-1!
Even its promoters explain why it shows such a lag – it uses the same 3,000 voters (IIRC) and every time each one is asked again they are given a week to answer!! Hence it's very 'stable' but also extremely slow to respond to events.
That Hillary is now ahead removes the final comfort blanket for (most) Trumpers. Plato, however, will pop up shortly to reassure her flock that Trump remains well ahead in Idaho.
http://order-order.com/2016/10/12/brexit-means-leaving-single-market/
Or to put it another way, was the eighties trough in the USD vs GBP due to the strength of the $ rather than the weakness of the £, unlike the current situation?
We could have a fun day on PB predicting scenarios that would only come about one time in twenty five!
Although come to think of it, maybe that is what we actually do?
538 say you should add 5 to Clinton's for it be more accurate ( though they don't put that adjusted figure in their poll of polls)
I'm sure Trump tripling down on his current campaign strategy will work wonders.
For example, the UK could say it respects Freedom of Movement while instituting changes that make it less free - i.e. no benefits for migrants (perhaps a move to contibutory), and a residency (or job offer) test on getting an NI card. Perhaps a requirement (as already exists for EU pensioners in the UK) to buy private health insurance. All these things would dramatically reduce the amount of unskilled immigration, while allowing the EU to claim we'd accepted the Four Freedoms.
It will be a comfortable Tory hold, and I think the LD vote will be about 25%, with the Corbynites keeping Labour above 10%.
A PB NOJAM contest would be a pleasant change from Brexit and Trump Tinfoilhattery re-tweets.
Perhaps after defeating Mrs May over grammar schools in a recent encounter, Jez might have another winning performance today.
To lose one PMQs to Corbyn would be unfortunate, to lose two PMQs to Corbyn, and I'd hate to be Graham Brady's postman.
NEW THREAD
Seems like a reasonably random bet
Edit. Wins 6:3 6:1
But the other big problem is the lack of trust in the three Brexiteers (and possibly May) in their objectives and priorities (beyond the bland "best deal for Britain").
As an example take reversion to free trading to WTO rules.
I suspect Fox sees that as a desirable objective so it is in his interest that the negotiations run out of time, or that we threaten WTO in our negotiation and the EU calls our bluff.
But Johnson might see the WTO option as an undesirable fallback position but acceptable. But one that could be used in the negotiations with the risk it actually happens.
Hammond might see the WTO option as economically crippling and would explicitly rule it out, even as a negotiating tactic.
The negotiators need a brief outlining the constraints within which they can negotiate. Some constraints have already been made public. Control of our borders. Access (not necessarily membership) of the single market. More could be made public without undermining our negotiating position.
Parliament has a role in this. If Parliament agrees on some constraints or priorities, it could actually strengthen the hand of the negotiators.
It is useful in negotiations to be able to say "The boss wouldn't agree to that", the boss in this case being Parliament.
True odds of ~1.01 (99% for a Tory win) and odds offered of 1.33/1.5 always tempt me though as at last election.
If you work in the financial field, I'd have thought you too would be more 'an investor in the politics market' than a bettor.