politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A look at the betting options if Theresa May falls

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A look at the betting options if Theresa May falls

Theresa May’s position currently looks unassailable. Her speech last week was very well received by the public and her opinion poll leads are overwhelming. For now, her honeymoon with voters shows few signs of abating and she stands dominant over the British political scene.

Read the full story here

RobD

First, glorious first!

MikeSmithson

The next thread from me will be after tomorrow's Supreme Court ruling due at 0930 GMT

The assumption is that the claim will be upheld. A big question is whether the court will impose some complicating conditions or will it be simple.

Big_G_NorthWales

You don't mention Fallon - he was very cool and assured under pressure today

However, I think TM is secure for a long time

FrancisUrquhart

Dispatches on ch4 dancing around why these factories can get away with paying workers £3 an hour.

SandyRentool

Questions to which the answer is Priti Patel.

Or maybe Liz Truss.

williamglenn

If she falls it can only be in the context of a major Brexit crisis so I would think Hammond or Rudd would be favourites as the most senior Cabinet members not directly implicated, although Hammond may be brought down too.

rcs1000

If anyone feels the 18/1 on Tim Farron is not generous enough, I'm happy to offer 25/1.

RobD

SandyRentool said:

Questions to which the answer is Priti Patel.

Or maybe Liz Truss.

Liz Truss?

MyBurningEars

FPT

FrancisUrquhart said:

The Brexit narrative says the referendum result is untouchable, but there are ways to reverse the decision

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/23/leave-vote-labour-brexit-referendum-result?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Dangerous, dangerous road to tread down. There must be some Tory moderate-remainers rubbing their hands at the idea of Labour having a civil war over whether to commit to rejoining in the 2020 or 2025 manifesto.

SandyRentool

RobD said:

SandyRentool said:

Questions to which the answer is Priti Patel.

Or maybe Liz Truss.

Liz Truss?

Clearly has to be another woman. Political parties are only allowed to appoint female leaders these days, aren't they?

viewcode

Um, the wording is wrong. It says "Market to be settled on the Prime Minister appointed after the next UK general election, regardless of when this takes place." But the PM doesn't cease to be PM during the election: it's a bit of a wiki myth. If May is PM before the election and CON wins, then May continues to be PM: she isn't (re)appointed. So...how is this bet to be settled?

Hertsmere_Pubgoer

SandyRentool said:

Questions to which the answer is Priti Patel.

There are a number of questions for the given answer. Unfortunately it's pre lagershed still.

isam

When bets such as these are suggested, I'd like to see the authors % chances of each required scenario. Sometimes big prices are just a cover for bad value

So what is the percentage chance that

a) May is forced out before next GE
x chance of
b) each person winning subsequent leadership election
x chance of
c) that person then winning/being senior partner in coalition after the next GE

HYUFD

If May falls before the next election the most likely reason would be the Tories felt her Brexit deal was not hard enough, in which case a hard Brexiteer former Cabinet Minister like Owen Paterson would be a good bet. Most likely though she survives and wins the next election and hands over to Phillip Hammond halfway through the next Parliament

ydoethur

Curious that Hammond is 10-1 to be next PM (joint 2nd favourite with Corbyn) and yet 100-1 to be PM after the next election. I would have thought given his age unless May stumbles in the next 18 months his time will pass. So if he is not PM at the time of the next election it is most unlikely he ever will be and one set of odds are wrong (or presupposing an election this year).

Also faintly ridiculous that Corbyn is at 11/2. It is not him personally that's the problem, that could be overcome (cf Trump) - it's the fact that his policy proposals are mostly mind blowingly unappealing that will kill him off (there appears to be some evidence of this in Copeland, although the nuclear aspect may well be exaggerating it - would be interesting to see comparable data from Stoke).

For me next PM is a mug's game. Right now there are so many possible variables that pretty much the only thing I'm sure of is that it will be a Conservative, and a lot will depend on Brexit negotiations and how far Osborne, May and Boris are perceived to have succeeded or failed in them. (Incidentally I would be astonished if any of those three were the next PM, but the one who comes out best will be well placed to influence the result in favour of a protégé.)

ydoethur

HYUFD said:

If May falls before the next election the most likely reason would be the Tories felt her Brexit deal was not hard enough, in which case a hard Brexiteer former Cabinet Minister like Owen Patterson would be a good bet. Most likely though she survives and wins the next election and hands over to Phillip Hammond halfway through the next Parliament

You think May will hand over to somebody nearly a year older than her who will then be in his mid-sixties?

Can't see it myself. If it's a managed handover my guess is it will be a younger figure who will keep Hammond in situ to smooth the transition.

SandyRentool

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

SandyRentool said:

Questions to which the answer is Priti Patel.

There are a number of questions for the given answer. Unfortunately it's pre lagershed still.

In this case the family-friendly question is: Which pro-Brexit member of the cabinet might want to be PM and might win a leadership election if May goes all soft-Brexit on us?

Philip_Thompson

I'm not sure the prices for Farage, Miliband or Farron do provide perspective as these are surely all lays at that price - but only the bookie is laying.

Anyone who backs those at that price is just filling Sky's coffers rather than providing context for the alternative choices.

viewcode

isam said:

When bets such as these are suggested, I'd like to see the authors % chances of each required scenario. Sometimes big prices are just a cover for bad value

So what is the percentage chance that

a) May is forced out before next GE
x chance of
b) each person winning subsequent leadership election
x chance of
c) that person then winning/being senior partner in coalition after the next GE

I'm going to ask you a question: it's got nothing to do with Brexit, UKIP or anything political, OK? It's a question about probabilities and how we use them. The question is:

"How do you measure the *accuracy* of a probablistic prediction?"

If somebody says there is a 55% chance that May will win, and May wins...what was the accuracy of that prediction?
If somebody says there is a 45% chance that May will win, and May wins...what was the accuracy of that prediction?

There isn't a right answer to this: just tell me how *you* would judge it.

HYUFD

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

If May falls before the next election the most likely reason would be the Tories felt her Brexit deal was not hard enough, in which case a hard Brexiteer former Cabinet Minister like Owen Patterson would be a good bet. Most likely though she survives and wins the next election and hands over to Phillip Hammond halfway through the next Parliament

You think May will hand over to somebody nearly a year older than her who will then be in his mid-sixties?

Can't see it myself. If it's a managed handover my guess is it will be a younger figure who will keep Hammond in situ to smooth the transition.

Trump has just been elected President at 70 and May's successor would have to take over as PM straight away. If not Hammond she hands over to it would almost certainly be the Foreign Secretary or Home Secretary of the day

williamglenn

HYUFD said:

If May falls before the next election the most likely reason would be the Tories felt her Brexit deal was not hard enough

I think the opposite scenario is more likely. She fails to get a deal and the party and parliament baulk at driving the country off a cliff.

MyBurningEars

viewcode said:

isam said:

When bets such as these are suggested, I'd like to see the authors % chances of each required scenario. Sometimes big prices are just a cover for bad value

So what is the percentage chance that

a) May is forced out before next GE
x chance of
b) each person winning subsequent leadership election
x chance of
c) that person then winning/being senior partner in coalition after the next GE

I'm going to ask you a question: it's got nothing to do with Brexit, UKIP or anything political, OK? It's a question about probabilities and how we use them. The question is:

"How do you measure the *accuracy* of a probablistic prediction?"

If somebody says there is a 55% chance that May will win, and May wins...what was the accuracy of that prediction?
If somebody says there is a 45% chance that May will win, and May wins...what was the accuracy of that prediction?

There isn't a right answer to this: just tell me how *you* would judge it.

As a statto, you'll know this of course, but

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scoring_rule

would be a good read for anyone with a semi-technical bent.

HYUFD

williamglenn said:

HYUFD said:

If May falls before the next election the most likely reason would be the Tories felt her Brexit deal was not hard enough

I think the opposite scenario is more likely. She fails to get a deal and the party and parliament baulk at driving the country off a cliff.

No chance, Tory voters back hard Brexit by a clear majority and Tory members even more so, there is next to zero chance of May being replaced by a more soft Brexit candidate given there are enough hard Brexit Tory MPs to put such a candidate in the final two to members, as I said Owen Paterson would be a good bet to fill the gap Leadsom left. A Paterson v Corbyn election would certainly be interesting

isam

viewcode said:

isam said:

When bets such as these are suggested, I'd like to see the authors % chances of each required scenario. Sometimes big prices are just a cover for bad value

So what is the percentage chance that

a) May is forced out before next GE
x chance of
b) each person winning subsequent leadership election
x chance of
c) that person then winning/being senior partner in coalition after the next GE

I'm going to ask you a question: it's got nothing to do with Brexit, UKIP or anything political, OK? It's a question about probabilities and how we use them. The question is:

"How do you measure the *accuracy* of a probablistic prediction?"

If somebody says there is a 55% chance that May will win, and May wins...what was the accuracy of that prediction?
If somebody says there is a 45% chance that May will win, and May wins...what was the accuracy of that prediction?

There isn't a right answer to this: just tell me how *you* would judge it.

Well they are both 100% accurate I'd say

FrancisUrquhart

Ch4 managed to do a whole programme and not once mentioned the elephant in the room..all the staff are illegal immigrants. Bizzare.

Pong

viewcode said:

Um, the wording is wrong. It says "Market to be settled on the Prime Minister appointed after the next UK general election, regardless of when this takes place." But the PM doesn't cease to be PM during the election: it's a bit of a wiki myth. If May is PM before the election and CON wins, then May continues to be PM: she isn't (re)appointed. So...how is this bet to be settled?

The wording might not be 100% constitutionally correct, but I think it's safe to assume the bet on theresa may @ 1/3 will pay out if she's re-elected - and all others will be losers.

Hertsmere_Pubgoer

SandyRentool said:

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

SandyRentool said:

Questions to which the answer is Priti Patel.

There are a number of questions for the given answer. Unfortunately it's pre lagershed still.

In this case the family-friendly question is: Which pro-Brexit member of the cabinet might want to be PM and might win a leadership election if May goes all soft-Brexit on us?

Indeed. She needs a freeer hand to cut dfid back to a sensible size.

pbr2013

FPT - tyson, don't try to rope Roth in on your side.

viewcode

isam said:

viewcode said:

isam said:

When bets such as these are suggested, I'd like to see the authors % chances of each required scenario. Sometimes big prices are just a cover for bad value

So what is the percentage chance that

a) May is forced out before next GE
x chance of
b) each person winning subsequent leadership election
x chance of
c) that person then winning/being senior partner in coalition after the next GE

I'm going to ask you a question: it's got nothing to do with Brexit, UKIP or anything political, OK? It's a question about probabilities and how we use them. The question is:

"How do you measure the *accuracy* of a probablistic prediction?"

If somebody says there is a 55% chance that May will win, and May wins...what was the accuracy of that prediction?
If somebody says there is a 45% chance that May will win, and May wins...what was the accuracy of that prediction?

There isn't a right answer to this: just tell me how *you* would judge it.

Well they are both 100% accurate I'd say

If somebody says there is a 55% chance that May will lose, and May wins...what was the accuracy of that prediction?

SandyRentool

FrancisUrquhart said:

Ch4 managed to do a whole programme and not once mentioned the elephant in the room..all the staff are illegal immigrants. Bizzare.

All of Channel 4's staff are illegal immigrants? Even Jon Snow?

ydoethur

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

If May falls before the next election the most likely reason would be the Tories felt her Brexit deal was not hard enough, in which case a hard Brexiteer former Cabinet Minister like Owen Patterson would be a good bet. Most likely though she survives and wins the next election and hands over to Phillip Hammond halfway through the next Parliament

You think May will hand over to somebody nearly a year older than her who will then be in his mid-sixties?

Can't see it myself. If it's a managed handover my guess is it will be a younger figure who will keep Hammond in situ to smooth the transition.

Trump has just been elected President at 70 and May's successor would have to take over as PM straight away. If not Hammond she hands over to it would almost certainly be the Foreign Secretary or Home Secretary of the day

Which presupposes Hammond will still be Chancellor, of course.

I still think Karen Bradley might be one to watch, but certainly her path to Downing Street is not smooth. If Boris is influential Priti Patel might be a contender - if Osborne, Clarke or Javid.

But Hammond would, on your figures, be the oldest Prime minister since 1937 and the fourth oldest to take office for the first time. All three died within three years of taking office (Chamberlain in 1940, Campbell-Bannerman in 1908, and Wilmington in 1743).

True, Trump has broken that mould - but actually a President has fewer duties and difficulties than a PM (they are not MPs or even technically party leaders) so the parallel is inexact.

Verulamius

What happens to the government and PM when the monarch dies? Does it automatically resign until reappointed by the new monarch?

Was Churchill actually prime minster when he welcomed her majesty coming down the stairs of the plane?

Mortimer

HYUFD said:

If May falls before the next election the most likely reason would be the Tories felt her Brexit deal was not hard enough, in which case a hard Brexiteer former Cabinet Minister like Owen Paterson would be a good bet. Most likely though she survives and wins the next election and hands over to Phillip Hammond halfway through the next Parliament

Neither Paterson nor Fox are ever likely to be PM. Tory Mps will be the ones choosing, not Grassroots Out

pbr2013

Boris, obvs.

Philip_Thompson

isam said:

When bets such as these are suggested, I'd like to see the authors % chances of each required scenario. Sometimes big prices are just a cover for bad value

So what is the percentage chance that

a) May is forced out before next GE
x chance of
b) each person winning subsequent leadership election
x chance of
c) that person then winning/being senior partner in coalition after the next GE

x chance of

b2) that person surviving themselves to the next General Election

FrancisUrquhart

SandyRentool said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Ch4 managed to do a whole programme and not once mentioned the elephant in the room..all the staff are illegal immigrants. Bizzare.

All of Channel 4's staff are illegal immigrants? Even Jon Snow?

Jon snow certainly gives the impression he is from another planet quite a lot of the time.

ydoethur

Verulamius said:

What happens to the government and PM when the monarch dies? Does it automatically resign until reappointed by the new monarch?

Was Churchill actually prime minster when he welcomed her majesty coming down the stairs of the plane?

1) No. That tradition was abandoned in 1837, along with the customary election on the death of a monarch. The PM now remains PM until resignation or death.

2) Therefore, yes. Just as Baldwin was PM after George V died and Edward VIII abdicated, making him one of the very few PMs to have served three monarchs - indeed I think probably the only one. And all in the same year too!

pbr2013

pbr2013 said:

FPT - tyson, don't try to rope Roth in on your side.

Oops, google reveals that I am wrong here and Roth has said negative things about Trump.

Philip_Thompson

SandyRentool said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Ch4 managed to do a whole programme and not once mentioned the elephant in the room..all the staff are illegal immigrants. Bizzare.

All of Channel 4's staff are illegal immigrants? Even Jon Snow?

Explains why he knows nothing . . .

isam

viewcode said:

isam said:

viewcode said:

isam said:

When bets such as these are suggested, I'd like to see the authors % chances of each required scenario. Sometimes big prices are just a cover for bad value

So what is the percentage chance that

a) May is forced out before next GE
x chance of
b) each person winning subsequent leadership election
x chance of
c) that person then winning/being senior partner in coalition after the next GE

I'm going to ask you a question: it's got nothing to do with Brexit, UKIP or anything political, OK? It's a question about probabilities and how we use them. The question is:

"How do you measure the *accuracy* of a probablistic prediction?"

If somebody says there is a 55% chance that May will win, and May wins...what was the accuracy of that prediction?
If somebody says there is a 45% chance that May will win, and May wins...what was the accuracy of that prediction?

There isn't a right answer to this: just tell me how *you* would judge it.

Well they are both 100% accurate I'd say

If somebody says there is a 55% chance that May will lose, and May wins...what was the accuracy of that prediction?

I have a feeling I'm being set up here so I look stupid and you clever, but I'll play along and say 0

Omnium

isam said:

viewcode said:

isam said:

viewcode said:

isam said:

When bets such as these are suggested, I'd like to see the authors % chances of each required scenario. Sometimes big prices are just a cover for bad value

So what is the percentage chance that

a) May is forced out before next GE
x chance of
b) each person winning subsequent leadership election
x chance of
c) that person then winning/being senior partner in coalition after the next GE

I'm going to ask you a question: it's got nothing to do with Brexit, UKIP or anything political, OK? It's a question about probabilities and how we use them. The question is:

"How do you measure the *accuracy* of a probablistic prediction?"

If somebody says there is a 55% chance that May will win, and May wins...what was the accuracy of that prediction?
If somebody says there is a 45% chance that May will win, and May wins...what was the accuracy of that prediction?

There isn't a right answer to this: just tell me how *you* would judge it.

Well they are both 100% accurate I'd say

If somebody says there is a 55% chance that May will lose, and May wins...what was the accuracy of that prediction?

I have a feeling I'm being set up here so I look stupid and you clever, but I'll play along and say 0

Full marks.

However, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scoring_rule

HYUFD

Mortimer said:

HYUFD said:

If May falls before the next election the most likely reason would be the Tories felt her Brexit deal was not hard enough, in which case a hard Brexiteer former Cabinet Minister like Owen Paterson would be a good bet. Most likely though she survives and wins the next election and hands over to Phillip Hammond halfway through the next Parliament

Neither Paterson nor Fox are ever likely to be PM. Tory Mps will be the ones choosing, not Grassroots Out

Paterson is now probably the prime hard Brexit candidate after Leadsom and Gove and Fox's failure last time and given Tory MPs put Leadsom in the final two with less experience than Paterson there is no reason Paterson could not also get to the final two sent to members. However I don't think May is in much danger unless she is seen as agreeing too soft a Brexit for her backbenchers taste

AlastairMeeks

MikeSmithson said:

The next thread from me will be after tomorrow's Supreme Court ruling due at 0930 GMT

The assumption is that the claim will be upheld. A big question is whether the court will impose some complicating conditions or will it be simple.

The Betfair market might give an early indication of the decision. There will be quite a few people by now who know the outcome - the judgment will presumably by now have been given in draft to the parties, under an embargo till tomorrow morning.

viewcode

Verulamius said:

What happens to the government and PM when the monarch dies? Does it automatically resign until reappointed by the new monarch?

The monarch appoints the PM.
The PM forms a Government by appointing a Cabinet.
The PM remains the PM until she resigns or the monarch sacks her.
If the monarch dies, the PM does not stop being PM and the Government does not stop being the Government.

Verulamius said:

Was Churchill actually prime minster when he welcomed her majesty coming down the stairs of the plane?

When King George VI died, Churchill did not stop being PM and the Government didn't stop being the Government. So yes.

isam

Omnium said:

isam said:

viewcode said:

isam said:

viewcode said:

isam said:

When bets such as these are suggested, I'd like to see the authors % chances of each required scenario. Sometimes big prices are just a cover for bad value

So what is the percentage chance that

a) May is forced out before next GE
x chance of
b) each person winning subsequent leadership election
x chance of
c) that person then winning/being senior partner in coalition after the next GE

I'm going to ask you a question: it's got nothing to do with Brexit, UKIP or anything political, OK? It's a question about probabilities and how we use them. The question is:

"How do you measure the *accuracy* of a probablistic prediction?"

If somebody says there is a 55% chance that May will win, and May wins...what was the accuracy of that prediction?
If somebody says there is a 45% chance that May will win, and May wins...what was the accuracy of that prediction?

There isn't a right answer to this: just tell me how *you* would judge it.

Well they are both 100% accurate I'd say

If somebody says there is a 55% chance that May will lose, and May wins...what was the accuracy of that prediction?

I have a feeling I'm being set up here so I look stupid and you clever, but I'll play along and say 0

Full marks.

However, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scoring_rule

Far too complicated for me to even contemplate... and nothing to do with what I asked for regarding the components of the bets... I don't think!

HYUFD

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

If May falls before the next election the most likely reason would be the Tories felt her Brexit deal was not hard enough, in which case a hard Brexiteer former Cabinet Minister like Owen Patterson would be a good bet. Most likely though she survives and wins the next election and hands over to Phillip Hammond halfway through the next Parliament

You think May will hand over to somebody nearly a year older than her who will then be in his mid-sixties?

Can't see it myself. If it's a managed handover my guess is it will be a younger figure who will keep Hammond in situ to smooth the transition.

Trump has just been elected President at 70 and May's successor would have to take over as PM straight away. If not Hammond she hands over to it would almost certainly be the Foreign Secretary or Home Secretary of the day

Which presupposes Hammond will still be Chancellor, of course.

I still think Karen Bradley might be one to watch, but certainly her path to Downing Street is not smooth. If Boris is influential Priti Patel might be a contender - if Osborne, Clarke or Javid.

But Hammond would, on your figures, be the oldest Prime minister since 1937 and the fourth oldest to take office for the first time. All three died within three years of taking office (Chamberlain in 1940, Campbell-Bannerman in 1908, and Wilmington in 1743).

True, Trump has broken that mould - but actually a President has fewer duties and difficulties than a PM (they are not MPs or even technically party leaders) so the parallel is inexact.

PMs taking over in power after tend to be heavyweight figures holding one of the big offices of state, that does not apply to most of the names you mentioned though it may do when May eventually decides to go. In the unlikely event she is toppled though as I have stated a hard Brexiteer is most likely

HYUFD

AlastairMeeks said:

MikeSmithson said:

The next thread from me will be after tomorrow's Supreme Court ruling due at 0930 GMT

The assumption is that the claim will be upheld. A big question is whether the court will impose some complicating conditions or will it be simple.

The Betfair market might give an early indication of the decision. There will be quite a few people by now who know the outcome - the judgment will presumably by now have been given in draft to the parties, under an embargo till tomorrow morning.

Ironically if the court decision goes against the government as is likely that will boost Tory chances in Copeland

Omnium

isam said:

Omnium said:

isam said:

viewcode said:

isam said:

viewcode said:

isam said:

When bets such as these are suggested, I'd like to see the authors % chances of each required scenario. Sometimes big prices are just a cover for bad value

So what is the percentage chance that

a) May is forced out before next GE
x chance of
b) each person winning subsequent leadership election
x chance of
c) that person then winning/being senior partner in coalition after the next GE

I'm going to ask you a question: it's got nothing to do with Brexit, UKIP or anything political, OK? It's a question about probabilities and how we use them. The question is:

"How do you measure the *accuracy* of a probablistic prediction?"

If somebody says there is a 55% chance that May will win, and May wins...what was the accuracy of that prediction?
If somebody says there is a 45% chance that May will win, and May wins...what was the accuracy of that prediction?

There isn't a right answer to this: just tell me how *you* would judge it.

Well they are both 100% accurate I'd say

If somebody says there is a 55% chance that May will lose, and May wins...what was the accuracy of that prediction?

I have a feeling I'm being set up here so I look stupid and you clever, but I'll play along and say 0

Full marks.

However, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scoring_rule

Far too complicated for me to even contemplate! ...and nothing to do with what I asked for regarding the components of the bets.

Never believe anyone that isn't a mathematician, and never party with anyone that is.

People don't know the details of why they bet on things. Mostly that works in the bookmakers favour. They make big sums on accumulators where just one of the 'sure things' fails to perform.

Probability is tough - if you think a coin is 50/50 then it'll take a huge number of tosses until you can reasonably suspect otherwise. (Most prior to your suspicion)

rural_voter

HYUFD said:

Mortimer said:

HYUFD said:

If May falls before the next election the most likely reason would be the Tories felt her Brexit deal was not hard enough, in which case a hard Brexiteer former Cabinet Minister like Owen Paterson would be a good bet. Most likely though she survives and wins the next election and hands over to Phillip Hammond halfway through the next Parliament

Neither Paterson nor Fox are ever likely to be PM. Tory Mps will be the ones choosing, not Grassroots Out

Paterson is now probably the prime hard Brexit candidate after Leadsom and Gove and Fox's failure last time and given Tory MPs put Leadsom in the final two with less experience than Paterson there is no reason Paterson could not also get to the final two sent to members. However I don't think May is in much danger unless she is seen as agreeing too soft a Brexit for her backbenchers taste

Surely for every Bill Cash or John Redwood there's a Dominic Grieve or Ken Clarke? If 70% of Parliament supports Remain, that includes a lot of Tories.

isam

Omnium said:

isam said:

Omnium said:

isam said:

viewcode said:

isam said:

viewcode said:

isam said:

When bets such as these are suggested, I'd like to see the authors % chances of each required scenario. Sometimes big prices are just a cover for bad value

So what is the percentage chance that

a) May is forced out before next GE
x chance of
b) each person winning subsequent leadership election
x chance of
c) that person then winning/being senior partner in coalition after the next GE

I'm going to ask you a question: it's got nothing to do with Brexit, UKIP or anything political, OK? It's a question about probabilities and how we use them. The question is:

"How do you measure the *accuracy* of a probablistic prediction?"

If somebody says there is a 55% chance that May will win, and May wins...what was the accuracy of that prediction?
If somebody says there is a 45% chance that May will win, and May wins...what was the accuracy of that prediction?

There isn't a right answer to this: just tell me how *you* would judge it.

Well they are both 100% accurate I'd say

If somebody says there is a 55% chance that May will lose, and May wins...what was the accuracy of that prediction?

I have a feeling I'm being set up here so I look stupid and you clever, but I'll play along and say 0

Full marks.

However, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scoring_rule

Far too complicated for me to even contemplate! ...and nothing to do with what I asked for regarding the components of the bets.

Never believe anyone that isn't a mathematician, and never party with anyone that is.

People don't know the details of why they bet on things. Mostly that works in the bookmakers favour. They make big sums on accumulators where just one of the 'sure things' fails to perform.

Probability is tough - if you think a coin is 50/50 then it'll take a huge number of tosses until you can reasonably suspect otherwise. (Most prior to your suspicion)

Well I am a professional gambler! Must be doing something right, or maybe I just keep getting lucky!!!

HYUFD

rural_voter said:

HYUFD said:

Mortimer said:

HYUFD said:

If May falls before the next election the most likely reason would be the Tories felt her Brexit deal was not hard enough, in which case a hard Brexiteer former Cabinet Minister like Owen Paterson would be a good bet. Most likely though she survives and wins the next election and hands over to Phillip Hammond halfway through the next Parliament

Neither Paterson nor Fox are ever likely to be PM. Tory Mps will be the ones choosing, not Grassroots Out

Paterson is now probably the prime hard Brexit candidate after Leadsom and Gove and Fox's failure last time and given Tory MPs put Leadsom in the final two with less experience than Paterson there is no reason Paterson could not also get to the final two sent to members. However I don't think May is in much danger unless she is seen as agreeing too soft a Brexit for her backbenchers taste

Surely for every Bill Cash or John Redwood there's a Dominic Grieve or Ken Clarke? If 70% of Parliament supports Remain, that includes a lot of Tories.

There may well be a Remainer in the final two against a hard Brexiteer like Paterson but it is Tory members who will have the final choice between them and they will want to ensure hard Brexit given May is only likely to have been toppled for too soft a Brexit

Richard_Tyndall

rural_voter said:

HYUFD said:

Mortimer said:

HYUFD said:

If May falls before the next election the most likely reason would be the Tories felt her Brexit deal was not hard enough, in which case a hard Brexiteer former Cabinet Minister like Owen Paterson would be a good bet. Most likely though she survives and wins the next election and hands over to Phillip Hammond halfway through the next Parliament

Neither Paterson nor Fox are ever likely to be PM. Tory Mps will be the ones choosing, not Grassroots Out

Paterson is now probably the prime hard Brexit candidate after Leadsom and Gove and Fox's failure last time and given Tory MPs put Leadsom in the final two with less experience than Paterson there is no reason Paterson could not also get to the final two sent to members. However I don't think May is in much danger unless she is seen as agreeing too soft a Brexit for her backbenchers taste

Surely for every Bill Cash or John Redwood there's a Dominic Grieve or Ken Clarke? If 70% of Parliament supports Remain, that includes a lot of Tories.

Not really. Large numbers of Tories supported Remain for reasons other than belief in the EU. The number who are genuinelu in favour of continued British membership are now tiny.

Philip_Thompson

Richard_Tyndall said:

rural_voter said:

HYUFD said:

Mortimer said:

HYUFD said:

If May falls before the next election the most likely reason would be the Tories felt her Brexit deal was not hard enough, in which case a hard Brexiteer former Cabinet Minister like Owen Paterson would be a good bet. Most likely though she survives and wins the next election and hands over to Phillip Hammond halfway through the next Parliament

Neither Paterson nor Fox are ever likely to be PM. Tory Mps will be the ones choosing, not Grassroots Out

Paterson is now probably the prime hard Brexit candidate after Leadsom and Gove and Fox's failure last time and given Tory MPs put Leadsom in the final two with less experience than Paterson there is no reason Paterson could not also get to the final two sent to members. However I don't think May is in much danger unless she is seen as agreeing too soft a Brexit for her backbenchers taste

Surely for every Bill Cash or John Redwood there's a Dominic Grieve or Ken Clarke? If 70% of Parliament supports Remain, that includes a lot of Tories.

Not really. Large numbers of Tories supported Remain for reasons other than belief in the EU. The number who are genuinelu in favour of continued British membership are now tiny.

I suspect the vast majority of Tory MPs are boringly middle of the road like the majority of the nation. Not extreme one way or another, could be tempted one way or another - and now accept the result.

Philip_Thompson

HYUFD said:

rural_voter said:

HYUFD said:

Mortimer said:

HYUFD said:

If May falls before the next election the most likely reason would be the Tories felt her Brexit deal was not hard enough, in which case a hard Brexiteer former Cabinet Minister like Owen Paterson would be a good bet. Most likely though she survives and wins the next election and hands over to Phillip Hammond halfway through the next Parliament

Neither Paterson nor Fox are ever likely to be PM. Tory Mps will be the ones choosing, not Grassroots Out

Paterson is now probably the prime hard Brexit candidate after Leadsom and Gove and Fox's failure last time and given Tory MPs put Leadsom in the final two with less experience than Paterson there is no reason Paterson could not also get to the final two sent to members. However I don't think May is in much danger unless she is seen as agreeing too soft a Brexit for her backbenchers taste

Surely for every Bill Cash or John Redwood there's a Dominic Grieve or Ken Clarke? If 70% of Parliament supports Remain, that includes a lot of Tories.

There may well be a Remainer in the final two against a hard Brexiteer like Paterson but it is Tory members who will have the final choice between them and they will want to ensure hard Brexit given May is only likely to have been toppled for too soft a Brexit

May is more likely to be toppled for economic or other reasons than she is for going too soft. No Tory PM that I can think of has ever been toppled for going too soft (Cameron was toppled by the ballot box not going soft).

ydoethur

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

If May falls before the next election the most likely reason would be the Tories felt her Brexit deal was not hard enough, in which case a hard Brexiteer former Cabinet Minister like Owen Patterson would be a good bet. Most likely though she survives and wins the next election and hands over to Phillip Hammond halfway through the next Parliament

You think May will hand over to somebody nearly a year older than her who will then be in his mid-sixties?

Can't see it myself. If it's a managed handover my guess is it will be a younger figure who will keep Hammond in situ to smooth the transition.

Trump has just been elected President at 70 and May's successor would have to take over as PM straight away. If not Hammond she hands over to it would almost certainly be the Foreign Secretary or Home Secretary of the day

Which presupposes Hammond will still be Chancellor, of course.

I still think Karen Bradley might be one to watch, but certainly her path to Downing Street is not smooth. If Boris is influential Priti Patel might be a contender - if Osborne, Clarke or Javid.

But Hammond would, on your figures, be the oldest Prime minister since 1937 and the fourth oldest to take office for the first time. All three died within three years of taking office (Chamberlain in 1940, Campbell-Bannerman in 1908, and Wilmington in 1743).

True, Trump has broken that mould - but actually a President has fewer duties and difficulties than a PM (they are not MPs or even technically party leaders) so the parallel is inexact.

PMs taking over in power after tend to be heavyweight figures holding one of the big offices of state, that does not apply to most of the names you mentioned though it may do when May eventually decides to go. In the unlikely event she is toppled though as I have stated a hard Brexiteer is most likely

Macmillan, Baldwin and Major had all been Chancellor for just over a year (or seven months for Baldwin) when they became PM, two having replaced long serving Chancellors seen as potential Prime Ministers when they did so. Home had been in place for three years. Chamberlain and Eden were the exceptions but they were also failures as Prime Minister. I would not endorse Hammond on the basis of history either. It is likely that at some point he will be replaced or moved. Even if he is not, unless May goes soon his age will be against him.

viewcode

isam said:

viewcode said:

isam said:

viewcode said:

isam said:

When bets such as these are suggested, I'd like to see the authors % chances of each required scenario. Sometimes big prices are just a cover for bad value

So what is the percentage chance that

a) May is forced out before next GE
x chance of
b) each person winning subsequent leadership election
x chance of
c) that person then winning/being senior partner in coalition after the next GE

I'm going to ask you a question: it's got nothing to do with Brexit, UKIP or anything political, OK? It's a question about probabilities and how we use them. The question is:

"How do you measure the *accuracy* of a probablistic prediction?"

If somebody says there is a 55% chance that May will win, and May wins...what was the accuracy of that prediction?
If somebody says there is a 45% chance that May will win, and May wins...what was the accuracy of that prediction?

There isn't a right answer to this: just tell me how *you* would judge it.

Well they are both 100% accurate I'd say

If somebody says there is a 55% chance that May will lose, and May wins...what was the accuracy of that prediction?

I have a feeling I'm being set up here so I look stupid and you clever, but I'll play along and say 0

Genuinely: you are *not* being set up and you *don't* look stupid. Consider your responses thus:

"If somebody says there is a 45% chance that May will win, and May wins...what was the accuracy of that prediction?" 100% accurate
"If somebody says there is a 55% chance that May will lose, and May wins...what was the accuracy of that prediction?" 0% accurate

But of course, they're the same example: a 45% chance of winning is a 55% chance of losing (assuming no draws possible).

My point is that people find it very difficult to judge the accuracy of probabilistic predictions. And this crops up all the time, it's not just you, it's everybody, even seasoned statisticians. The reason why I bring it up is due to the movement in the stats world away from deterministic predictions ("X will win") to probabilistic predictions ("There is a 60% chance that X will win"). I think this movement has certain problems with respect to accuracy.

Richard_Tyndall

Philip_Thompson said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

rural_voter said:

HYUFD said:

Mortimer said:

HYUFD said:

If May falls before the next election the most likely reason would be the Tories felt her Brexit deal was not hard enough, in which case a hard Brexiteer former Cabinet Minister like Owen Paterson would be a good bet. Most likely though she survives and wins the next election and hands over to Phillip Hammond halfway through the next Parliament

Neither Paterson nor Fox are ever likely to be PM. Tory Mps will be the ones choosing, not Grassroots Out

Paterson is now probably the prime hard Brexit candidate after Leadsom and Gove and Fox's failure last time and given Tory MPs put Leadsom in the final two with less experience than Paterson there is no reason Paterson could not also get to the final two sent to members. However I don't think May is in much danger unless she is seen as agreeing too soft a Brexit for her backbenchers taste

Surely for every Bill Cash or John Redwood there's a Dominic Grieve or Ken Clarke? If 70% of Parliament supports Remain, that includes a lot of Tories.

Not really. Large numbers of Tories supported Remain for reasons other than belief in the EU. The number who are genuinelu in favour of continued British membership are now tiny.

I suspect the vast majority of Tory MPs are boringly middle of the road like the majority of the nation. Not extreme one way or another, could be tempted one way or another - and now accept the result.

Hence my use of the 'now'. There are a few diehard lunatics but they have no real support in the party. When even someone as pro EU as Damien Green is behind Brexit it shows how few of the Euro fanatics there are left

tyson

pbr2013 said:

FPT - tyson, don't try to rope Roth in on your side.

I think Roth is much too stratospherically brilliant to be roped in on any side.......

That said, the narrative of The Plot Against America describes the terror that politics creates for a Jewish child living in New York...... the parallels to today are evident...... that is me making that link, not Roth.....

AlastairMeeks

To answer @isam's question, I make the chance of Theresa May foundering before the next election as quite considerable, maybe 1 in 5. She has a very difficult job, a small majority and no particular base in the Conservative party in Parliament.

I make the chance of her successor in these circumstances being someone who has held one of the great offices of state a high one, maybe 3 in 4. Of course, Casino Royale's bets exclude Boris Johnson who is at 20/1. I'd be nervous about leaving him out, even (especially) because his stock is low just now.

I make the chance of the Conservative party supplying the next Prime Minister after the general election in these circumstances as substantial, maybe 3 in 5.

Summing these all up, that makes for a 9% chance. Casino Royale's bets look ok to me.

Sky Bet only allow me to stake pennies, so I'm not bothering. If I were, I'd be backing Philip Hammond only.

Philip_Thompson

Richard_Tyndall said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

rural_voter said:

HYUFD said:

Mortimer said:

HYUFD said:

If May falls before the next election the most likely reason would be the Tories felt her Brexit deal was not hard enough, in which case a hard Brexiteer former Cabinet Minister like Owen Paterson would be a good bet. Most likely though she survives and wins the next election and hands over to Phillip Hammond halfway through the next Parliament

Neither Paterson nor Fox are ever likely to be PM. Tory Mps will be the ones choosing, not Grassroots Out

Paterson is now probably the prime hard Brexit candidate after Leadsom and Gove and Fox's failure last time and given Tory MPs put Leadsom in the final two with less experience than Paterson there is no reason Paterson could not also get to the final two sent to members. However I don't think May is in much danger unless she is seen as agreeing too soft a Brexit for her backbenchers taste

Surely for every Bill Cash or John Redwood there's a Dominic Grieve or Ken Clarke? If 70% of Parliament supports Remain, that includes a lot of Tories.

Not really. Large numbers of Tories supported Remain for reasons other than belief in the EU. The number who are genuinelu in favour of continued British membership are now tiny.

I suspect the vast majority of Tory MPs are boringly middle of the road like the majority of the nation. Not extreme one way or another, could be tempted one way or another - and now accept the result.

Hence my use of the 'now'. There are a few diehard lunatics but they have no real support in the party. When even someone as pro EU as Damien Green is behind Brexit it shows how few of the Euro fanatics there are left

Indeed just as if the result had gone the other way then other than a few diehard lunatics like Cash the rest would have accepted the result [for now].

There aren't many extremist continuity Remainers like Grieve, Clarke or Soubry - but nor are there are many extremists in the other direction like Cash etc

isam

viewcode said:

isam said:

viewcode said:

isam said:

viewcode said:

isam said:

When bets such as these are suggested, I'd like to see the authors % chances of each required scenario. Sometimes big prices are just a cover for bad value

So what is the percentage chance that

a) May is forced out before next GE
x chance of
b) each person winning subsequent leadership election
x chance of
c) that person then winning/being senior partner in coalition after the next GE

I'm going to ask you a question: it's got nothing to do with Brexit, UKIP or anything political, OK? It's a question about probabilities and how we use them. The question is:

"How do you measure the *accuracy* of a probablistic prediction?"

If somebody says there is a 55% chance that May will win, and May wins...what was the accuracy of that prediction?
If somebody says there is a 45% chance that May will win, and May wins...what was the accuracy of that prediction?

There isn't a right answer to this: just tell me how *you* would judge it.

Well they are both 100% accurate I'd say

If somebody says there is a 55% chance that May will lose, and May wins...what was the accuracy of that prediction?

I have a feeling I'm being set up here so I look stupid and you clever, but I'll play along and say 0

Genuinely: you are *not* being set up and you *don't* look stupid. Consider your responses thus:

"If somebody says there is a 45% chance that May will win, and May wins...what was the accuracy of that prediction?" 100% accurate
"If somebody says there is a 55% chance that May will lose, and May wins...what was the accuracy of that prediction?" 0% accurate

But of course, they're the same example: a 45% chance of winning is a 55% chance of losing (assuming no draws possible).

My point is that people find it very difficult to judge the accuracy of probabilistic predictions. And this crops up all the time, it's not just you, it's everybody, even seasoned statisticians. The reason why I bring it up is due to the movement in the stats world away from deterministic predictions ("X will win") to probabilistic predictions ("There is a 60% chance that X will win"). I think this movement has certain problems with respect to accuracy.

Oh right of course yeah sorry! I never really read the question properly to be honest, I read it as asking if someone predicts may will win and she does etc etc

Doesn't really have anything to do with me wanting to see the component parts of the bet though?

ydoethur

viewcode said:

Genuinely: you are *not* being set up and you *don't* look stupid. Consider your responses thus:

"If somebody says there is a 45% chance that May will win, and May wins...what was the accuracy of that prediction?" 100% accurate
"If somebody says there is a 55% chance that May will lose, and May wins...what was the accuracy of that prediction?"0% accurate

But of course, they're the same example: a 45% chance of winning is a 55% chance of losing (assuming no draws possible).

My point is that people find it very difficult to judge the accuracy of probabilistic predictions. And this crops up all the time, it's not just you, it's everybody, even seasoned statisticians. The reason why I bring it up is due to the movement in the stats world away from deterministic predictions ("X will win") to probabilistic predictions ("There is a 60% chance that X will win"). I think this movement has certain problems with respect to accuracy.

My favourite was the Bayesian calculation of Clinton winning - 99%. Even though I fully expected her to win, that was clearly wishful thinking given her many and serious weaknesses. 70% would have been more like it.

Would have been funny if the bookies had paid out on that basis though...

Am off to bed. Good night all.

MyBurningEars

isam said:

Omnium said:

isam said:

Omnium said:

isam said:

viewcode said:

isam said:

viewcode said:

isam said:

When bets such as these are suggested, I'd like to see the authors % chances of each required scenario. Sometimes big prices are just a cover for bad value

So what is the percentage chance that

a) May is forced out before next GE
x chance of
b) each person winning subsequent leadership election
x chance of
c) that person then winning/being senior partner in coalition after the next GE

I'm going to ask you a question: it's got nothing to do with Brexit, UKIP or anything political, OK? It's a question about probabilities and how we use them. The question is:

"How do you measure the *accuracy* of a probablistic prediction?"

If somebody says there is a 55% chance that May will win, and May wins...what was the accuracy of that prediction?
If somebody says there is a 45% chance that May will win, and May wins...what was the accuracy of that prediction?

There isn't a right answer to this: just tell me how *you* would judge it.

Well they are both 100% accurate I'd say

If somebody says there is a 55% chance that May will lose, and May wins...what was the accuracy of that prediction?

I have a feeling I'm being set up here so I look stupid and you clever, but I'll play along and say 0

Full marks.

However, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scoring_rule

Far too complicated for me to even contemplate! ...and nothing to do with what I asked for regarding the components of the bets.

Never believe anyone that isn't a mathematician, and never party with anyone that is.

People don't know the details of why they bet on things. Mostly that works in the bookmakers favour. They make big sums on accumulators where just one of the 'sure things' fails to perform.

Probability is tough - if you think a coin is 50/50 then it'll take a huge number of tosses until you can reasonably suspect otherwise. (Most prior to your suspicion)

Well I am a professional gambler! Must be doing something right, or maybe I just keep getting lucky!!!

What return you can make as a professional gambler is not a bad indication of your systematic ability to make probabilistic predictions and compare them to offered odds! The difficulty is assessing the predictions on a single event.

tyson

ydoethur said:

viewcode said:

Genuinely: you are *not* being set up and you *don't* look stupid. Consider your responses thus:

"If somebody says there is a 45% chance that May will win, and May wins...what was the accuracy of that prediction?" 100% accurate
"If somebody says there is a 55% chance that May will lose, and May wins...what was the accuracy of that prediction?"0% accurate

But of course, they're the same example: a 45% chance of winning is a 55% chance of losing (assuming no draws possible).

My point is that people find it very difficult to judge the accuracy of probabilistic predictions. And this crops up all the time, it's not just you, it's everybody, even seasoned statisticians. The reason why I bring it up is due to the movement in the stats world away from deterministic predictions ("X will win") to probabilistic predictions ("There is a 60% chance that X will win"). I think this movement has certain problems with respect to accuracy.

My favourite was the Bayesian calculation of Clinton winning - 99%. Even though I fully expected her to win, that was clearly wishful thinking given her many and serious weaknesses. 70% would have been more like it.

Would have been funny if the bookies had paid out on that basis though...

Am off to bed. Good night all.

A bit early comrade......

foxinsoxuk

HYUFD said:

AlastairMeeks said:

MikeSmithson said:

The next thread from me will be after tomorrow's Supreme Court ruling due at 0930 GMT

The assumption is that the claim will be upheld. A big question is whether the court will impose some complicating conditions or will it be simple.

The Betfair market might give an early indication of the decision. There will be quite a few people by now who know the outcome - the judgment will presumably by now have been given in draft to the parties, under an embargo till tomorrow morning.

Ironically if the court decision goes against the government as is likely that will boost Tory chances in Copeland

Shadsy's double on the byelection is better value on Tories winning both at 20/1. In Copeland they are the challenger, in Stoke less obviously so. I reckon that LDs and UKIP will both chip away at different parts of the Labour vote, while the Tories are likely to pick up much of the kipper and independent vote. 20/1.

Though obviously the 23/1 on Betfair exchange is better value!

viewcode

Omnium said:

isam said:

viewcode said:

isam said:

viewcode said:

isam said:

When bets such as these are suggested, I'd like to see the authors % chances of each required scenario. Sometimes big prices are just a cover for bad value

So what is the percentage chance that

a) May is forced out before next GE
x chance of
b) each person winning subsequent leadership election
x chance of
c) that person then winning/being senior partner in coalition after the next GE

I'm going to ask you a question: it's got nothing to do with Brexit, UKIP or anything political, OK? It's a question about probabilities and how we use them. The question is:

"How do you measure the *accuracy* of a probablistic prediction?"

If somebody says there is a 55% chance that May will win, and May wins...what was the accuracy of that prediction?
If somebody says there is a 45% chance that May will win, and May wins...what was the accuracy of that prediction?

There isn't a right answer to this: just tell me how *you* would judge it.

Well they are both 100% accurate I'd say

If somebody says there is a 55% chance that May will lose, and May wins...what was the accuracy of that prediction?

I have a feeling I'm being set up here so I look stupid and you clever, but I'll play along and say 0

Full marks.

However, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scoring_rule

God bless you, young sir. But (and this is non-trivial) how do you measure the accuracy of a *single* prediction? If all you have is these two pieces of data:

* Datum 1: "I predict there is a 55% chance that May will win"
* Datum 2: "May wins"

isam

MyBurningEars said:

isam said:

Omnium said:

isam said:

Omnium said:

isam said:

viewcode said:

isam said:

viewcode said:

isam said:

When bets such as these are suggested, I'd like to see the authors % chances of each required scenario. Sometimes big prices are just a cover for bad value

So what is the percentage chance that

a) May is forced out before next GE
x chance of
b) each person winning subsequent leadership election
x chance of
c) that person then winning/being senior partner in coalition after the next GE

I'm going to ask you a question: it's got nothing to do with Brexit, UKIP or anything political, OK? It's a question about probabilities and how we use them. The question is:

"How do you measure the *accuracy* of a probablistic prediction?"

If somebody says there is a 55% chance that May will win, and May wins...what was the accuracy of that prediction?
If somebody says there is a 45% chance that May will win, and May wins...what was the accuracy of that prediction?

There isn't a right answer to this: just tell me how *you* would judge it.

Well they are both 100% accurate I'd say

If somebody says there is a 55% chance that May will lose, and May wins...what was the accuracy of that prediction?

I have a feeling I'm being set up here so I look stupid and you clever, but I'll play along and say 0

Full marks.

However, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scoring_rule

Far too complicated for me to even contemplate! ...and nothing to do with what I asked for regarding the components of the bets.

Never believe anyone that isn't a mathematician, and never party with anyone that is.

People don't know the details of why they bet on things. Mostly that works in the bookmakers favour. They make big sums on accumulators where just one of the 'sure things' fails to perform.

Probability is tough - if you think a coin is 50/50 then it'll take a huge number of tosses until you can reasonably suspect otherwise. (Most prior to your suspicion)

Well I am a professional gambler! Must be doing something right, or maybe I just keep getting lucky!!!

What return you can make as a professional gambler is not a bad indication of your systematic ability to make probabilistic predictions and compare them to offered odds! The difficulty is assessing the predictions on a single event.

Yes I leave that to the rocket scientists. I don't think knowing or not knowing the complicated bit affects my work

Cyclefree

Surely there must be a possibility that May could be toppled if it looks as if there will be a disorderly Brexit i.e. no deals in place, US deal very one-sided in favour of the US, recession, relocation of jobs e.g. in car industry to mainland Europe etc etc. Tory MPs might then want to elect someone less focused on "Hard Brexit" and more on getting some sort of associate EU membership?

Economic hardship and its effect on voters might well shift sentiment, no?

Philip_Thompson

viewcode said:

Omnium said:

isam said:

viewcode said:

isam said:

viewcode said:

isam said:

When bets such as these are suggested, I'd like to see the authors % chances of each required scenario. Sometimes big prices are just a cover for bad value

So what is the percentage chance that

a) May is forced out before next GE
x chance of
b) each person winning subsequent leadership election
x chance of
c) that person then winning/being senior partner in coalition after the next GE

I'm going to ask you a question: it's got nothing to do with Brexit, UKIP or anything political, OK? It's a question about probabilities and how we use them. The question is:

"How do you measure the *accuracy* of a probablistic prediction?"

If somebody says there is a 55% chance that May will win, and May wins...what was the accuracy of that prediction?
If somebody says there is a 45% chance that May will win, and May wins...what was the accuracy of that prediction?

There isn't a right answer to this: just tell me how *you* would judge it.

Well they are both 100% accurate I'd say

If somebody says there is a 55% chance that May will lose, and May wins...what was the accuracy of that prediction?

I have a feeling I'm being set up here so I look stupid and you clever, but I'll play along and say 0

Full marks.

However, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scoring_rule

God bless you, young sir. But (and this is non-trivial) how do you measure the accuracy of a *single* prediction? If all you have is these two pieces of data:

* Datum 1: "I predict there is a 55% chance that May will win"
* Datum 2: "May wins"

You can't.

williamglenn

Hamon down at 8%

https://twitter.com/europeelects/status/823638516404015106

HYUFD

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

rural_voter said:

HYUFD said:

Mortimer said:

HYUFD said:

If May falls before the next election the most likely reason would be the Tories felt her Brexit deal was not hard enough, in which case a hard Brexiteer former Cabinet Minister like Owen Paterson would be a good bet. Most likely though she survives and wins the next election and hands over to Phillip Hammond halfway through the next Parliament

Neither Paterson nor Fox are ever likely to be PM. Tory Mps will be the ones choosing, not Grassroots Out

Paterson is now probably the prime hard Brexit candidate after Leadsom and Gove and Fox's failure last time and given Tory MPs put Leadsom in the final two with less experience than Paterson there is no reason Paterson could not also get to the final two sent to members. However I don't think May is in much danger unless she is seen as agreeing too soft a Brexit for her backbenchers taste

Surely for every Bill Cash or John Redwood there's a Dominic Grieve or Ken Clarke? If 70% of Parliament supports Remain, that includes a lot of Tories.

There may well be a Remainer in the final two against a hard Brexiteer like Paterson but it is Tory members who will have the final choice between them and they will want to ensure hard Brexit given May is only likely to have been toppled for too soft a Brexit

May is more likely to be toppled for economic or other reasons than she is for going too soft. No Tory PM that I can think of has ever been toppled for going too soft (Cameron was toppled by the ballot box not going soft).

Cameron was toppled after backing Remain when the country voted Leave. No alternative leader is going to change much about the economy given it is likely to slow down a bit post Brexit however they could change the direction of Brexit if it is seen as not providing enough red meat for elements of the Tory backbenches

HYUFD

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

If May falls before the next election the most likely reason would be the Tories felt her Brexit deal was not hard enough, in which case a hard Brexiteer former Cabinet Minister like Owen Patterson would be a good bet. Most likely though she survives and wins the next election and hands over to Phillip Hammond halfway through the next Parliament

You think May will hand over to somebody nearly a year older than her who will then be in his mid-sixties?

Can't see it myself. If it's a managed handover my guess is it will be a younger figure who will keep Hammond in situ to smooth the transition.

Trump has just been elected President at 70 and May's successor would have to take over as PM straight away. If not Hammond she hands over to it would almost certainly be the Foreign Secretary or Home Secretary of the day

Which presupposes Hammond will still be Chancellor, of course.

I still think Karen Bradley might be one to watch, but certainly her path to Downing Street is not smooth. If Boris is influential Priti Patel might be a contender - if Osborne, Clarke or Javid.

But Hammond would, on your figures, be the oldest Prime minister since 1937 and the fourth oldest to take office for the first time. All three died within three years of taking office (Chamberlain in 1940, Campbell-Bannerman in 1908, and Wilmington in 1743).

True, Trump has broken that mould - but actually a President has fewer duties and difficulties than a PM (they are not MPs or even technically party leaders) so the parallel is inexact.

PMs taking over in power after tend to be heavyweight figures holding one of the big offices of state, that does not apply to most of the names you mentioned though it may do when May eventually decides to go. In the unlikely event she is toppled though as I have stated a hard Brexiteer is most likely

Macmillan, Baldwin and Major had all been Chancellor for just over a year (or seven months for Baldwin) when they became PM, two having replaced long serving Chancellors seen as potential Prime Ministers when they did so. Home had been in place for three years. Chamberlain and Eden were the exceptions but they were also failures as Prime Minister. I would not endorse Hammond on the basis of history either. It is likely that at some point he will be replaced or moved. Even if he is not, unless May goes soon his age will be against him.

All of those were nonetheless Chancellor or Foreign Secretary when they became PM

Big_G_NorthWales

rural_voter said:

HYUFD said:

Mortimer said:

HYUFD said:

If May falls before the next election the most likely reason would be the Tories felt her Brexit deal was not hard enough, in which case a hard Brexiteer former Cabinet Minister like Owen Paterson would be a good bet. Most likely though she survives and wins the next election and hands over to Phillip Hammond halfway through the next Parliament

Neither Paterson nor Fox are ever likely to be PM. Tory Mps will be the ones choosing, not Grassroots Out

Paterson is now probably the prime hard Brexit candidate after Leadsom and Gove and Fox's failure last time and given Tory MPs put Leadsom in the final two with less experience than Paterson there is no reason Paterson could not also get to the final two sent to members. However I don't think May is in much danger unless she is seen as agreeing too soft a Brexit for her backbenchers taste

Surely for every Bill Cash or John Redwood there's a Dominic Grieve or Ken Clarke? If 70% of Parliament supports Remain, that includes a lot of Tories.

Only Ken Clarke will vote against A50 - even Anna Soubry is onside

HYUFD

foxinsoxuk said:

HYUFD said:

AlastairMeeks said:

MikeSmithson said:

The next thread from me will be after tomorrow's Supreme Court ruling due at 0930 GMT

The assumption is that the claim will be upheld. A big question is whether the court will impose some complicating conditions or will it be simple.

The Betfair market might give an early indication of the decision. There will be quite a few people by now who know the outcome - the judgment will presumably by now have been given in draft to the parties, under an embargo till tomorrow morning.

Ironically if the court decision goes against the government as is likely that will boost Tory chances in Copeland

Shadsy's double on the byelection is better value on Tories winning both at 20/1. In Copeland they are the challenger, in Stoke less obviously so. I reckon that LDs and UKIP will both chip away at different parts of the Labour vote, while the Tories are likely to pick up much of the kipper and independent vote. 20/1.

Though obviously the 23/1 on Betfair exchange is better value!

Personally I think the Tories take Copeland but Labour hold Stoke

Theuniondivvie

tyson said:

pbr2013 said:

FPT - tyson, don't try to rope Roth in on your side.

I think Roth is much too stratospherically brilliant to be roped in on any side.......

That said, the narrative of The Plot Against America describes the terror that politics creates for a Jewish child living in New York...... the parallels to today are evident...... that is me making that link, not Roth.....

He's pretty unequivocal.

'“Trump is ignorant of government, of history, of science, of philosophy, of art, incapable of expressing or recognizing subtlety or nuance, destitute of all decency,” Roth told the magazine in a string of emails. He “wield(s) a vocabulary of seventy-seven words that is better called Jerkish than English.”'

foxinsoxuk

HYUFD said:

foxinsoxuk said:

HYUFD said:

AlastairMeeks said:

MikeSmithson said:

The next thread from me will be after tomorrow's Supreme Court ruling due at 0930 GMT

The assumption is that the claim will be upheld. A big question is whether the court will impose some complicating conditions or will it be simple.

The Betfair market might give an early indication of the decision. There will be quite a few people by now who know the outcome - the judgment will presumably by now have been given in draft to the parties, under an embargo till tomorrow morning.

Ironically if the court decision goes against the government as is likely that will boost Tory chances in Copeland

Shadsy's double on the byelection is better value on Tories winning both at 20/1. In Copeland they are the challenger, in Stoke less obviously so. I reckon that LDs and UKIP will both chip away at different parts of the Labour vote, while the Tories are likely to pick up much of the kipper and independent vote. 20/1.

Though obviously the 23/1 on Betfair exchange is better value!

Personally I think the Tories take Copeland but Labour hold Stoke

I think Labour hold both. Though post Brexit anything can happen. Techtonic plates are shifting.

Laying Nuttall in Stoke is my main bet. It won't be him.

Philip_Thompson

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

rural_voter said:

HYUFD said:

Mortimer said:

HYUFD said:

If May falls before the next election the most likely reason would be the Tories felt her Brexit deal was not hard enough, in which case a hard Brexiteer former Cabinet Minister like Owen Paterson would be a good bet. Most likely though she survives and wins the next election and hands over to Phillip Hammond halfway through the next Parliament

Neither Paterson nor Fox are ever likely to be PM. Tory Mps will be the ones choosing, not Grassroots Out

Paterson is now probably the prime hard Brexit candidate after Leadsom and Gove and Fox's failure last time and given Tory MPs put Leadsom in the final two with less experience than Paterson there is no reason Paterson could not also get to the final two sent to members. However I don't think May is in much danger unless she is seen as agreeing too soft a Brexit for her backbenchers taste

Surely for every Bill Cash or John Redwood there's a Dominic Grieve or Ken Clarke? If 70% of Parliament supports Remain, that includes a lot of Tories.

There may well be a Remainer in the final two against a hard Brexiteer like Paterson but it is Tory members who will have the final choice between them and they will want to ensure hard Brexit given May is only likely to have been toppled for too soft a Brexit

May is more likely to be toppled for economic or other reasons than she is for going too soft. No Tory PM that I can think of has ever been toppled for going too soft (Cameron was toppled by the ballot box not going soft).

Cameron was toppled after backing Remain when the country voted Leave. No alternative leader is going to change much about the economy given it is likely to slow down a bit post Brexit however they could change the direction of Brexit if it is seen as not providing enough red meat for elements of the Tory backbenches

Cameron was toppled by the public in the ballot box rejecting him, not by some mythological hardcore cabal of hard Brexiteer red meat backbenchers.

History tells us May will be toppled if it is determined she is leading us in the wrong direction. Since she's going for a hard Brexit, that means she's most likely to be toppled if the party and nation decide we need a soft Brexit.

MyBurningEars

isam said:

MyBurningEars said:

isam said:

Well I am a professional gambler! Must be doing something right, or maybe I just keep getting lucky!!!

What return you can make as a professional gambler is not a bad indication of your systematic ability to make probabilistic predictions and compare them to offered odds! The difficulty is assessing the predictions on a single event.

Yes I leave that to the rocket scientists. I don't think knowing or not knowing the complicated bit affects my work

I know you take your work seriously! Do you work on behalf of someone else / as part of a syndicate? Always been curious how this works.

Roger

FPT. tyson said:


" It's funny all the same...Theresa was made to look like a complete jackass, out of her depth, and without any media skills.....
She shows all the political dexterity of a lumbering piece of clay
Looking forward to this week's photo shoot with Donald and Melania"




It looked to me like Corbyn's first lucky break. He's been banging on about the danger of nuclear weapons and the first time the British public sees one of ours in action it loops the loop and would have left the US without Florida. With a Sid and Doris President and TM up his backside I'm starting to wonder if Corbyn might be the safest option.

HYUFD

williamglenn said:

Hamon down at 8%

https://twitter.com/europeelects/status/823638516404015106

No Bayrou either and Macron still 6% behind Fillon and 7% behind Le Pen. He looks to have third place locked up but it still looks like a Le Pen v Fillon run off

rpjs

Verulamius said:

What happens to the government and PM when the monarch dies? Does it automatically resign until reappointed by the new monarch?

Was Churchill actually prime minster when he welcomed her majesty coming down the stairs of the plane?

I think I'm right in saying that that convention, including a Parliament "dying" along with the sovereign, lapsed after Victoria came to the throne. I'm not even sure if it was actually enacted or just forgotten about (like how exactly to conduct a coronation) because of the long reign.

tyson

Anyway, whilst discussing the merits of Philip Roth...I'm done with pbCOM threads for a long while........
I'm not going to persuade anyone
No-one is going to persuade me
I just really continue to fail to understand the mindset of Trump and Brexit that it bothers me too much

And sadly, Brexit, Trump and populist nationalism will continue to be the flavour of the month for the foreseeable.

Populism is horrible.....whether left or right.....at the moment the right have it...but if lefties wrestle control, as they well might, they will be fighting at the cesspool which is no better....

AlastairMeeks

foxinsoxuk said:

HYUFD said:

foxinsoxuk said:

HYUFD said:

AlastairMeeks said:

MikeSmithson said:

The next thread from me will be after tomorrow's Supreme Court ruling due at 0930 GMT

The assumption is that the claim will be upheld. A big question is whether the court will impose some complicating conditions or will it be simple.

The Betfair market might give an early indication of the decision. There will be quite a few people by now who know the outcome - the judgment will presumably by now have been given in draft to the parties, under an embargo till tomorrow morning.

Ironically if the court decision goes against the government as is likely that will boost Tory chances in Copeland

Shadsy's double on the byelection is better value on Tories winning both at 20/1. In Copeland they are the challenger, in Stoke less obviously so. I reckon that LDs and UKIP will both chip away at different parts of the Labour vote, while the Tories are likely to pick up much of the kipper and independent vote. 20/1.

Though obviously the 23/1 on Betfair exchange is better value!

Personally I think the Tories take Copeland but Labour hold Stoke

I think Labour hold both. Though post Brexit anything can happen. Techtonic plates are shifting.

Laying Nuttall in Stoke is my main bet. It won't be him.

9/4 on Labour taking both with Ladbrokes (was 5/2). Looks like good value to me.

Labour losing either would be catastrophic for them. Catastrophes sometimes happen, of course.

viewcode

isam said:

Doesn't really have anything to do with me wanting to see the component parts of the bet though?

No, it doesn't. I have a sideline in measuring the accuracy of predictions, and it's almost horrifying how much predictions are *not* measured for accuracy or, when they are, the weird ways used to measure them. I work alongside modellers and the methods they use to decide whether a model is good or bad bear no resemblance to how *accurate* the model is. A modeller will prize smoothness, lack of volatility and plausibility and not all those things are reducible to single numbers: there's a lot of subjective assessment in what should be an objective analysis. When you consider we are talking about tens of millions of quid, it's a bit scary...

Big_G_NorthWales

Roger said:

FPT. tyson said:


" It's funny all the same...Theresa was made to look like a complete jackass, out of her depth, and without any media skills.....
She shows all the political dexterity of a lumbering piece of clay
Looking forward to this week's photo shoot with Donald and Melania"




It looked to me like Corbyn's first lucky break. He's been banging on about the danger of nuclear weapons and the first time the British public sees one of ours in action it loops the loop and would have left the US without Florida. With a Sid and Doris President and TM up his backside I'm starting to wonder if Corbyn might be the safest option.

You do know that a missile default does not set off an explosion. There is a separate command structure to the missile to do this. Furthermore the missile is US, it is the warhead that is UK.

Any problem with the missile will have been resolved by the US

AlastairMeeks

The passage set in the Chinese restaurant in "The Human Stain" is one of the finest pieces of writing I know of.

williamglenn

Big_G_NorthWales said:

rural_voter said:

HYUFD said:

Mortimer said:

HYUFD said:

If May falls before the next election the most likely reason would be the Tories felt her Brexit deal was not hard enough, in which case a hard Brexiteer former Cabinet Minister like Owen Paterson would be a good bet. Most likely though she survives and wins the next election and hands over to Phillip Hammond halfway through the next Parliament

Neither Paterson nor Fox are ever likely to be PM. Tory Mps will be the ones choosing, not Grassroots Out

Paterson is now probably the prime hard Brexit candidate after Leadsom and Gove and Fox's failure last time and given Tory MPs put Leadsom in the final two with less experience than Paterson there is no reason Paterson could not also get to the final two sent to members. However I don't think May is in much danger unless she is seen as agreeing too soft a Brexit for her backbenchers taste

Surely for every Bill Cash or John Redwood there's a Dominic Grieve or Ken Clarke? If 70% of Parliament supports Remain, that includes a lot of Tories.

Only Ken Clarke will vote against A50 - even Anna Soubry is onside

It's premature to say that until we know what the bill will look like. All will be revealed tomorrow.

HYUFD

foxinsoxuk said:

HYUFD said:

foxinsoxuk said:

HYUFD said:

AlastairMeeks said:

MikeSmithson said:

The next thread from me will be after tomorrow's Supreme Court ruling due at 0930 GMT

The assumption is that the claim will be upheld. A big question is whether the court will impose some complicating conditions or will it be simple.

The Betfair market might give an early indication of the decision. There will be quite a few people by now who know the outcome - the judgment will presumably by now have been given in draft to the parties, under an embargo till tomorrow morning.

Ironically if the court decision goes against the government as is likely that will boost Tory chances in Copeland

Shadsy's double on the byelection is better value on Tories winning both at 20/1. In Copeland they are the challenger, in Stoke less obviously so. I reckon that LDs and UKIP will both chip away at different parts of the Labour vote, while the Tories are likely to pick up much of the kipper and independent vote. 20/1.

Though obviously the 23/1 on Betfair exchange is better value!

Personally I think the Tories take Copeland but Labour hold Stoke

I think Labour hold both. Though post Brexit anything can happen. Techtonic plates are shifting.

Laying Nuttall in Stoke is my main bet. It won't be him.

On present polling Stoke will be a Labour hold on a reduced majority, Copeland neck and neck between the Tories and Labour

Philip_Thompson

tyson said:

Anyway, whilst discussing the merits of Philip Roth...I'm done with pbCOM threads for a long while........
I'm not going to persuade anyone
No-one is going to persuade me
I just really continue to fail to understand the mindset of Trump and Brexit that it bothers me too much

And sadly, Brexit, Trump and populist nationalism will continue to be the flavour of the month for the foreseeable.

Populism is horrible.....whether left or right.....at the moment the right have it...but if lefties wrestle control, as they well might, they will be fighting at the cesspool which is no better....

See you tomorrow.

GIN1138

Been some really good thread headers recently.

Well done everyone.

viewcode

Philip_Thompson said:

viewcode said:

Omnium said:

isam said:

viewcode said:

isam said:

viewcode said:

isam said:

When bets such as these are suggested, I'd like to see the authors % chances of each required scenario. Sometimes big prices are just a cover for bad value

So what is the percentage chance that

a) May is forced out before next GE
x chance of
b) each person winning subsequent leadership election
x chance of
c) that person then winning/being senior partner in coalition after the next GE

I'm going to ask you a question: it's got nothing to do with Brexit, UKIP or anything political, OK? It's a question about probabilities and how we use them. The question is:

"How do you measure the *accuracy* of a probablistic prediction?"

If somebody says there is a 55% chance that May will win, and May wins...what was the accuracy of that prediction?
If somebody says there is a 45% chance that May will win, and May wins...what was the accuracy of that prediction?

There isn't a right answer to this: just tell me how *you* would judge it.

Well they are both 100% accurate I'd say

If somebody says there is a 55% chance that May will lose, and May wins...what was the accuracy of that prediction?

I have a feeling I'm being set up here so I look stupid and you clever, but I'll play along and say 0

Full marks.

However, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scoring_rule

God bless you, young sir. But (and this is non-trivial) how do you measure the accuracy of a *single* prediction? If all you have is these two pieces of data:

* Datum 1: "I predict there is a 55% chance that May will win"
* Datum 2: "May wins"

You can't.

Problem is, if the pollsters start issuing probabilistic predictions (and that's the way they're going) you may have to. Or more accurately: I may have to.

tyson

Theuniondivvie said:

tyson said:

pbr2013 said:

FPT - tyson, don't try to rope Roth in on your side.

I think Roth is much too stratospherically brilliant to be roped in on any side.......

That said, the narrative of The Plot Against America describes the terror that politics creates for a Jewish child living in New York...... the parallels to today are evident...... that is me making that link, not Roth.....

He's pretty unequivocal.

'“Trump is ignorant of government, of history, of science, of philosophy, of art, incapable of expressing or recognizing subtlety or nuance, destitute of all decency,” Roth told the magazine in a string of emails. He “wield(s) a vocabulary of seventy-seven words that is better called Jerkish than English.”'

On a Roth quote.. I make an exit.... a man I absolutely adore...thanks. I'm so pleased he called out Trump. I have always been unsure of where Roth's politics lie......

isam

MyBurningEars said:

isam said:

MyBurningEars said:

isam said:

Well I am a professional gambler! Must be doing something right, or maybe I just keep getting lucky!!!

What return you can make as a professional gambler is not a bad indication of your systematic ability to make probabilistic predictions and compare them to offered odds! The difficulty is assessing the predictions on a single event.

Yes I leave that to the rocket scientists. I don't think knowing or not knowing the complicated bit affects my work

I know you take your work seriously! Do you work on behalf of someone else / as part of a syndicate? Always been curious how this works.

I kind of had an idea how to win on a market, made a v simple model (calling it a model is stronging it!) did it on my own a while, got banned from every bookie... went skint! Met a syndicate, did a dragons den style showcase and they developed & fund it

No_Offence_Alan

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Roger said:

FPT. tyson said:


" It's funny all the same...Theresa was made to look like a complete jackass, out of her depth, and without any media skills.....
She shows all the political dexterity of a lumbering piece of clay
Looking forward to this week's photo shoot with Donald and Melania"

It looked to me like Corbyn's first lucky break. He's been banging on about the danger of nuclear weapons and the first time the British public sees one of ours in action it loops the loop and would have left the US without Florida. With a Sid and Doris President and TM up his backside I'm starting to wonder if Corbyn might be the safest option.

You do know that a missile default does not set off an explosion. There is a separate command structure to the missile to do this. Furthermore the missile is US, it is the warhead that is UK.

Any problem with the missile will have been resolved by the US

Oh yes, the "independent" deterrent.

another_richard

FrancisUrquhart said:

Dispatches on ch4 dancing around why these factories can get away with paying workers £3 an hour.

On a related issue:

' Two brothers who trafficked 18 people from Poland to the UK and conned and threatened them have been jailed.

Erwin and Krystian Markowski, both from Nottingham, recruited the vulnerable men to work at the Sports Direct warehouse in Shirebrook, Derbyshire.

The pair controlled their victims' bank accounts and kept most of their wages, totalling £35,000, between 2015 and 2016, Nottingham Crown Court heard.

They have both been sentenced to six years in prison for modern slavery. '

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-38721900

Nor is this the only case relating to the Sports Direct warehouse:

' A couple who supplied workers to a major sportswear firm are being prosecuted for forced labour offences.

Dariuz Parczewski, 46, from Aspley in Nottingham, is accused of forcing a man to work at Sports Direct's headquarters in Shirebrook, Derbyshire and then taking his wages.

His wife Bozena, 45, is facing an additional 11 fraud charges.

Sports Direct has not been accused of any wrongdoing and said it would be inappropriate to comment.

Sports Direct's premises in Shirebrook employs several thousand people, including many eastern Europeans, who are recruited through a complex labour agency supply chain.

The BBC understands the investigation began after complaints the couple were keeping people's earnings and forcing them to live in appalling conditions in a caravan.

Mrs Parczewska is also accused of collecting other people's benefits. Their son Krystian is also facing two fraud charges.

All are due to appear at Nottingham Magistrates' Court next month. '

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-33892258

Shirebrook is in Bolsover district - which had a 71% Leave vote.

Roger

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Roger said:

FPT. tyson said:


" It's funny all the same...Theresa was made to look like a complete jackass, out of her depth, and without any media skills.....
She shows all the political dexterity of a lumbering piece of clay
Looking forward to this week's photo shoot with Donald and Melania"




It looked to me like Corbyn's first lucky break. He's been banging on about the danger of nuclear weapons and the first time the British public sees one of ours in action it loops the loop and would have left the US without Florida. With a Sid and Doris President and TM up his backside I'm starting to wonder if Corbyn might be the safest option.

You do know that a missile default does not set off an explosion. There is a separate command structure to the missile to do this. Furthermore the missile is US, it is the warhead that is UK.

Any problem with the missile will have been resolved by the US

....and their commander-in-chief is TRUMP! What wouldn't we give to have a Merkel. If anyone still thinks Brexit was a good idea they should be sectioned.

SandyRentool

HYUFD said:

foxinsoxuk said:

HYUFD said:

foxinsoxuk said:

HYUFD said:

AlastairMeeks said:

MikeSmithson said:

The next thread from me will be after tomorrow's Supreme Court ruling due at 0930 GMT

The assumption is that the claim will be upheld. A big question is whether the court will impose some complicating conditions or will it be simple.

The Betfair market might give an early indication of the decision. There will be quite a few people by now who know the outcome - the judgment will presumably by now have been given in draft to the parties, under an embargo till tomorrow morning.

Ironically if the court decision goes against the government as is likely that will boost Tory chances in Copeland

Shadsy's double on the byelection is better value on Tories winning both at 20/1. In Copeland they are the challenger, in Stoke less obviously so. I reckon that LDs and UKIP will both chip away at different parts of the Labour vote, while the Tories are likely to pick up much of the kipper and independent vote. 20/1.

Though obviously the 23/1 on Betfair exchange is better value!

Personally I think the Tories take Copeland but Labour hold Stoke

I think Labour hold both. Though post Brexit anything can happen. Techtonic plates are shifting.

Laying Nuttall in Stoke is my main bet. It won't be him.

On present polling Stoke will be a Labour hold on a reduced majority, Copeland neck and neck between the Tories and Labour

I would rather lose Stoke to UKIP than Copeland to the Tories. Nuttall would be sitting on our side of the chamber, making mischief for the government, and we would definitely have to develop a coherent Red Brexit message after such a defeat.

HYUFD

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

rural_voter said:

HYUFD said:

Mortimer said:

HYUFD said:

If May falls before the next election the most likely reason would be the Tories felt her Brexit deal was not hard enough, in which case a hard Brexiteer former Cabinet Minister like Owen Paterson would be a good bet. Most likely though she survives and wins the next election and hands over to Phillip Hammond halfway through the next Parliament

Neither Paterson nor Fox are ever likely to be PM. Tory Mps will be the ones choosing, not Grassroots Out

Paterson is now probably the prime g too soft a Brexit for her backbenchers taste

Surely for every Bill Cash or John Redwood there's a Dominic Grieve or Ken Clarke? If 70% of Parliament supports Remain, that includes a lot of Tories.

There may well be a Remainer in the final two against a hard Brexiteer like Paterson but it is Tory members who will have the final choice between them and they will want to ensure hard Brexit given May is only likely to have been toppled for too soft a Brexit

May is more likely to be toppled for economic or other reasons than she is for going too soft. No Tory PM that I can think of has ever been toppled for going too soft (Cameron was toppled by the ballot box not going soft).

Cameron was toppled after backing Remain when the country voted Leave. No alternative leader is going to change much about the economy given it is likely to slow down a bit post Brexit however they could change the direction of Brexit if it is seen as not providing enough red meat for elements of the Tory backbenches

Cameron was toppled by the public in the ballot box rejecting him, not exit.

Cameron jumped before he was pushed by his backbenchers which he would have been had he tried to stay after losing the referendum. The polls show quite clearly Tory voters back hard Brexit by more than the nation as a whole and Tory backbenchers are of a similar view, while May will not do soft Brexit she will most likely set a job offer requirement rather than a points system requirement for migrants and may keep some EU budget contributions for access to some single market sectors while I think that will be acceptable to most it may not be do the ultra hard Brexiteers on the Tory right, I think she will survive but the threat to her is most likely from the Tory right, the LDs are no direct challenge to her premiership unlike her backbenchers and she backed Remain after all

Casino_Royale

pbr2013 said:

Boris, obvs.

I did also back Boris at 50/1, but didn't cite it as it's not a bet I'm proud of any longer, and didn't feel I could really tip him at 20/1.

But perhaps I should have.

AlastairMeeks

Casino_Royale said:

pbr2013 said:

Boris, obvs.

I did also back Boris at 50/1, but didn't cite it as it's not a bet I'm proud of any longer.

It's not a bad bet.