politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Macron becomes an even stronger favourite for French President
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Macron becomes an even stronger favourite for French President after a huge day of turbulence on the betting markets
It has been an extraordinary 24 hours on the betting markets for the French presidency. Everything was hinged on a planned statement that the Republican nominee and one time odds-on favourite had announced he was going to make yesterday evening.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Edit - merde!
Long may it continue.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2988277/allan-evans-colorado-king-of-wales-claim-throne/
Moreover, even if, as @CarlottaVance suggests, M Macron will have a moment in the spotlight, M Fillon makes it much easier for him to brazen it out. Right now he looks like a clear buy at odds against.
Does this mean they have procedures in place for royal claimants?
Conservative members’ confidence of winning in 2020 hits highest rating yet
http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2017/03/conservative-members-confidence-of-winning-in-2020-hits-highest-rating-yet.html
Mr Hubris would point out that metaphorical chickens can do more than hatch.....
PSA Group (PEUP.PA) has agreed to buy European rival Opel from General Motors (GM.N) in a deal valuing the business at 2.2 billion euros ($2.3 billion), the companies said on Monday, creating a new regional car giant to challenge market leader Volkswagen (VOWG_p.DE).
The maker of Peugeot and Citroen cars pledged to achieve 1.7 billion euros in cost savings from the acquisition by 2026 and lift the Opel business and its UK Vauxhall brand to a 6 percent operating margin in the same period.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-opel-m-a-psa-idUSKBN16D0J1?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=Social
Does he or she know something about Corbyn that the rest of us don't? This is the guy who appears to have either not noticed an extra £3.5k a month appearing in his bank account, or not noticed its absence! (I assume that the Cabinet Office pays salaries to ministers net of income tax, otherwise it was around £6k a month).
French politics is weird but surely even there Fillon is damaged beyond repair. And Juppe, what can you say? The man has more baggage than British Airways as well as a conviction for a serious offence of financial dishonesty.
At a time when the left were in chaos having a leader who was pretty much the only western politician that might make Corbyn look good (although he had the self awareness not to run, something still to be tested) it is incredible how badly the centre right has screwed this up. I am starting to feel that M le Pen is worth a little tickle on the last person standing principle.
Standard Life and Aberdeen Asset Management have agreed on the terms to create the UK’s largest asset manager.
Following reports of an £11bn takeover over the weekend, the two companies said they would recommend an all-share deal to shareholders.
https://www.ft.com/content/95474d9d-dfec-3144-8a76-849d6fd6083b
Anyway, I'm thinking of starting a rumour that Le Pen is guilty of the worst sort of Franglais, and ought really to be calling herself La Plume.
If the income is undeclared (which Labour deny, but their claims on the subject are unconvincing) his income was roughly £157,000. Of this 32,000 is at 20%, 118,000 at 40% and 7,000 at 45%. That comes to £56400 in tax. If we assume the income was (a) undeclared and (b) taxed at source it would have been taxed at 20% on three-quarters of it (due to personal allowance). So he would have paid £6000 on that plus 35,000 on the rest - total £41,000 and over £15,000 short of where he should be.
Should the Revenue prosecute (which as this is the second year in a row he has messed up, they shoul) under such circumstances they could in theory have as much again in fines, although in this case it seems likely he would be fined 40% of the amount - so roughly £6,000. As a result including interest he could end up with a sudden bill for £22,000.
Financially disastrous? Not for someone as rich as Corbyn. Highly embarrassing? Oh yes. Terminal? I think probably. He can't go after tax avoiders if he himself is convicted of tax evasion, which also punctures the idea of him as a wholesome outsider(!) cleaning up Westminster.
If it happens, which it still may not. However it reveals two things (1) Labour's media spokespeople are idiots and (2) Corbyn couldn't organise an orgy in a brothel. But then, we knew that already.
It also takes the heat nicely off the Tories in the run up to a difficult budget. No wonder George Osborne thought Corbyn's election proved God is a Conservative!
This post sponsored by Tories4Corbyn
If he quits at 10-30 logically Fillon and Baroin should both shorten a bit.
Don't know why you're worried though. Some of the others are much worse than he is - imagine Macdonnell or Abbott in charge!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/05/600-health-quango-chiefs-six-figure-salaries-amid-cash-crisis/
People are starting to realise that just throwing money at an unreformed NHS isn't necessarily going to fix the problems.
Regardless, given the whole point is to get people thinking your opponent is dodgy, or just rich, it is surely not worth doing if you make mistakes on yours or yours leads to questions.
Leadership is not achieved through the four yorkshireman sketch...
...wait
Absolutely typical. We must give up 'all perks' but he'd like us to contribute to European defence integration.
It's about time the US and U.K. stopped subsidising France and Germany.
Watching JC, McIRA and Diane "private school for my kids, because black" Abbott in the heat of a general election campaign is going to be hilarious.
Mrs May must be sorely tempted to call their bluff with a motion that Parliament be dissolved.
Cleggasm
Hillary Benn and Kier Starmer must be having a serious think about it, if Corbyn makes it to a 2020 election it might be too late to save the party.
Irked to see Juppe is now longer odds than Fillon. The latter really is an arse.
Anyway, still pretty green on Macron and a little on Le Pen, so I'll probably just sit tight unless Le Corbyn gets prised out of the election.
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS?year_high_desc=true
Well, it's a view.
Question - are you proud of the fact that Lesotho outspends us on healthcare?
The alternative is to accept a lower quality of service.
Reform might also be useful.
I do not believe further moves towards a two-tier system, where the poor receive a low standard of service, is in the best interests of society as a whole.
Most reforms since Thatcher have 'marketised' it and led to more inter-hospital billing and admin. and now there are referrals to the competition authorities. If hospitals are seen as profit- (or loss!!-) making entities, who's surprised that they start to behave more like FTSE-100 PLCs?
Assuming the leadership income is pensionable and that would mean a big step up in the reference salary if so, such is the length of service he has I'm surprised that hasn't caused him to breach his Annual Allowance and to face a tax-bill for that?
No wonder the US spends so much, so inefficiently, on healthcare.
Will he create a party for deputes to run on his platform?
I'm intrigued to see posters who regard it as an article of faith that a minimum percentage of GDP should be spent on defence struggle with the notion that the amount of money put into the NHS is relevant.
Oh, and get rid of all the six-figure quangocrats highlighted in the article above, spend the money saved on respite centres to stop the hugely inefficient bedblocking that goes on every winter.
https://twitter.com/johnharris1969/status/838665754920824832
The NHS has its flaws, and is in desperate need of reform - but the USA really isn't the place to look for solutions. Healthcare there is a mess too, just for different reasons.
You are right about dogma. The NHS was set up with three guiding principles:
It is free at the point of delivery.
It is based on clinical need and not the user's wealth.
It is universal: it meets the needs of all its users.
All three of these have been watered down over the years, some very soon after 1948. However they seem a good basis, and far better than the wordier 'NHS constitution'.
If we are to reform the NHS, we need to either make it match those guiding principles, or define different, but equally simple and understandable, principles.
Perhaps we need similar guiding principles for social care, especially of the elderly?
Not sure what game Fillon is playing at, he actively encourages speculation as to an imminent departure, then disappoints. It’s becoming almost Pythonesque...
Just catching up. Seems by spending the evening watching House of Cards, I have missed on a wild betting opportunity. Just so I am clear Juppe is announcing something at 10:30am this morning?
I would say in the last 10 years or so the problem has more been promises that magical reform will avoid us having to confront that choice.
There are some reforms that could help - I personally think we need to look at reducing drug prices...
I like value based pricing in theory... But not sure we are getting a good deal.
Spending on ineffective and expensive cancer treatments also - but politically that's very difficult.
I also wonder if there isn't some way out of the dreadful PFI mess...
Add in a few percentage of contingency, and you move away from politics where spending is hidden to the public by vague figures (who knows whether another £100 million for the NHS is meaningful or a tiny proportion), to one where spending becomes much more visible.
Which is why politicians will hate it.
At an election, the Conservatives may say they will spend 2.5% of GDP on defence, health 18%, education 9% (and split it according to primary, secondary and tertiary), etc, etc. Labour may say 1.5% defence, heath 20%, education 10%.
The public would have real visibility and a real choice.
Well, it's Budget week (the unimportant one if we are to believe the increased emphasis on the Autumn Budget, or is it still a Statement).
Hammond read very poorly in yesterday's Telegraph not helped by the eulogising fawning of the piece. Putting "gas in the tank" sounds like a 60-year old trying to sound like a 25-year old.
The central tenet of the May-Hammond-Clarkson (sorry, Johnson) Government is to convince everyone everything will be all right if not better when we leave the EU. Now, I understand that - the political leaders of the country have to talk up the country, it's part of their function. Absolute honesty from political leaders is only to be provided in the smallest of doses.
So we are to believe the British Government will "stand firm", get everything it wants, give nothing away and above all not pay some form of dowry, fine, exit fee, whatever you like, when we finally exit the EU.
The Government and the Prime Minister coast along, aided by the lack of an Opposition though it would actually be difficult to oppose a vacuum, with everyone hoping/believing everything will be all right based on little more than a few confident sounding words from the Prime Minister. It doesn't convince me but then I'm not typical.
The difference between "we're leaving, it will be wonderful" and "we're leaving and we'll have to make the best of it" is quite profound in terms of mood and expectation.
On a more practical level, it will be fascinating to see how much Hammond finds from his "war chest" of £60 billion (shouldn't that be being used on defence or reducing the debt ?) to offset the very real concerns about the provision of adult social care and how it will be couched politically. SCC leader David Hodge called Hammond's bluff a couple of weeks ago and it remains to be seen if some "additional funding" will be forthcoming.
More
Sarkozy offers to meet Juppé & Fillon to "find a dignified and credible" solution to get Rép. party out of the funk
Also, there's a problem with number bias. Twenty percent sounds a lot more than 19% (hence why books are priced Something-Ninety-Nine, but wages are £8 an hour, rather than £7.99).
(a) Spending £10 to get 11 items
(b) Spending £11 to get 10 items
Customers prefer option (a) whereas the producer interests prefer option (b).
You should be focusing on NHS outputs not NHS inputs if you actually care about health services in this country.
"Do more with less *here* so we have enough to what we want *over there*"
Whenever you hear about Whitehall officials and their 'advice', just bear that in mind.
"Investment, son. Investment".
http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2017/03/nadhim-zahawi-it-isnt-ukip-that-stands-to-gain-from-the-collapse-of-labour-its-the-conservatives.html
this is often the reason Remain voters dislike the result; they fear UKIPs influence. Luckily, this isn’t there.
It highlights a party's priorities very starkly. I'd go even further in the case of the NHS, but that's a much longer and far more controversial post.
I think the discussion we're having other DFID and MOD spending are indications that we're heading in this sort of direction. However I think it only works as a system if a certain percentage is left to one side for discretionary spending.
Dangerous betting market until the candidates are finalised, I think. I've laid Le Pen heavily and bet on Macron with a saver on Juppe, but am now staying out of it till the situation clarifies. It's possibly worth a saver on Hamon at 60-1 - if the anointed Republican were to stumble after nominations close (e.g. literally fall under a bus), Macron would be the only plausible non-Le Pen candidate left.
It's not a flawless idea, and there are problems with it, especially at the political level. However it's much better than the opaque mess we have at the moment.
Reform in my sector tends to be a case of "Here's less money than you need, sort yourself out. Don't come back for another 3 years". There is then a knee jerk reaction that results in a poorer service than required. Genuine reform would be something like amalgamating the Fire Service and Ambulance Service, which might cost extra to implement, but would save money over the medium term and result in far better service for the public.