politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Author & ex-political journalist, Robert Harris, suggests TMay
Options
Comments
-
I really don't think the polls will move much till polling day. The question is what is the real lead - is it 14% or 6%. No-one including the pollsters really know.Jason said:
It does 'feel' as though Labour are starting to come unstuck, but we've been wrong guessing the polls virtually every week.Danny565 said:Hmph. Have to say I'm getting a horrible feeling the Labour campaign is going tits-up. Too many gaffes and setbacks the last few days, the combined pressure surely is going to pull it underwater.
Corbyn needs to do something drastic today or tomorrow to change the conversation (maybe even play the "NHS card").
Corbyn has been defying political gravity all through this campaign, and none of that has made any sense to me.0 -
The good thing is that with the proposed withdrawal of the Winter Fuel Allowance, the loss of the triple lock and the dementia tax, May is busy making sure the leave voting pensioners shoulder most of Osborne's punishment budget.Scott_P said:
And tariffs, and recession, and hard borders...HYUFD said:Yes they do, most are pensioners and want control of immigration and money reclaimed from the EU and restoration of sovereignty, for them that is non negotiable
0 -
*resists temptation to make a member gag*williamglenn said:
It's a multi-member constituency.oxfordsimon said:
Isn't that Chuka?HaroldO said:
The RT Hon colleague for Narnia.Pong said:
Surely we can come up with a better way of running things than denying a democratic choice to voters in the speakers constituency?marke09 said:Lewis GoodallVerified account @lewis_goodall 2h2 hours ago
John Bercow tells me that he definitely intends to stay as Speaker until 2022 if he's re-elected. Tory backbenchers will be thrilled #GE2017
How about shifting the speaker to represent a mythical constituency for the next parliament, or something?0 -
Trump noising up Merkel on twitter again -
Donald J. TrumpVerified account @realDonaldTrump 2h2 hours ago
We have a MASSIVE trade deficit with Germany, plus they pay FAR LESS than they should on NATO & military. Very bad for U.S. This will change0 -
With plus/minus 2 per cent AT LEAST, its just an expensive random number generator.Jason said:
I think we're all agree whatever it shows, it's already out-of-date. We need a daily tracker, simple as.surbiton said:
I do not expect the ICM poll to be materially different from last week. Their weighting is primarily based on GE2015 vote [ amongst others ] and not likelihood to vote.GIN1138 said:
Can we take that to mean there's been a significant reduction of the Con lead with ICM?Gallowgate said:0 -
There are some demands that are well beyond legal obligations - if the EU choose to relocate agencies based in the UK that's entirely up to them - but to expect us to pay for it is a bit rich.....Similarly demanding our share for refugees in Turkey post Brexit when we are already the biggest donor bar the USA is taking the mick.....surbiton said:
What if we are legally committed to some or all of that £100bn ? Are you suggesting the UK should renege on legally binding liabilities ? Probably for the first time ever.Richard_Nabavi said:
The current deal on offer from the EU is that we agree to pay them around €100bn and they are not offering a trade deal (or even to start discussions on it) as part of that. That is unquestionably worse than no deal.Scott_P said:
Not really.Pulpstar said:Well a deal where we handed over £50 trillion over the next 50 years certainly would be.
If "handing over £50 trillion over the next 50 years" generates £100 trillion in trade revenue, it's a bargain
If we lose £50 trillion in trade as a result of no deal, that's not a good deal0 -
Of course we should pay whatever we are legally obliged to do. That's probably zero, as the Lords select committee concluded. It is inconceivable that it could possibly be more than a few €bn, given that we only pay around €10bn a year as full members. I was trained to look first at orders of magnitude when assessing whether a figure is likely to be about right, and clearly €100bn is at least an order of magnitude too high compared with the annual payment.surbiton said:What if we are legally committed to some or all of that £100bn ? Are you suggesting the UK should renege on legally binding liabilities ? Probably for the first time ever.
0 -
Rolf Harris jury discharged after failing to reach a verdict.0
-
Corbyn needs to roll out a good old-fashioned "1 week to save the NHS" campaign IMO.
It will have more traction now than it did with Copeland IMO, because the social care clusterfuck has reactivated some of the old suspicions of Tory intentions (I've had a couple of people say things on the doorstep like "if she's going to start making people pay for their own elderly care, who says she won't just start charging for all sorts of things the NHS does?" -- that's especially from younger and middle-aged people who, frankly, don't seem to really understand how the social care system works currently). Plus, as much as PBers might sneer, I still think there's some mileage in the idea that she might put parts of the NHS out to tender for private American companies, as part of her desperation to get a trade deal with Trump.0 -
It's in your gift to help with that, Mr. Pulpy.Pulpstar said:
Vile. Honestly Labour this time round need to be subjected to as big a defeat as possible.CarlottaVance said:
In the privacy of the voting booth it's between you and your ballot paper, and nobody else.0 -
Tariffs would also be applied to EU goods, if you are retired a recession does not bother you as much (and of course that is not an inevitable result of being outside the single market either especially with most UK exports going outside the EU) and many would welcome hard borders given rising terrorismScott_P said:
And tariffs, and recession, and hard borders...HYUFD said:Yes they do, most are pensioners and want control of immigration and money reclaimed from the EU and restoration of sovereignty, for them that is non negotiable
0 -
She did in terms of regions wonsurbiton said:
If HYUFD says he will, he will. He is still waiting if Le Pen won the first round.The_Taxman said:
I thought Peers couldn't vote in a General Election?HYUFD said:
I expect Mandelson will vote LDCyan said:So Robert Harris and Alastair Campbell are at least to some extent supporting the Labour campaign, which is good to see. Credit where it's due. The Tory war criminal Blair is off counting his money somewhere. Has Peter Mandelson chipped in at all?
0 -
How did they find you!?Jason said:0 -
In the US, she would be President.HYUFD said:
She did in terms of regions wonsurbiton said:
If HYUFD says he will, he will. He is still waiting if Le Pen won the first round.The_Taxman said:
I thought Peers couldn't vote in a General Election?HYUFD said:
I expect Mandelson will vote LDCyan said:So Robert Harris and Alastair Campbell are at least to some extent supporting the Labour campaign, which is good to see. Credit where it's due. The Tory war criminal Blair is off counting his money somewhere. Has Peter Mandelson chipped in at all?
0 -
Congrats. I don't share your politics but you are part of the PB family.Jason said:0 -
You have your gag reflex under control I see.oxfordsimon said:
*resists temptation to make a member gag*williamglenn said:
It's a multi-member constituency.oxfordsimon said:
Isn't that Chuka?HaroldO said:
The RT Hon colleague for Narnia.Pong said:
Surely we can come up with a better way of running things than denying a democratic choice to voters in the speakers constituency?marke09 said:Lewis GoodallVerified account @lewis_goodall 2h2 hours ago
John Bercow tells me that he definitely intends to stay as Speaker until 2022 if he's re-elected. Tory backbenchers will be thrilled #GE2017
How about shifting the speaker to represent a mythical constituency for the next parliament, or something?0 -
More taxpayers money wasted.Carolus_Rex said:Rolf Harris jury discharged after failing to reach a verdict.
0 -
Their own reasoning on that figure looks suspect. But If we a re legally committed we should pay.surbiton said:
What if we are legally committed to some or all of that £100bn ? Are you suggesting the UK should renege on legally binding liabilities ? Probably for the first time ever.Richard_Nabavi said:
The current deal on offer from the EU is that we agree to pay them around €100bn and they are not offering a trade deal (or even to start discussions on it) as part of that. That is unquestionably worse than no deal.Scott_P said:
Not really.Pulpstar said:Well a deal where we handed over £50 trillion over the next 50 years certainly would be.
If "handing over £50 trillion over the next 50 years" generates £100 trillion in trade revenue, it's a bargain
If we lose £50 trillion in trade as a result of no deal, that's not a good deal0 -
Yes, there seems to be a confusion between costings and numbers on page. They're not always the same thing.YBarddCwsc said:
Not really, because their costings don't seem to bear any relation to the true cost of things.rottenborough said:He has a point:
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/869509282370334722
I mean, if it really only costs 3 billion to set up the National Care Service, it would have been done years ago.0 -
We don't pay €10bn per year. That is our net payment.Richard_Nabavi said:
Of course we should pay whatever we are legally obliged to do. That's probably zero, as the Lords select committee concluded. It is inconceivable that it could possibly be more than a few €bn, given that we only pay around €10bn a year as full members. I was trained to look first at orders of magnitude when assessing whether a figure is likely to be about right, and clearly €100bn is at least an order of magnitude too high compared with the annual payment.surbiton said:What if we are legally committed to some or all of that £100bn ? Are you suggesting the UK should renege on legally binding liabilities ? Probably for the first time ever.
0 -
It's probably the worst sustained bit of pressure they've has, not that is unscathed. We shall see how they do.Danny565 said:Hmph. Have to say I'm getting a horrible feeling the Labour campaign is going tits-up. Too many gaffes and setbacks the last few days, the combined pressure surely is going to pull it underwater.
Corbyn needs to do something drastic today or tomorrow to change the conversation (maybe even play the "NHS card").0 -
Yes. I think they've got this wrong.surbiton said:
I do not expect the ICM poll to be materially different from last week. Their weighting is primarily based on GE2015 vote [ amongst others ] and not likelihood to vote.GIN1138 said:
Can we take that to mean there's been a significant reduction of the Con lead with ICM?Gallowgate said:
The Brexit campaign has changed british politics. 2015 was dull and uninspiring from the perspective of the 18-30's.
A year ago politics became loud and meaningful.
The consensus has been smashed.
A pile of young people have seen the severe consequences of not quite getting around to vote.
This time, they will vote.0 -
No problems with 'the Jews' in Labour:
https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&vertical=default&q=@emmabarnett zionist&src=typd0 -
Yes, precisely. That's why it's the relevant number.surbiton said:
We don't pay €10bn per year. That is our net payment.Richard_Nabavi said:
Of course we should pay whatever we are legally obliged to do. That's probably zero, as the Lords select committee concluded. It is inconceivable that it could possibly be more than a few €bn, given that we only pay around €10bn a year as full members. I was trained to look first at orders of magnitude when assessing whether a figure is likely to be about right, and clearly €100bn is at least an order of magnitude too high compared with the annual payment.surbiton said:What if we are legally committed to some or all of that £100bn ? Are you suggesting the UK should renege on legally binding liabilities ? Probably for the first time ever.
0 -
It takes years to get that sort of control...williamglenn said:
You have your gag reflex under control I see.oxfordsimon said:
*resists temptation to make a member gag*williamglenn said:
It's a multi-member constituency.oxfordsimon said:
Isn't that Chuka?HaroldO said:
The RT Hon colleague for Narnia.Pong said:
Surely we can come up with a better way of running things than denying a democratic choice to voters in the speakers constituency?marke09 said:Lewis GoodallVerified account @lewis_goodall 2h2 hours ago
John Bercow tells me that he definitely intends to stay as Speaker until 2022 if he's re-elected. Tory backbenchers will be thrilled #GE2017
How about shifting the speaker to represent a mythical constituency for the next parliament, or something?0 -
The question is not whether we are the biggest donor or not. If we are signed up to the Turkey refugees deal, then we are committed.CarlottaVance said:
There are some demands that are well beyond legal obligations - if the EU choose to relocate agencies based in the UK that's entirely up to them - but to expect us to pay for it is a bit rich.....Similarly demanding our share for refugees in Turkey post Brexit when we are already the biggest donor bar the USA is taking the mick.....surbiton said:
What if we are legally committed to some or all of that £100bn ? Are you suggesting the UK should renege on legally binding liabilities ? Probably for the first time ever.Richard_Nabavi said:
The current deal on offer from the EU is that we agree to pay them around €100bn and they are not offering a trade deal (or even to start discussions on it) as part of that. That is unquestionably worse than no deal.Scott_P said:
Not really.Pulpstar said:Well a deal where we handed over £50 trillion over the next 50 years certainly would be.
If "handing over £50 trillion over the next 50 years" generates £100 trillion in trade revenue, it's a bargain
If we lose £50 trillion in trade as a result of no deal, that's not a good deal0 -
That doesn't, however, mean they are going to go out and actually vote...Pong said:
Yes. I think they've got this wrong.surbiton said:
I do not expect the ICM poll to be materially different from last week. Their weighting is primarily based on GE2015 vote [ amongst others ] and not likelihood to vote.GIN1138 said:
Can we take that to mean there's been a significant reduction of the Con lead with ICM?Gallowgate said:
The Brexit campaign has changed british politics. 2015 was dull and uninspiring from the perspective of the 18-30's.
A year ago politics got loud and meaningful.
The consensus has been smashed.
A pile of young people have seen the severe consequences of not quite getting around to vote.
0 -
Their own reasoning on that figure looks suspect. But If we a re legally committed we should pay.surbiton said:
What if we are legally committed to some or all of that £100bn ? Are you suggesting the UK should renege on legally binding liabilities ? Probably for the first time ever.Richard_Nabavi said:
The current deal on offer from the EU is that we agree to pay them around €100bn and they are not offering a trade deal (or even to start discussions on it) as part of that. That is unquestionably worse than no deal.Scott_P said:
Not really.Pulpstar said:Well a deal where we handed over £50 trillion over the next 50 years certainly would be.
If "handing over £50 trillion over the next 50 years" generates £100 trillion in trade revenue, it's a bargain
If we lose £50 trillion in trade as a result of no deal, that's not a good deal
Withour having to wait 4-5 years to correct the error. Maybe they will turnout this time. It won't change the outcome though, only the degree.Pong said:
Yes. I think they've got this wrong.surbiton said:
I do not expect the ICM poll to be materially different from last week. Their weighting is primarily based on GE2015 vote [ amongst others ] and not likelihood to vote.GIN1138 said:
Can we take that to mean there's been a significant reduction of the Con lead with ICM?Gallowgate said:
The Brexit campaign has changed british politics. 2015 was dull and uninspiring from the perspective of the 18-30's.
A year ago politics got loud and meaningful.
The consensus has been smashed.
A pile of young people have seen the severe consequences of not quite getting around to vote.0 -
Wouldn't it make it easier: it'd be a one-off payment and then job done.Recidivist said:
Given that Narnia is always winter and never Christmas, that would make the winter fuel payments rather hard to fund.HaroldO said:
The RT Hon colleague for Narnia.Pong said:
Surely we can come up with a better way of running things than denying a democratic choice to voters in the speakers constituency?marke09 said:Lewis GoodallVerified account @lewis_goodall 2h2 hours ago
John Bercow tells me that he definitely intends to stay as Speaker until 2022 if he's re-elected. Tory backbenchers will be thrilled #GE2017
How about shifting the speaker to represent a mythical constituency for the next parliament, or something?0 -
But remember, Zionist isn't at all just a code-word for Jew. Not at all.CarlottaVance said:No problems with 'the Jews' in Labour:
https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&vertical=default&q=@emmabarnett zionist&src=typd
0 -
Quite. The referendum went the way it did (arguably) because they didn't turn out.eek said:
That doesn't, however, mean they are going to go out and actually vote...Pong said:
Yes. I think they've got this wrong.surbiton said:
I do not expect the ICM poll to be materially different from last week. Their weighting is primarily based on GE2015 vote [ amongst others ] and not likelihood to vote.GIN1138 said:
Can we take that to mean there's been a significant reduction of the Con lead with ICM?Gallowgate said:
The Brexit campaign has changed british politics. 2015 was dull and uninspiring from the perspective of the 18-30's.
A year ago politics got loud and meaningful.
The consensus has been smashed.
A pile of young people have seen the severe consequences of not quite getting around to vote.0 -
Not all of them but enough to push turnout over 63%.Pong said:
Yes. I think they've got this wrong.surbiton said:
I do not expect the ICM poll to be materially different from last week. Their weighting is primarily based on GE2015 vote [ amongst others ] and not likelihood to vote.GIN1138 said:
Can we take that to mean there's been a significant reduction of the Con lead with ICM?Gallowgate said:
The Brexit campaign has changed british politics. 2015 was dull and uninspiring from the perspective of the 18-30's.
A year ago politics became loud and meaningful.
The consensus has been smashed.
A pile of young people have seen the severe consequences of not quite getting around to vote.
This time, they will vote.
Buy on SPIN.0 -
That's exactly what should happen. On election as Speaker, he or she should be deemed simultaneously elected as the MP for the Palace of Westminster, or some such, and a by-election be held in his / her previous constituency.Pong said:
Surely we can come up with a better way of running things than denying a democratic choice to voters in the speakers constituency?marke09 said:Lewis GoodallVerified account @lewis_goodall 2h2 hours ago
John Bercow tells me that he definitely intends to stay as Speaker until 2022 if he's re-elected. Tory backbenchers will be thrilled #GE2017
How about shifting the speaker to represent a mythical constituency for the next parliament, or something?0 -
Just lock him in the wardrobeHaroldO said:
The RT Hon colleague for Narnia.Pong said:
Surely we can come up with a better way of running things than denying a democratic choice to voters in the speakers constituency?marke09 said:Lewis GoodallVerified account @lewis_goodall 2h2 hours ago
John Bercow tells me that he definitely intends to stay as Speaker until 2022 if he's re-elected. Tory backbenchers will be thrilled #GE2017
How about shifting the speaker to represent a mythical constituency for the next parliament, or something?0 -
No-one really knows to be honest. We know Corbyn has enthused the young. If and a big if, the young do vote then all bets are off the table. Common convention is to weight the young vote significantly lower in polls - does that still hold true?Pong said:
Yes. I think they've got this wrong.surbiton said:
I do not expect the ICM poll to be materially different from last week. Their weighting is primarily based on GE2015 vote [ amongst others ] and not likelihood to vote.GIN1138 said:
Can we take that to mean there's been a significant reduction of the Con lead with ICM?Gallowgate said:
The Brexit campaign has changed british politics. 2015 was dull and uninspiring from the perspective of the 18-30's.
A year ago politics became loud and meaningful.
The consensus has been smashed.
A pile of young people have seen the severe consequences of not quite getting around to vote.
This time, they will vote.0 -
Yes, the markets are currently pricing in a reduction in turnout compared with 2015. It's a clear buy IMO.Pulpstar said:
Not all of them but enough to push turnout over 63%.Pong said:
Yes. I think they've got this wrong.surbiton said:
I do not expect the ICM poll to be materially different from last week. Their weighting is primarily based on GE2015 vote [ amongst others ] and not likelihood to vote.GIN1138 said:
Can we take that to mean there's been a significant reduction of the Con lead with ICM?Gallowgate said:
The Brexit campaign has changed british politics. 2015 was dull and uninspiring from the perspective of the 18-30's.
A year ago politics became loud and meaningful.
The consensus has been smashed.
A pile of young people have seen the severe consequences of not quite getting around to vote.
This time, they will vote.
Buy on SPIN.0 -
I think Corbyn has enthused the already political inclined young who live in London, Manchester, Leeds and Birmingham.0
-
Maybe. They missed the once in a generation vote (although we know more turned out than originally thought). But a GE? Plenty more of those in any young person's lifetime.Pong said:
Yes. I think they've got this wrong.surbiton said:
I do not expect the ICM poll to be materially different from last week. Their weighting is primarily based on GE2015 vote [ amongst others ] and not likelihood to vote.GIN1138 said:
Can we take that to mean there's been a significant reduction of the Con lead with ICM?Gallowgate said:
The Brexit campaign has changed british politics. 2015 was dull and uninspiring from the perspective of the 18-30's.
A year ago politics became loud and meaningful.
The consensus has been smashed.
A pile of young people have seen the severe consequences of not quite getting around to vote.
This time, they will vote.0 -
Maybe I'm right that the IRA line has no traction, even if some clever people know on which issues other, simpler folk should decide their votes.Jason said:
It does 'feel' as though Labour are starting to come unstuck, but we've been wrong guessing the polls virtually every week.Danny565 said:Hmph. Have to say I'm getting a horrible feeling the Labour campaign is going tits-up. Too many gaffes and setbacks the last few days, the combined pressure surely is going to pull it underwater.
Corbyn needs to do something drastic today or tomorrow to change the conversation (maybe even play the "NHS card").
Corbyn has been defying political gravity all through this campaign, and none of that has made any sense to me.
Or perhaps it does, which is why the Conservatives have a healthy lead in the polls. Labour is not really defying gravity once you account for the virtual disappearance of the LibDems and Ukip.0 -
Fake news fake photos fake tweets... now fake polls. Sad.Ishmael_Z said:#womanshour trending on twitter, and all the tweets are from astroturfers who have all been told to say "I am not a fan of Corbyn but...". The scale of the op makes me slightly more inclined than I was to think Lab are also successfully gaming the online polls.
0 -
Labour keep saying that all of their policies have been 'carefully costed'. By who? None other than...the Labour party.
It's the gaping chasm in this whole election campaign - economic credibility. Labour's manifesto would fall to pieces in 10 minutes of sustained scrutiny, but for some reason, they've been allowed to spin their own line, especially over the nationalisation stuff.
I'd like to see Hammond and McDonnell go head to head on prime time BBC, with perhaps Paul Johnson of the IFS as an impartial commentator.
0 -
I'm thinking "Do something!" too. He could get supporters to go on the attack. Boris Johnson looks like a good target.Danny565 said:Hmph. Have to say I'm getting a horrible feeling the Labour campaign is going tits-up. Too many gaffes and setbacks the last few days, the combined pressure surely is going to pull it underwater.
Corbyn needs to do something drastic today or tomorrow to change the conversation (maybe even play the "NHS card").
0 -
Even if they vote on a par with 2010, ICM will be badly wrong.Pong said:
Yes. I think they've got this wrong.surbiton said:
I do not expect the ICM poll to be materially different from last week. Their weighting is primarily based on GE2015 vote [ amongst others ] and not likelihood to vote.GIN1138 said:
Can we take that to mean there's been a significant reduction of the Con lead with ICM?Gallowgate said:
The Brexit campaign has changed british politics. 2015 was dull and uninspiring from the perspective of the 18-30's.
A year ago politics became loud and meaningful.
The consensus has been smashed.
A pile of young people have seen the severe consequences of not quite getting around to vote.
This time, they will vote.0 -
It'll be fake bets next. Oh... we've had that with tbat guy and his 12 year old. Life imitates art.TMA1 said:
Fake news fake photos fake tweets... now fake polls. Sad.Ishmael_Z said:#womanshour trending on twitter, and all the tweets are from astroturfers who have all been told to say "I am not a fan of Corbyn but...". The scale of the op makes me slightly more inclined than I was to think Lab are also successfully gaming the online polls.
0 -
Best way to do that is to use an orangeoxfordsimon said:
*resists temptation to make a member gag*williamglenn said:
It's a multi-member constituency.oxfordsimon said:
Isn't that Chuka?HaroldO said:
The RT Hon colleague for Narnia.Pong said:
Surely we can come up with a better way of running things than denying a democratic choice to voters in the speakers constituency?marke09 said:Lewis GoodallVerified account @lewis_goodall 2h2 hours ago
John Bercow tells me that he definitely intends to stay as Speaker until 2022 if he's re-elected. Tory backbenchers will be thrilled #GE2017
How about shifting the speaker to represent a mythical constituency for the next parliament, or something?0 -
But were they ever going to vote for anyone other than Labour? I doubt it. He isn't winning converts, he is just firing up armchair warriors who see Twitter as the battleground - rather than the ballot box.Gallowgate said:I think Corbyn has enthused the already political inclined young who live in London, Manchester, Leeds and Birmingham.
0 -
Are you suggesting Corbyn could actually win this election if 18-24 yr olds bother to vote?murali_s said:
No-one really knows to be honest. We know Corbyn has enthused the young. If and a big if, the young do vote then all bets are off the table. Common convention is to weight the young vote significantly lower in polls - does that still hold true?Pong said:
Yes. I think they've got this wrong.surbiton said:
I do not expect the ICM poll to be materially different from last week. Their weighting is primarily based on GE2015 vote [ amongst others ] and not likelihood to vote.GIN1138 said:
Can we take that to mean there's been a significant reduction of the Con lead with ICM?Gallowgate said:
The Brexit campaign has changed british politics. 2015 was dull and uninspiring from the perspective of the 18-30's.
A year ago politics became loud and meaningful.
The consensus has been smashed.
A pile of young people have seen the severe consequences of not quite getting around to vote.
This time, they will vote.0 -
The UK defaulted on some debt in the 1930s, IIRC.surbiton said:
What if we are legally committed to some or all of that £100bn ? Are you suggesting the UK should renege on legally binding liabilities ? Probably for the first time ever.Richard_Nabavi said:
The current deal on offer from the EU is that we agree to pay them around €100bn and they are not offering a trade deal (or even to start discussions on it) as part of that. That is unquestionably worse than no deal.Scott_P said:
Not really.Pulpstar said:Well a deal where we handed over £50 trillion over the next 50 years certainly would be.
If "handing over £50 trillion over the next 50 years" generates £100 trillion in trade revenue, it's a bargain
If we lose £50 trillion in trade as a result of no deal, that's not a good deal
I've no doubt that in the event of a Crash Brexit there'd be an almighty argument about what was owed. Problem is, would there be a Court that could hear the case? If not, the EU could say one thing and the UK could say the other and both could quote Treaty texts but because both would be relying on interpretation of general points, who could determine a definitive ruling in the absence of a deal? In reality, if matters were so bad that a Brexit deal couldn't be done, there'd be no goodwill on offer to make payments that one side disputed.
Obviously, this only applies if the Tories win. If Labour forms the next government, Corbyn will probably hand over the full £100bn, plus Hampshire and half of Dorset as a goodwill gesture.0 -
And the Speakership should be limited to a single term. No ifs, no buts. 5 years and then out.david_herdson said:
That's exactly what should happen. On election as Speaker, he or she should be deemed simultaneously elected as the MP for the Palace of Westminster, or some such, and a by-election be held in his / her previous constituency.Pong said:
Surely we can come up with a better way of running things than denying a democratic choice to voters in the speakers constituency?marke09 said:Lewis GoodallVerified account @lewis_goodall 2h2 hours ago
John Bercow tells me that he definitely intends to stay as Speaker until 2022 if he's re-elected. Tory backbenchers will be thrilled #GE2017
How about shifting the speaker to represent a mythical constituency for the next parliament, or something?0 -
The one place turnout will surely drop is Scotland, but England & Wales could have a double wave of youth turnout (Corbyn) and those 2 million brexiteers (May) who came out for Ref2016. Not all of them, but lots of them.0
-
Why? And what are these "severe" consequences?Pong said:
Yes. I think they've got this wrong.surbiton said:
I do not expect the ICM poll to be materially different from last week. Their weighting is primarily based on GE2015 vote [ amongst others ] and not likelihood to vote.GIN1138 said:
Can we take that to mean there's been a significant reduction of the Con lead with ICM?Gallowgate said:
The Brexit campaign has changed british politics. 2015 was dull and uninspiring from the perspective of the 18-30's.
A year ago politics became loud and meaningful.
The consensus has been smashed.
A pile of young people have seen the severe consequences of not quite getting around to vote.
This time, they will vote.0 -
You're right. They would have voted Labour anyway.oxfordsimon said:
But were they ever going to vote for anyone other than Labour? I doubt it. He isn't winning converts, he is just firing up armchair warriors who see Twitter as the battleground - rather than the ballot box.Gallowgate said:I think Corbyn has enthused the already political inclined young who live in London, Manchester, Leeds and Birmingham.
0 -
*** (Spread) Betting Post ***
As well as buying turnout at 63% (Sporting Index, Star Spreads), there's an interesting set of other markets on Star Spreads. Number of Female MPs (oddly, excluding Northern Ireland) at 185-190 is a buy; depending on the final Lab/Con seat split, I think the final tally will be in the region 195 to 205. They also have a market on the number of Con vs Lab female MPs; on my model, the figures will be something like (Con female, Lab female MPs):
Con 350 total: 75, 107
Con 370 total: 84, 93
Con 380 total: 89, 89
Con 390 total: 94, 86
As ever, DYOR, you can lose your shirt, etc etc.0 -
Not win but if national leads are 6-8% then NOM can come into play with our young bothering to turn up at the polling stations. And as we all know the Tories have zero traction with the young - I wonder if there are any young PB Tories?Jason said:
Are you suggesting Corbyn could actually win this election if 18-24 yr olds bother to vote?murali_s said:
No-one really knows to be honest. We know Corbyn has enthused the young. If and a big if, the young do vote then all bets are off the table. Common convention is to weight the young vote significantly lower in polls - does that still hold true?Pong said:
Yes. I think they've got this wrong.surbiton said:
I do not expect the ICM poll to be materially different from last week. Their weighting is primarily based on GE2015 vote [ amongst others ] and not likelihood to vote.GIN1138 said:
Can we take that to mean there's been a significant reduction of the Con lead with ICM?Gallowgate said:
The Brexit campaign has changed british politics. 2015 was dull and uninspiring from the perspective of the 18-30's.
A year ago politics became loud and meaningful.
The consensus has been smashed.
A pile of young people have seen the severe consequences of not quite getting around to vote.
This time, they will vote.0 -
So there is no real point in enthusing them. Armchair slacktivists don't win anything.Gallowgate said:
You're right. They would have voted Labour anyway.oxfordsimon said:
But were they ever going to vote for anyone other than Labour? I doubt it. He isn't winning converts, he is just firing up armchair warriors who see Twitter as the battleground - rather than the ballot box.Gallowgate said:I think Corbyn has enthused the already political inclined young who live in London, Manchester, Leeds and Birmingham.
0 -
In my view, there is an argument to pay a £20-£30 billion exit fee, and another £2-3bn net contributions, per year, in exchange for a good Brexit deal on goods and services, but, that isn't on offer and the deal we'd get is invisible.Richard_Nabavi said:
Of course we should pay whatever we are legally obliged to do. That's probably zero, as the Lords select committee concluded. It is inconceivable that it could possibly be more than a few €bn, given that we only pay around €10bn a year as full members. I was trained to look first at orders of magnitude when assessing whether a figure is likely to be about right, and clearly €100bn is at least an order of magnitude too high compared with the annual payment.surbiton said:What if we are legally committed to some or all of that £100bn ? Are you suggesting the UK should renege on legally binding liabilities ? Probably for the first time ever.
0 -
Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.Cyan said:The Tory war criminal Blair is off counting his money somewhere.
0 -
Doh! Not on the ball today Casino? The calamity that is Brexit for example!Casino_Royale said:
Why? And what are these "severe" consequences?Pong said:
Yes. I think they've got this wrong.surbiton said:
I do not expect the ICM poll to be materially different from last week. Their weighting is primarily based on GE2015 vote [ amongst others ] and not likelihood to vote.GIN1138 said:
Can we take that to mean there's been a significant reduction of the Con lead with ICM?Gallowgate said:
The Brexit campaign has changed british politics. 2015 was dull and uninspiring from the perspective of the 18-30's.
A year ago politics became loud and meaningful.
The consensus has been smashed.
A pile of young people have seen the severe consequences of not quite getting around to vote.
This time, they will vote.0 -
Yes. The educated voluble young that dominate social media in those places.Gallowgate said:I think Corbyn has enthused the already political inclined young who live in London, Manchester, Leeds and Birmingham.
No doubt, the Labour vote will be huge in those cities (excepting parts of Birmingham) but it won't scoop up lots of extra seats.0 -
Or handed over anything really. If we gave the EU 100 billion what stops them welshing on the deal after a year unless we pay another 100 billion?Pulpstar said:
Well a deal where we handed over £50 trillion over the next 50 years certainly would be.Scott_P said:Gary Gibbon asks the obvious question.
What possible deal could be worse than no deal?0 -
Yes. And what are these severe consequences?murali_s said:
Doh! Not on the ball today Casino? The calamity that is Brexit for example!Casino_Royale said:
Why? And what are these "severe" consequences?Pong said:
Yes. I think they've got this wrong.surbiton said:
I do not expect the ICM poll to be materially different from last week. Their weighting is primarily based on GE2015 vote [ amongst others ] and not likelihood to vote.GIN1138 said:
Can we take that to mean there's been a significant reduction of the Con lead with ICM?Gallowgate said:
The Brexit campaign has changed british politics. 2015 was dull and uninspiring from the perspective of the 18-30's.
A year ago politics became loud and meaningful.
The consensus has been smashed.
A pile of young people have seen the severe consequences of not quite getting around to vote.
This time, they will vote.
We were told voters would head to the Liberal Democrats in droves over their anger for Brexit.
It hasn't happened.0 -
Thanks. I'm finding it hard enough to sell my house at the moment as it is.david_herdson said:
The UK defaulted on some debt in the 1930s, IIRC.surbiton said:
What if we are legally committed to some or all of that £100bn ? Are you suggesting the UK should renege on legally binding liabilities ? Probably for the first time ever.Richard_Nabavi said:
The current deal on offer from the EU is that we agree to pay them around €100bn and they are not offering a trade deal (or even to start discussions on it) as part of that. That is unquestionably worse than no deal.Scott_P said:
Not really.Pulpstar said:Well a deal where we handed over £50 trillion over the next 50 years certainly would be.
If "handing over £50 trillion over the next 50 years" generates £100 trillion in trade revenue, it's a bargain
If we lose £50 trillion in trade as a result of no deal, that's not a good deal
I've no doubt that in the event of a Crash Brexit there'd be an almighty argument about what was owed. Problem is, would there be a Court that could hear the case? If not, the EU could say one thing and the UK could say the other and both could quote Treaty texts but because both would be relying on interpretation of general points, who could determine a definitive ruling in the absence of a deal? In reality, if matters were so bad that a Brexit deal couldn't be done, there'd be no goodwill on offer to make payments that one side disputed.
Obviously, this only applies if the Tories win. If Labour forms the next government, Corbyn will probably hand over the full £100bn, plus Hampshire and half of Dorset as a goodwill gesture.0 -
NEW THREAD
0 -
PWPSeanT said:
To be brutally honest, your inability to sell your house might be one of those severe consequences of Brexit. Property is gonna take a hit.Casino_Royale said:
Thanks. I'm finding it hard enough to sell my house at the moment as it is.david_herdson said:
The UK defaulted on some debt in the 1930s, IIRC.surbiton said:
What if we are legally committed to some or all of that £100bn ? Are you suggesting the UK should renege on legally binding liabilities ? Probably for the first time ever.Richard_Nabavi said:
The current deal on offer from the EU is that we agree to pay them around €100bn and they are not offering a trade deal (or even to start discussions on it) as part of that. That is unquestionably worse than no deal.Scott_P said:
Not really.Pulpstar said:Well a deal where we handed over £50 trillion over the next 50 years certainly would be.
If "handing over £50 trillion over the next 50 years" generates £100 trillion in trade revenue, it's a bargain
If we lose £50 trillion in trade as a result of no deal, that's not a good deal
I've no doubt that in the event of a Crash Brexit there'd be an almighty argument about what was owed. Problem is, would there be a Court that could hear the case? If not, the EU could say one thing and the UK could say the other and both could quote Treaty texts but because both would be relying on interpretation of general points, who could determine a definitive ruling in the absence of a deal? In reality, if matters were so bad that a Brexit deal couldn't be done, there'd be no goodwill on offer to make payments that one side disputed.
Obviously, this only applies if the Tories win. If Labour forms the next government, Corbyn will probably hand over the full £100bn, plus Hampshire and half of Dorset as a goodwill gesture.0 -
Yes, something like that. Personally I'd go for something like an annual payment, starting at (say) 75% of our net current payment in Year 1, and dropping off over three or four years to a couple of €bn (including whatever contributions we make to programmes we remain part of or affiliated to).Casino_Royale said:In my view, there is an argument to pay a £20-£30 billion exit fee, and another £2-3bn net contributions, per year, in exchange for a good Brexit deal on goods and services, but, that isn't on offer and the deal we'd get is invisible.
But, for that, the quid pro quo has obviously got to be something worthwhile: a free trade deal and a smooth transition which avoids disruption as much as possible. If they're not offering that, indeed refusing even to discuss it, I'd say that we should pay nothing and let them sue us in some non-existent court.0 -
A 6% lead would give the Tories a majority of around 34, and that's assuming Corbyn gets a highly improbable 37%. Even a 4% lead would give them a double figure majority.murali_s said:
Not win but if national leads are 6-8% then NOM can come into play with our young bothering to turn up at the polling stations. And as we all know the Tories have zero traction with the young - I wonder if there are any young PB Tories?Jason said:
Are you suggesting Corbyn could actually win this election if 18-24 yr olds bother to vote?murali_s said:
No-one really knows to be honest. We know Corbyn has enthused the young. If and a big if, the young do vote then all bets are off the table. Common convention is to weight the young vote significantly lower in polls - does that still hold true?Pong said:
Yes. I think they've got this wrong.surbiton said:
I do not expect the ICM poll to be materially different from last week. Their weighting is primarily based on GE2015 vote [ amongst others ] and not likelihood to vote.GIN1138 said:
Can we take that to mean there's been a significant reduction of the Con lead with ICM?Gallowgate said:
The Brexit campaign has changed british politics. 2015 was dull and uninspiring from the perspective of the 18-30's.
A year ago politics became loud and meaningful.
The consensus has been smashed.
A pile of young people have seen the severe consequences of not quite getting around to vote.
This time, they will vote.
Labour would have to be touching 40% for a NOM. That's not far off what they achieved in 2001.
No.0 -
No, I disagree with term limits. If people want someone to do a job, and that person is happy to do it then they should be able to.oxfordsimon said:
And the Speakership should be limited to a single term. No ifs, no buts. 5 years and then out.david_herdson said:
That's exactly what should happen. On election as Speaker, he or she should be deemed simultaneously elected as the MP for the Palace of Westminster, or some such, and a by-election be held in his / her previous constituency.Pong said:
Surely we can come up with a better way of running things than denying a democratic choice to voters in the speakers constituency?marke09 said:Lewis GoodallVerified account @lewis_goodall 2h2 hours ago
John Bercow tells me that he definitely intends to stay as Speaker until 2022 if he's re-elected. Tory backbenchers will be thrilled #GE2017
How about shifting the speaker to represent a mythical constituency for the next parliament, or something?0 -
The exit deal is on QMV, which means that if the UK can square something with Germany, France and Poland, it'll go through the Council. The EP, I agree, is more of a problem.SeanT said:
Looks like they're asking for much, much more than that. €70bn net, €100bn+ grossCasino_Royale said:
In my view, there is an argument to pay a £20-£30 billion exit fee, and another £2-3bn net contributions, per year, in exchange for a good Brexit deal on goods and services, but, that isn't on offer and the deal we'd get is invisible.Richard_Nabavi said:
Of course we should pay whatever we are legally obliged to do. That's probably zero, as the Lords select committee concluded. It is inconceivable that it could possibly be more than a few €bn, given that we only pay around €10bn a year as full members. I was trained to look first at orders of magnitude when assessing whether a figure is likely to be about right, and clearly €100bn is at least an order of magnitude too high compared with the annual payment.surbiton said:What if we are legally committed to some or all of that £100bn ? Are you suggesting the UK should renege on legally binding liabilities ? Probably for the first time ever.
However the gap is maybe not unbridgeable, if the EU is ready to compromise. Trouble is, I don't think they are. If Barnier was in charge, then yes, but there are 27 governments, the EP, the EC who all want the maximum possible, and not a penny from their own coffers...
We're gonna Crash Out.0 -
And if we pay nothing we ger the benefit of some £x billion in regained payments and the opportunity cost (if that's the right term) of the ransom we refuse to pay.SeanT said:
Looks like they're asking for much, much more than that. €70bn net, €100bn+ grossCasino_Royale said:
In my view, there is an argument to pay a £20-£30 billion exit fee, and another £2-3bn net contributions, per year, in exchange for a good Brexit deal on goods and services, but, that isn't on offer and the deal we'd get is invisible.Richard_Nabavi said:
Of course we should pay whatever we are legally obliged to do. That's probably zero, as the Lords select committee concluded. It is inconceivable that it could possibly be more than a few €bn, given that we only pay around €10bn a year as full members. I was trained to look first at orders of magnitude when assessing whether a figure is likely to be about right, and clearly €100bn is at least an order of magnitude too high compared with the annual payment.surbiton said:What if we are legally committed to some or all of that £100bn ? Are you suggesting the UK should renege on legally binding liabilities ? Probably for the first time ever.
However the gap is maybe not unbridgeable, if the EU is ready to compromise. Trouble is, I don't think they are. If Barnier was in charge, then yes, but there are 27 governments, the EP, the EC who all want the maximum possible, and not a penny from their own coffers...
We're gonna Crash Out.
Id still prefer a deal but the eu are making it easy to be happy to be out.0 -
You moving already? Thought you only just bought it?Casino_Royale said:
Thanks. I'm finding it hard enough to sell my house at the moment as it is.david_herdson said:
The UK defaulted on some debt in the 1930s, IIRC.surbiton said:
What if we are legally committed to some or all of that £100bn ? Are you suggesting the UK should renege on legally binding liabilities ? Probably for the first time ever.Richard_Nabavi said:
The current deal on offer from the EU is that we agree to pay them around €100bn and they are not offering a trade deal (or even to start discussions on it) as part of that. That is unquestionably worse than no deal.Scott_P said:
Not really.Pulpstar said:Well a deal where we handed over £50 trillion over the next 50 years certainly would be.
If "handing over £50 trillion over the next 50 years" generates £100 trillion in trade revenue, it's a bargain
If we lose £50 trillion in trade as a result of no deal, that's not a good deal
I've no doubt that in the event of a Crash Brexit there'd be an almighty argument about what was owed. Problem is, would there be a Court that could hear the case? If not, the EU could say one thing and the UK could say the other and both could quote Treaty texts but because both would be relying on interpretation of general points, who could determine a definitive ruling in the absence of a deal? In reality, if matters were so bad that a Brexit deal couldn't be done, there'd be no goodwill on offer to make payments that one side disputed.
Obviously, this only applies if the Tories win. If Labour forms the next government, Corbyn will probably hand over the full £100bn, plus Hampshire and half of Dorset as a goodwill gesture.0 -
Will trade continue as if nothing has happened even on WTO terms ? Presumably the EU will be taking us to court somewhere.TMA1 said:
And if we pay nothing we ger the benefit of some £x billion in regained payments and the opportunity cost (if that's the right term) of the ransom we refuse to pay.SeanT said:
Looks like they're asking for much, much more than that. €70bn net, €100bn+ grossCasino_Royale said:
In my view, there is an argument to pay a £20-£30 billion exit fee, and another £2-3bn net contributions, per year, in exchange for a good Brexit deal on goods and services, but, that isn't on offer and the deal we'd get is invisible.Richard_Nabavi said:
Of course we should pay whatever we are legally obliged to do. That's probably zero, as the Lords select committee concluded. It is inconceivable that it could possibly be more than a few €bn, given that we only pay around €10bn a year as full members. I was trained to look first at orders of magnitude when assessing whether a figure is likely to be about right, and clearly €100bn is at least an order of magnitude too high compared with the annual payment.surbiton said:What if we are legally committed to some or all of that £100bn ? Are you suggesting the UK should renege on legally binding liabilities ? Probably for the first time ever.
However the gap is maybe not unbridgeable, if the EU is ready to compromise. Trouble is, I don't think they are. If Barnier was in charge, then yes, but there are 27 governments, the EP, the EC who all want the maximum possible, and not a penny from their own coffers...
We're gonna Crash Out.
Id still prefer a deal but the eu are making it easy to be happy to be out.0 -
Have you for a moment thought why they would go along with it ? Why would they give a non-club member better privileges than that accorded to a club member ?Richard_Nabavi said:
Yes, something like that. Personally I'd go for something like an annual payment, starting at (say) 75% of our net current payment in Year 1, and dropping off over three or four years to a couple of €bn (including whatever contributions we make to programmes we remain part of or affiliated to).Casino_Royale said:In my view, there is an argument to pay a £20-£30 billion exit fee, and another £2-3bn net contributions, per year, in exchange for a good Brexit deal on goods and services, but, that isn't on offer and the deal we'd get is invisible.
But, for that, the quid pro quo has obviously got to be something worthwhile: a free trade deal and a smooth transition which avoids disruption as much as possible. If they're not offering that, indeed refusing even to discuss it, I'd say that we should pay nothing and let them sue us in some non-existent court.
We are still under the illusion that somehow we are more important to them than they are to us. Our exports to them is roughly 10% of our GDP. Their exports to us is roughly 3.5% of their GDP.
We go on talking about their car exports. What would a BMW owner in the UK buy as a replacement ? I don't even know if there is an equivalent model for a 5 or 7 series. But I tell you they have lots of replacements for Qashqai and the Mini.
In addition, roughly 70% of the components of our automobiles are sourced from the EU. I know they can be replaced. But to begin with, it will be WTO duties regardless of where we buy from.
We want free trade with others. USA, Australia, NZ.... Would Agriculrure be in those deals ? Then bye-bye to our farmers.
0 -
True. Not seen any 8 days to save the NHS type posters yet!Danny565 said:Hmph. Have to say I'm getting a horrible feeling the Labour campaign is going tits-up. Too many gaffes and setbacks the last few days, the combined pressure surely is going to pull it underwater.
Corbyn needs to do something drastic today or tomorrow to change the conversation (maybe even play the "NHS card").0 -
But the difference then was that Harold Wilson was a tried and tested (and trusted) former Prime Minister, who looked more likely to cut a deal with the NUM than Heath, so bringing an end to the (economically damaging) 3 day week. Jeremy Corbyn's economic manifesto is (to use a mot juste) manifestly pie in the sky - particularly in its predicted tax receipts.0
This discussion has been closed.