Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If you think that CON will struggle to agree a DUP supply/conf
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If you think that CON will struggle to agree a DUP supply/confidence deal there’s a very interesting bet
As far as I can see there is just one GE2016 betting market still open – that on what will be the form of the new government. CON majority was clearly the huge favourite until 10pm on June 8th and since then CON minority has become the tight odds-on favourite.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Oh and pole (provisionally)
Britain 2017 where we all live in shit pit death traps and vote for pollsters daughters to evict us for our own safety in the middle of the night.
Still, those queues for the dunny at Glastonbury hey?
Yes, I'm being a dork. It's that sort of day.
In other news...how many guesses on how often the Guardian mentions which party runs Camden council (and has for all but four of the last 40 years...)
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/24/have-you-been-affected-by-the-camden-tower-block-evacuations?CMP=share_btn_tw
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/24/theresa-may-praises-tremendous-military-troops-march-liverpool/
Think of it another way, under Betfair rules it is clear that 326 is required for a majority. But if the Tories had got 325 then taking Speaker and Sinn Fein into account there would have been a very slim working majority but no actual majority.
Even if every other party voted against them they'd still win a majority if a three line whip is observed.
But, stranger things have happened.
I'll make it all back on the F1 tomorrow in my traditional manner - betting against everything Mr Dancer recommends. *grin*
The horror of poor people burned alive within feet of the country’s grandest mansions… perfectly captures the politics of the past seven years’, says Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee. Perfectly: there’s a ghoulish relish here, a perverse glee at how allegedly perfect is this symbol in west London, this fiery judgement. And note that it only indicts the past seven years. It says nothing about the preceding 13 years? About the New Labour era, with its deregulation, its demeaning of social-housing residents as ‘anti-social’ pests, its failures in house-building? Of course not: this fire only says what Ms Toynbee wants it to say. It’s her fire.
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/after-the-fire-grenfell-tower/19974#.WU5sicaQ3UY
World=/=PB
:-)
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/820908/Grenfell-Tower-fire-Diane-Abbott-death-toll-Tory-social-housing
Con + DUP has majority of 13
Lab + everyone else (including DUP) has majority of 7
So Lab with DUP much less stable than Con with DUP.
Though Corbyn probably wouldn't mind that and would strongly fancy his chances at another quick GE.
It suits the SNP to be the valiant lone defenders of Scotland against Westminster. They're not interested in being Corbyn's lapdogs inside Westminster - as much as in public they'll claim to be interested they'd find any reason to let a rainbow coalition fall apart so long as they can escape the blame.
I would not be happy.
He appears to have handed Bottas pole with that red flag.
It's a political issue in that it's clearly a long standing problem which hasn't been addressed by various administrations, and needs sorting. The competition to assign blame on either side is pathetic.
SNP, PC, Green will support all Lab economic policies.
But LDs won't - even Cable has been very scathing.
So Corbyn won't be able to introduce vast majority of his tax and spend plans as LDs will block.
Another GE would surely thus follow almost immediately.
Is anyone betting on the Bellator 180 MMA tonight?
For what it's worth I'm taking Silva over Sonnen. Sonnen's great at the hype before a fight and that's just not here this time around.
Fedor is nothing without sympathetic Russian judges and only carries name recoginition. Mitrione for that one.
Larkin is quite underrated in my opinion but Douglas Lima should take that one.
Have gone for a Patent across that lot.
Edited to expand MMA
Edit: Post updated. Thanks DavidL
As I flagged in the previous threat, Betfair are all over the place with the definitions they are using in their rules for these bets. On the basis of the discussion here I am cashing out of the next government market and moving money into the PM after the election market, which amounts to the same thing except for the small chance that May wins the QS and then resigns on the spot.
My guess is that 'confidence and supply' is being used loosely to indicate that a minority government gets its QS through, and is neither intended to require any sort of formal agreement nor are 'confidence' and 'supply' intended to be two different things.
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/IfG Insight Confidence and Supply final.pdf
"The scope and detail of such agreements can
vary substantially.
The 1977 agreement between the minority Labour government and the Liberal Party
(the Lib-Lab pact) took the form of a short and fairly vague joint statement by the two
party leaders (Callaghan and Steel) at a time when the government faced the prospect
of defeat on its public spending plans"
Not sure thats how Tories will see it :-)
But, more formally, BF does not spell out what form the C&S must take. Could be a one line statement as per Liberals in 1970s.
Interesting idea. Might put a couple of pounds on it.
F1: will set about writing the pre-race nonsense, but it'll probably be a while before the markets wake up. If Ladbrokes have the group markets again I'll check those.
Only if they were planning to change the law (ie to go back to 650 constituencies) would it be mentioned in the Queen's Speech surely?
Parliament has to vote on the new boundaries but it won't be an Act of Parliament. It would take an Act of Parliament to have 650 new boundaries though.
Just a bit of fun.
But:
https://twitter.com/stephenkb/status/878595878122127361
His mad supporters on the other hand already think he is the PM. They will self-combust.
https://twitter.com/PJVogt/status/878447461420986369
I am still puzzled by your answer. Parliament has decided that there will be 600 MPs at the next election but not their boundaries. Is that correct ? So how does that work ?
I hope he doesn't get it.
Yes Parliament has decided that there will be 600 MPs but not their boundaries. Parliament doesn't define the boundaries, though it does ratify them. Parliament sets the law which sets how the boundary review is conducted. The 600 MPs rule has already been passed in an Act of Parliament so it is already the law. Until the new boundaries are ratified though (which barring a new Act of Parliament will be at 600 MPs) we are left with the old boundaries.
If Parliament were going to do as you propose then that should be in the Queen's Speech.
Did the Bottas hedge match for you ?
Surely a safety car in the race - I'll be pleasantly surprised if everyone makes it to the end of lap 1 - but odds probably not good enough to bet on it. Might throw up some interesting changes to the race order, though...
Hedging is proving much better this season than not hedging. So far, anyway.
The safety car odds, last time they were up, were 1.22 yes, 4 no. Neither tempts me.
Only a handful of markets up on Ladbrokes currently.
Oh, wait...
I am shocked I tell you..
If the existing review were to be implemented, it would come before Parliament in the normal way during 2018, and be agreed.
Parliament would also need, at the least, to adjust the timetable for future reviews, since this was hard-wired (the years being named in the Act) into legislation on the assumption that future GEs would be five years apart, starting in 2015.
What I expect to happen is that the latter will come before Parliament first, probably later this year, and provide the opportunity to suspend the existing review (before we ever get to see the final recommendations) and start again.