Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Democrats take small lead in Special Pennsylvania Congressiona
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Democrats take small lead in Special Pennsylvania Congressional election in district won by Trump at WH2016 by 20%
What’s getting a lot of coverage in the US media at the moment is a big battle going on in the outskirts of Pittsburgh in a Special Congressional election caused by the resignation of the Republican incumbent over a sex scandal. It is said that millions of dollars has been spent and the Democrats are hoping they can take the district in an area that was natural Trump territory at WH2016. His margin was 20%
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Betfair do have a market up but there’s not a lot of liquidity. The Republican can be backed at 1.71.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/event/28557456/market?marketId=1.139233341
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/mar/06/eu-brexit-adviser-deals-blow-to-theresa-mays-free-trade-proposal
I am still intrigued as to how it will all come out. But at the moment it feels like watching endless pre-match analysis of a premier league match.
Start the game already!
As @rkrkrk says above, a period of silence wouldn’t go amiss until the negotiators have actually spent the next six months, umm, negotiating.
The Irish border issue is not about technology (despite the discussions on this board): it's about Apple Retail (UK) Ltd buying iPhones from Apple Ireland, and about ways of ensuring that doesn't allow base tax erosion.
I also suspect the Donald has accidentally managed to drive the sides closer together.
Remind me what the balance of trade is.....
Unfortunately the media love this stuff, even though 90% of their audience has tuned out by now.
Yes, the minutiae of trade talks are by their nature dry and detailed, the Irish border provides a good soundbite. Trump being an idiot over trade undoubtedly does help, both sides will want to see the likes of Apple and Google paying a lot more tax.
https://twitter.com/sunpolitics/status/970916945804525568?s=21
And then some more drama in 2019/2020 as the full deal is agreed.
But, it will be done because both sides need it and want it.
The same David Cameron that all the head-melted Leavers were screaming to evict from Downing Street during the referendum campaign. It shows just how low their ambitions have fallen when reports of his return behind the scenes are treated as a triumph.
There is no precedent for a leader consciously embarking on a course that they know will make their people poorer and less safe. No wonder Mrs May seems so tortured by her role in No 10. She is like one of the silhouettes of First World War soldiers that are being installed around the country: There But Not There, a shadow leader who commemorates past battles without having any substance herself.
Asked last week whether she thought that leaving the EU would be worth it in the end, Mrs May could not in all honesty say “yes”. Instead, her reply was that “the British people voted for Brexit and I think it’s incumbent on their politicians to deliver on the decision that we asked them to take”. It was the answer to a completely different question but the uneasy smile betrayed her real feelings.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/pm-is-torn-between-duty-and-brexit-reality-rlmbzlc3l
Also a sharp contrast to Messrs Blair and Major in the last few weeks. No comment about TCO, he has no bridges left to burn.
Of course in that case he'd gained democratic mandate to not do what he did, but had merely been bluffing.
I am assuming we know what wethers are. Like gimmer, hogg, tup, ram and shot the word is still fully used.
The UK is leaving the SM
It obviously massively disappointed leavers, and underwhelmed given the expectations he had built up, but arguably he did manage to persuade the EU to cross red lines on a tight timescale....
He added that EU rules were clear that the European court of justice could intervene at any point to declare that mutual recognition of standards was undermining the single market’s integrity....
Whether this means anything for the actual negotiations is for now moot, but it does fit in with the European stance having been consistently and deliberately obstructive.
These are the same pundits who were endlessly retweeting each others opinions that we we would never reach a deal with the EU on the money. Until we reached a deal on the money.
I completely agree that Cameron over promised and under delivered (and ought not to have set himself so strict a deadline), but compared to the current lot, it was a masterful negotiation.
https://www.ft.com/content/cc7eed42-2f49-11e7-9555-23ef563ecf9a
"The EU has raised its opening demand for Britain’s Brexit bill to an upfront gross payment of up to €100bn, according to Financial Times analysis of new stricter demands driven by France and Germany."
But maybe you use a different calibration. Or a different Google.
It does seem as if access to medical care in the opiod epidemic is a key issue, and one that the Republican was rather flat footed.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/pennsylvania-special-election-candidates-clash-over-how-combat-opioid-crisis-n853301
The Good Friday Agreement made the border ambiguous. You could notice if it's important important to you. A harder border is OK from a unionist perspective. Controls at the Irish Sea are identity issues for them too. The risk for them, as supported by polling, is that a hard border drives Northern Ireland to union with the Republic. Sinn Fein for its part won't put any effort into softening Brexit. They think it's doing more for their cause than decades of bombing and shooting.
Interesting article on this theme in yesterday's Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/05/irish-border-brexiters-good-friday-agreement
PS it's clear Theresa May doesn't get any of this, which is concerning.
I feel a little sorry for Cameron over the negotiation. He's more pro-EU than the average Briton, and had that even more skewed by the sopping wet mandarins.
F1: Test 2 - Test Harder, is underway. Live feed here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/formula1/43287915
On-topic: glad I didn't dip my toe into the market, as I have/had no idea how they'll go.
In the meantime back in the real world another example of how the UK will do worse outside the EU than in it.
https://www.ft.com/content/9461157c-1f97-11e8-9efc-0cd3483b8b80
The truth is that we dance to the EU tune. The Withdrawal agreement produced by the EU last week will not significantly change.
Au revior
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-davis-brexit-bill-eu-conservative-party-tory-cabinet-civil-war-theresa-may-boris-johnson-a7963936.html
I haven't looked but I expect I could find a quote from you from the time confidently stating that the EU would get nothing like that figure.
"One of Cameron's team said "We decided to go for what we could get and get it. That was George and Dave's decision. That was our first big error."
and
"In 2015 Cameron did not seem inclined to ask even for what he had publicly suggested he would demand."
and
"We were too beholden to Tom Scholar and Ivan Rogers", one Cameron advisor said. "They were status quo. They were happy to take "no" for an answer, happy to believe things weren't possible when they could be possible."
I don't think most Leavers care about sovereignty in practice. Perhaps counterintuitive. They are very keen on sovereignty as a concept, but have no interest in making the choices and tradeoffs that sovereignty should bring. That's much more a Remainer concern.
I suspect UK restrictions on immigration will be part of the agreement and will be relatively modest in effect.
Anyway, that's water under the bridge now. We're leaving.
Not saying its ideal but of course it is possible.
Once you've decided that - you have essentially accepted there can be no treaty change and hugely limited your scope. It may be convenient to blame civil servants - but they were merely following through on the logic of the decision already made.
Though the Republicans should keep the Senate
The government was negotiating and educating Leavers. But it did not reckon on their ability to rewrite history in their own heads.
I think we can guess the answer.
"It found that fertility started to decline several quarters before the economy turned down."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/03/05/uh-oh-falling-birth-rate-signals-recession-ahead/
‘After the referendum, when Cameron met Merkel at what would be his swan song European Council, Merkel made clear there would have been no other offer forthcoming –whatever we had offered, threatened or pleaded.’
But promising high and delivering low is never a good look
(My source was eavesdropping on a conversation between the French foreign minister, the French EU Commisionner and the German ambassador to Paris)
Will Jeremy be the No.1 boys name in a few months time?
So the French were expecting Nick Palmer's timeline of - initial talks, faffing about, recriminations, crisis, recriminations, further talks, late night compromise.
While all that happened were what should have been the initial talks and then an agreement which changed nothing.
https://mobile.twitter.com/ProfTimBale/status/970934877750284288
And then changed her mind when put under a bit of pressure.
And even if they don't they're surrounded by fan boys and arselickers who tell them its true.
Theresa May is interested in technical solutions and how they manage the USA Canada border. But those technical solutions only get you across the divide faster. The problem is the divide itself, which Brexit makes much bigger.
In reality Germany wanted the UK as an ally when it benefited Germany and France wanted the UK as an ally when it benefited France.
But neither Germany nor France wanted the UK as an ally if it would benefit the UK.
Still it kept stroking the egos of various British ministers and diplomats.
Imagine an alternate future: Cameron won the referendum and by 2018, you'd have a weak Markel, an inexperienced Macron and stalemate in Italy. The UK would have been in the driving seat.
But sums up the Soubry approach - memes and snides vs the reality of the referendum result which she was asking all and sundry to accept right up until the result was announced.
Strange not to see a bit more coverage for the Prime Minister's speech on housing yesterday.
This is a huge and complex issue with many facets as I've argued here before. The problem manifests itself in many ways - it's not just a question of availability and affordability, it's about the provision of a range of housing options suited to different areas and needs.
In Newham over 40% of the population lives in private rented accommodation. This is actually controlled by a few private landlords who own large numbers (up to 90 in one case) of houses which they have constantly divided and sub-divided, added accommodation in the loft space, sometimes dwellings in the garden but are in fact new slums with 20 or more living in a 3-bedroom house and many of them migrants from Eastern Europe.
There's nothing wrong with renting and we need a strong, well-regulated private rented sector. The Conservative obsession with home ownership is part political - home owners tend, so it is believed, to be Conservative voters - but there does of course need to be an adequate supply (demand is no problem) of houses coming onto the market.
I've long argued Government and property developers have colluded to keep the price of land high - the planning process works to restrict the amount of land available and therefore the supply side of the housing market is restricted keeping prices up. Government has plenty of land it wants to sell (as do Councils) and the drip feed of this land maximises its value.
Housing isn't just about family homes - housing and communities have to be mixed with flats and suitable accommodation for older people mixed - too much recent development has been ghetto-style with all flats or all family houses or all accommodation for older people.
It's obviously welcome to see the Prime Minister going after the land banking developers (who have their defenders on here) but fine words butter no parsnips and we need to see Sajid Javid taking firm action to compel the likes of Persimmon to start developing their land banked areas.
Building places to live needs however to go hand in hand with the supporting infrastructure - roads, transport links, public services such as GP practices. Adding to the population by sub dividing a house only puts pressure on the infrastructure - perhaps we should be looking at forcing owners of multi-inhabited dwellings to pay an additional levy to support the infrastructure used by their tenants.