Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Not another one. Oh for God’s sake, honestly I can’t stand thi
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Not another one. Oh for God’s sake, honestly I can’t stand this. There’s too much politics going on at the moment.
I wonder what Brenda from Bristol makes of this?https://t.co/Rts76OHAve pic.twitter.com/vAHTmJt15Z
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
One starting at the end of the month.
One in August.
One the week either side of Thanksgiving.
https://twitter.com/davieclegg/status/998182520146546688
No way is Theresa May gonna call an election. Not unless there is a gun to her head.
Unless you compromise, I'll go to the country. Either I lose, and your careers are over for five years, or I win, and they are over for five years.
Threatening physical violence at anyone who laughs being the highlight.
Haven't we had enough of that?
Good afternoon, everybody.
.....and this time the good guys should win....
This supposes that her Hard Brexit persona is just a front, which I doubt. Brexit is being dealt with very badly, with more and more talk of longer and longer transition phases, but there's no evidence that she and her team are shifting from their delusional belief in "Hard Brexit plus"(HB+), the "plus" being all the bespoke deals they think the EU will do with us that will somehow leave us with all the benefits of EU membership with none of the commitments. Schrödinger's Brexit, as it's been called.
So I don't think that May would call an election in order to perpetrate "the softest of soft Brexits" - there's surely a huge majority in parliament already for such a thing. It's the emperor's new clothes of HB+ that is being assailed from all sides (and mainly by logic!) and which she might feel she needs extra support for.
Like the article I don't see how May squares the circle - its why she needed a larger majority in the first place - but I don't see how another election would resolve matters. Even if it resulted in a change of government, it is not as though Labour are particularly coherent about what they want, it is just not as vital at the moment because they are not in government.
I can only see the numbers being there for a Brexit option reliably if Labour back it, and they keep changing the goalposts so that's hard to see. Another election certainly seems more likely than a few months ago, but there's all manner of reasons to call the bluff of party critics and just do...something, since win or lose there is going to be trouble, and it is not like the public seem inclined to give any party an easy time with a nice cushy majority.
The volatility of politics is only outpaced by the hype.
They were in favour of the sound bite. They are not in favour of any of the consequences.
The "wisdom of crowds" prediction (same poll) is 56-44 Yes. Don't knock it: such a poll got the Irish same-sex marriage referendum result exactly right, 62-38, when "how will you vote?" polls were predicting 70-30.
Betfair current midprices are 1.16 Yes, 7.3 No.
It is a duck?
How's that sound?
Interesting, Mr. Gin, that 'referendum' is now a naughty word.
On-topic: May will actually have to have an idea of what leaving the EU looks like to call such a vote.
High risk, though, and the government would have to be very certain about its course of action. Both points that suggest that it won't happen.
Then have a third referendun (best of three argument) to have union with England again and re-instate the Scottish MPs.
Plugging those into Baxter along with the GB findings of Con 43.0, Lab 38.5, LD 6.2, UKIP 3.6, Grn 3.2 gives the following House of Commons configuration:
Con 335 (+17), Lab 249 (-13), SNP 37 (+2), LD 6 (-6), PC 4 (-), Grn 1 (-).
=> Con majority of 20.
The SNP would lose five seats to the Tories (who would end up with 19 including East Lothian from Lab) while gaining six from Labour plus the LDs' Orkney & Shetland giving the nationalists a net gain of 2.
Just a bit of fun. We could do with a proper Scotland poll soon (the last one was in March).
As a side note, Opinium give the fractional results in their spreadsheet, and using one decimal place for each party gives the swing in GB since GE2017 to be exactly 1% Lab to Con (Con -0.5, Lab -2.5), so HYUFD was actually right there.
https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/998212609257213953
Or better still
Are we thinking what you're thinking?
Frankly, I think May will end up with no choice.
Under TMay, yes; under her successor, no. The ST scenario is that the GE will be called by a new leader.
If the PCP can manage to send an "obvious" candidate and an "also ran" to the membership, the Tory lead would soar when the new leader does a John Major except not to the party but to the country. "I can lead, and I can lead well and powerfully in these troubled times. There's too much division in our country. That is why I will be seeking a mandate in a general election."
The grey suited ones may even be able to do it without asking the membership. Some chatterers might dislike the idea of allowing the PCP to choose two prime ministers in a row, but outside of some parts of North London few would care, especially once the GE is declared.
Ken Clarke can say vote Labour (although he won't be able to do an Enoch since he doesn't have a vote) but it will be JRM (or possibly Hunt or Gove but I doubt it) with his gurning chops on the front pages. Cue a massive new leader bounce.
The present situation of a torn-apart minority PCP, relying on support from MPs from NI who care a lot about the Irish border and who aren't going to support a "fudge" (sellout) on that issue, and a government and even a cabinet that are perceived to be divided, directionless, and "led" by a leader who can't lead, cannot continue indefinitely. That situation is likely to be over before March 2019. So a 2018 GE sounds like a good bet at 5.
As for TMay calling a GE, that won't happen. I don't believe that any top Tories would like to go into opposition, not because they aren't cynical enough, but because while it might be satisfying to hand the Brexit balls-up to Jeremy Corbyn the Tory party would then tear itself apart for real. To stay together it's got to stay in government.
vs 'For the Many, not the Jew'
Yes/No to a proposed pro-choice repeal?
Too many double negatives for me. I hope the Irish understand.
I think it would be wrong to assume that a new leader would enjoy a 'massive' boost. Did that happen to Macmillan in January 1957? Or to Douglas-Home in October 1963? or to Callaghan in April 1976? Moreover, an election campaign would be at least 6 weeks long - and there is no guarantee that Corbyn would meekly agree to another early election , particularly as the Commons arithmetic makes it much easier to take that line.How keen would the DUP be for an early election given that a minority Government suits them fine?
https://twitter.com/pestononsunday/status/998137219394166784
This plan may be foiled by their opponents cunningly noticing it is, in fact, a referendum, and calling it a People's Vote is about as cunning as renaming the Constitution as the Lisbon Treaty.
Edited for grammar.
As for Chelsea, who will want to buy them? George O might have a chance to run a footie team too....
Why would they? To do so would mean owning the highly unpredictable consequences.
No, the government has set its position.
We are staying in the customs union until at least 2022, and probably 9/10 of the single market, including the walks, talks, and barks like FOM.
And the ERG will eat it, because it does after all get us “out”, and opens up the opportunity to diverge in the 2020s.
The only challenge is from the EU. If they don’t sign off on the above - and as of now, they are pushing back on certain aspects, most awkwardly on whether there should be an end date to the arrangements above - then it really could be the end of May.
In any case with the polls showing little change from the last general election if a fractional swing to the Tories, an early general election would solve nothing anyway
Though that was still less than the 26 million who watched the William and Kate wedding in 2011 or the 28 million who watched the Charles and Diana wedding in 1981
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5750091/More-17-million-tune-watch-Harry-wed-Meghan-BBC-wins-TV-royal-wedding-battle.html
I genuinely believe that any Government that backs out of a meaningful Brexit will be seen by enough of the electorate as a refusal to carry out their instruction. If Nigel rode back over the hill we could have a populist plague-on-all-your-houses party like 5-star that could break our 2 party system wide open. Not sure what would happen then.
However, they were clear that in the event of a no vote, the concessions made to Cameron would be taken off the table, and they confirmed this the day after the referendum.
They have said nothing about the Euro or the rebate. I think it is extremely unlikely they would insist on us joining the Euro. The rebate might be up for discussion as we start a new EU budget period.
Why not rerun the GE on the basis that the 'facts' were not explained to the people? After all, had they been, the Tories/Labour would have won a majority easily! It's the only explanation, right?
However it may not be within the UK's dominion to control them. So for example, if the UK were in a customs partnership with the UK, we would need import controls for goods entering from outside the UK in common with say France or Germany.
If instead we were entirely outside the EU customs net, we'd have a measure more control but a measure more bureaucracy as we would be levying customs on all other countries (probably). There is no model of "maximum facilitation" that produces less difficulty than now, at least int he short-to-mid term.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Kyos-M48B8U
We now know roughly how much it will cost and how long it will take. We know roughly how much economic damage it will cause in the long run (though for some people that isn't the important consideration). We know a lot more about the problems of a frictionless Irish border and the arguments for and against a customs union and a single market. There is the outline of an actual deal. When the deal is clear enough there will be a concrete plan to put to people with clear pros and cons instead of the blizzard of misinformation and ignorance we had last time.
I think you know that - but you don't trust the people because they may change their minds when they have the facts in front of them. That is profoundly undemocratic and elitist.