Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Amazing story coming out of the US about how a single trade
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Amazing story coming out of the US about how a single trader sought to manipulate the Intrade Romney price at WH2012
The big political betting this afternoon is not EdM’s speech but a report from the US about how a single trader sought to manipulate the Romney price on Intrade in the run-up to last November’s White House election.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
"Re Miliband speech/ freezing energy costs. If domestic energy costs frozen then cost to industry/businesses will go up which results in increased product/service costs, bus/rail fares etc for consumers... one way or another the public will pay. "
businesses (and especially small businesses) will end up bearing the brunt of the cost of any domestic price cap which in turn will lead to an increase in the costs of goods and services and the public will still end up paying. You dont get owt for nowt (except in Ed Milliblands fantasy land where money grows on trees)
So that's what happened to StuartTruth. Seth O Logue will be gutted. ;^ )
Good point and possibly a harbinger of things to come at the tory conference since it's inconceivable Cammie won't be trying to dream up some populist policies of his own.
The energy price pledge is going to be all about trust so we'll find out relatively soonish whether it might turn from a promise to an aspiration if it doesn't stand up to scrutiny or little Ed isn't completely committed to it.
The opprobrium of the right wing papers is pretty much a given but if little Ed's own voters don't really believe him on this then he'd be in deep, deep trouble. We shall see.
@RedRag and other leftists
I fully expected and still expect GO to produce some kind of bribe for the electorate prior to GE and was reasonably confident that it would work, given an improving economy. It might also have been half affordable.
But EdM has, to use a phrase I detest, jumped the shark here with his energy price controls. He has, pretty much like he did with Syria, sacrificed his principals (in this case for the UK to have adequate electricity at a reasonable price) for personal political gain.
And the danger is that people can't be bothered to work out the catastrophic consequences.
EdM is literally playing with fire; he is despicable.
Undeterred, they now seem determined to show how the land can be lit by fairy light....
11 now ;-)
It would be interesting to dig out the threads and comments.
If it ever happens I am sure the detail will be very different to the headlines.
1. All those rich millionaires living on acres of land who have been voting UKIP to punish the Tories had better get the hell back to the Tories before Red steals their land!!!!
2. Price controls on energy WILL be massively (and I mean massively) popular in the opinion polls and Labour can expect a substantial bounce by the weekend opinion polls.
Whether it's legal or not is another matter, never-mind the chaos it would cause if it was actually implemented - Actually it's almost worth seeing Labour win the election in 2015 so that they have to implement this policy and deal with the fall out, LOL!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10331267/Ed-Miliband-has-shown-he-knows-nothing-about-business-or-the-economy.html
"Price controls, planning and the centralised allocation of resources went out of favour when the Berlin Wall was torn down. Labour’s approach will win votes but rob the energy industry of any kind of certainty: why invest to reconstruct the UK’s crumbling infrastructure if you have no idea whether you will be able to make a profit?
If prices can’t vary, the only means of allocating a scarce resource is by rationing. And once you start with electricity price controls, what next? Transport, perhaps, then rents? Labour is starting to sound more like Francois Hollande’s discredited and catastrophically unsuccessful hard-left gang, rather than the modern, progressive centre-left party for which there clearly is a large market among UK voters."
If that happened then you might see Cammie, Clegg and little Ed fighting to claim the credit.
Little Ed could say his 'policy' had forced the energy companies into this and that his measures were no longer needed. While Cammie would presumably say this was all about the energy companies doing what was right under his watch to stop little Ed's 'unfair' and 'disasterous' measures. Clegg would likely say something between the two maybe and someone might even care I suppose.
@chrisdeerin: 'just pass a law that retailers can't sell tomatoes for more than 2 cents per pound. Instantly you'll have a tomato shortage...'
@chrisdeerin: ...It's the same with oil or gas." ht @JeremyWarnerUK
Of course as Tim indicates below, it may not have due solely or even mainly to rigging, but rather to the differing perceptions of the likely outcome as between US and European punters. There is a definite tendency for the Europeans punters to lean Democrat, and the US towards the GOP.
Shame Intrade has gone. It used to be a source of easy arbs, although actually getting your money out of the firm wasn't terribly easy. So maybe good riddance, after all.
This will not be in response to Ed Miliband's threat to revert Britain to the socialist price controls of the 1970s.
It will be due to the link between energy/fuel prices, inflation, costs of living and interest rates. Carney will need help keeping base rates at 0.5% until 2017. The best way George can help is to relieve the upward pressure on inflation which derives from regulated and administrative prices.
The problem however is that global energy prices are beyond the control of the UK government. No Chancellor can buck the market. It can only be tweaked. And any intervention carries strong downside risks of external shocks.
However, if the energy companies do freeze the bills and/or puts them down and Labour get in, the consumers will have the benefit of it for 20 more months and it will be the energy companies own fault for trying to change peoples votes by artificially keeping it low. A political masterstroke......you only have to see the PB Hodges response, to see even they can see it(but would never admit it).
Immigration/Apprenticeships - unravelled
Energy Price Freeze - unravelling
HS2 - complete confusion - one SC member stressing support, others undermining it
Planning/Land Law - dangerous idea for state-control of land use
This isn't a platform for good government. This is a platform to see Miliband through the next few months. Nothing more, nothing less.
There may be a poll bounce from the energy announcement - but it will be short-lived.
His position might be secure - but the speech today makes his defeat in 2015 more likely.
spend baby spend.
(1) Fire some staff
(2) Provide power at base prices, and when they can afford to do it. So if we have a cold winter, and world prices rise, just don't supply any energy, as they'll be losing money on it.
Price freezes all round.
The price consumers pay is the cost of supply / purchase plus the energy companies own costs plus a profit margin. Plus a bunch of green subsidy crap.
The underlying wholesale cost of gas is outside the government's control over anything other than very long timescales and is a function of supply chains and international competition. (Note that Miliblob himself as energy sec did precisely 3 parts of F all to develop the energy infrastructure of this country and bravely dithered during his entire time on seat). The cost structure of the energy companies is outside the government's control and anyway they try to minimise this to maximise profits.
So the only two areas Ed could play in are around whether or not the energy suppliers are making superprofits and the green boondoggle. If there are superprofits / cartels / price gouging then he can make specific proposals to increase competition and enforce pricing transparency. Or Balls could impose / impute tax on these. Either way he is effectively saying 'I'm going to take money from the shareholders and the treasury and give it to the customers'. The customers will be happy. The treasury won't like the loss of tax - and I doubt Labour have really costed this! I'm less sympathetic to the shareholders if they are scamming - but please everyone do recognise that energy is a capital intensive business, and if you kill the NPV of projects by taxing them away then nobody will invest and blackouts follow.
So...the right answer for energy, as with much else in our economy, is more red in tooth and claw competitive capitalism - supported by absolute transparency and good (rather than more) regualtion. And a willingness to invest and make investment profitable in energy infrastructure (shale anyone?). Labour's track record here is so lamentable as to be laughable.
1) Labour have given up on explaining what hard choices they might make. The public will conclude that they won't make any. This can only be bad news for Labour. Ed Miliband and Ed Balls had to say much more yesterday and today about what they would do to keep spending under control. Their failure to do so is simply lamentable.
2) Turnout at the next general election will almost certainly be up. Both Labour and the Conservatives can look forward to a higher combined share of the vote, as we are heading for a polarised election.
3) Ed Miliband better have a whole programme of speeches laid out for the autumn. Big shifts like this need constant reinforcement if he is not to be defined by his enemies' caricatures. To date, this has been one of his biggest areas of failure. In the past, he has shown the ability to learn. From his viewpoint, it is imperative that he has learned here.
Labour has a long history of association with corrupt property developers. Under a Miliband government honest folk would have their property seized by regime functionaries and sold on at rock bottom prices to party favourites.
In summary I think it will have done well to cement support from tribal labour voters, the left of the Lib Dems who have peeled away from the coalition junior partners and others who are sympathetic to this specific traditional left wing policy agenda. In that sense it is job done, as this is the coalition of voters that if they turn out on General Election day can help Labour immensely. On the flip side however, as others have implied, it opens the door to the Conservatives considerably as they have a clearly left wing agenda here to tackle, which could facilitate a squeeze on UKIP. Are UKIP waverers really going to risk Miliband and his price controls in the ballot box?
In term of delivery I thought it was decent. It had a weak start but got stronger. For me there were too many jokes and it seemed a little forced at times. In large part I think this can be down to the standing, no notes delivery format. Cameron has a lot to answer for here, I don't get this approach, much preferring the podium and teleprompters. I feel they allow for a more coherent message to emerge and to enhance the flow, timing and thus power of delivery.
Content wise it will get some decent headlines and gives Labour some good sells on the doorstep - energy price freeze, more houses, no bedroom tax, minimum wage rise. Yes many of the policies are populist, but that is politics. To criticise a politician for this, is to misunderstand politics itself. The intricacies and flaws of the policies will need to be mercilessly repeated by the government to counter the snappy headline potential Labour have here.
Indeed overall I think Miliband does understand some of the concerns we have as a country well, particularly over standard of living. His problem, and it is rather a major one, is that his response is to look backwards to policies that were not altogether successful when previously tried and to place the state even more firm and centre in the population's lives. Collectively this is an approach I think would be negative for the country.
The Conservatives however need a standard of living response, they need to keep plugging away at the 'return to socialism' message, but they should also prepare themselves for many of these policy suggestions to be, in the short term at least, popular with the voters in the polls.
Back on the speech - response generally good outside the Tory laager, and even within parts of it - Hodges and his Murdochian friend were fairly positive. It's worth noting that the tradeoff for the energy companies is that they get a carbon commitment through to 2030 which they don't currently have, so stomping off in a fury is fairly unlikely. The suggestion that a 20-month price freeze will cause blackouts is hysteria, and politically carries the dangerous subtext that actually energy price rises are a jolly good thing.
It will end up with vast numbers of court cases with the Government being defeated time after time.
It is a bad idea
Are they lazy or just want to watch Cameron's speech ?
If they're going to respond proactively then the energy companies will likely respond with a plan of their own for 2015 and after and they will do so very publicly to try and stop little Ed's own plan. It could involve their own 'cost cutting' measures and while they would be loathe to implement a full freeze they employ more than enough people to come up with some other offer that would likely muddy the waters.
They are hardly going to just meekly accept this after all so little Ed better be 100% committed to this and he'll have to persuade everyone else that he is too.
Flint on the Daily Politics was all over the place in her answers. Her response to concerns about preemptive or post freeze price rises was that they would set up a new regulator to deal with that. There were few details though. So we know there will be a price freeze with its potentially negative consequences, but to balance it up we just get a committee telling these same companies to keep investing in infrastructure.
But you must distinguish between problem and solution, as must the Conservative party in their reply.
Ed Davey: 'When they tried to fix prices in California it resulted in an electricity crisis and widespread blackouts'
A price freeze is superficially attractive and an easy sell. However it just won't work.
Labour isn't working - again
Time for some in the shadow cabinet to get off their arse and sell this.
He doesnt think Labour will win in 2016 or he knows someone who only wants the job for one term?
The detail on the latest YouGov on UKIP voters views on which party would be best on immigration, etc, is interesting on this sort of thing.
But he loses in credibility. And hence the "same old Labour" meme that the Cons will level at him.
As @JamesM has pointed out above and it's a point with which I agree, EdM is also playing shameless politics with the wellbeing of the UK and this might be too nuanced to be noticed generally.
But if nothing else, it usefully draws the line between left and right; no more Blairite, centre-left blather. The Labour Party is now a party of the Left, perhaps far left, and it remains to be seen whether this is something the Great British Public embrace or reject.
Not pasties then? Because we have a master of pasty knowledge in Cammie.
Labour to freeze energy bills for TWO years: Ed Miliband unveils bold pledge to voters as he vows to break up power of the Big Six
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2430497/Labour-conference-2013-Ed-Miliband-speech-claims-Britain-better.html#comments
but a warning to labour,this from a poster who knows what happens on energy freezes.
Mike, Cartagena Spain, Spain, moments ago
The government here in Spain tried freezing energy costs the supplier took them to court and won now we have a surcharge on each bill to repay the cost of the back dated increase
Truth is Labour will spend more than the tories, you know it and we all know it.
Worse than that, Labour have such a crap record of getting value for money. It seems they think spending is the only important thing.
Still, I understand an arch Blairite like yourself will be feeling the pain from the ever more leftward lurch of your party so I shouldn't be surprised you are a bit more touchy than usual.
Truly Kinnock is getting his party back, I am sure you are very proud.
Remember, you have about a year before the markets start getting worried about the 2015 political risk. No great hurry, but a gradual rebalancing away from dependency on the UK economy would be prudent IMO for anyone with a money-purchase pension scheme or a stocks-and-shares ISA. And of course cut exposure to gilts
As the law currently stands, anyone can put in a planning proposal on any land; i.e. someone who doesn't like you can put in for a scheme to build houses in your garden: if you don't then build it the Goverment or Local Authority can take your house off you, if Miliband gets his way. They then ship it on to whoever they like - 'war veterans' / labour party flunkies, perhaps.
The only way to cap prices is by subsidising them from general taxation - so someone still has to pay the high price somehow. You can't do it by Act of Parliament and expect private companies with a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to lose money on every unit of gas/electricity that they sell.
I suspect that Miliband knows this, and that in the detail will be a wodge of cash finding its way from the government to the utility companies, by as convoluted a route as possible. Blairites and Brownites alike never had any problem with bunging vast quantities of money to private companies to back up their soundbites. After all, that was the essence behind PFI.
1) To reduce Brown's house building target from 240,000 to 200,000
2) To hasten power cuts by freezing Roman Abramovich's fuel bills
3) To shut British factories by increasing their fuel bills
And is he still plannng on giving Roman Abramovich his child benefit back?
Welcome back - want to talk through why the SNP and others didnt play ball over the electoral boundaries?
This may effect some people I know considerably, so it'll be interesting to see what the detail is.
Another thought: is it just final consent, or outline, that will be affected?
The BBC is under mounting pressure to change guidelines which prevent newsreaders using the word “terrorist”."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/kenya/10330872/BBC-under-pressure-to-change-guidelines-preventing-use-of-the-word-terrorist.html
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/09/13/oukoe-uk-greece-computers-idUKBRE98C0LD20130913
Civil servants who work with computers have to give up the 6 days extra holiday they got for doing so. No, really.
LOL
Their response was "but utility shares are safe and always produce a good income", hopefully they'll start listening to me now.
@DPJHodges: Just who does Ed Miliband think he is? > Telegraph > http://t.co/5e1NDOlaSq
As I'm unlikely to be then the answer is almost certainly no.
And that's very welcome news for those of us living in neighbourhoods which for years have been blighted by such derelict sites. And of course it will stimulate the housing market at a net benefit to the taxpayer by stimulating the supply of land, compared with Osborne's policy of stoking up a housing demand bubble at taxpayers expense.
It is a very good idea.
'Did Ed say anything about how labour would cut the defecit?'
No,Just about Utopia from May 2015 & nobody has a clue how that's funded either.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/23/kenya-mall-attacks-david-cameron
"The modern urban obsession with celebrity buildings and high-profile events offers too many publicity-rich targets. A World Trade Centre, a Mumbai hotel, a Boston marathon, a Nairobi shopping mall are all enticing to extremists. Defending them is near impossible. Better at least not to create them. A shopping mall not only wipes out shopping streets, it makes a perfect terrorist fortress, near impossible to assault."
If this had been Ed Miliband’s first speech as leader, it would have been a triumph. But it was his fourth. The next time he walks offstage at a Labour party conference he will have to do so not as the man who feels the nation’s pain but as a prime minister in waiting.
For all his empathy, sincerity and passion he didn’t look like one today. And it’s increasingly hard to see how he will look like one in 12 months' time.
Its because unemployment rises during a Labour government right?
Now, do you understand why Labour always trash the economy?
If you do, be sure to tell the Ed's coz they haven't a Scooby.
Notice you tried to reframe the debate rather than argue the points made.
Keep spinning baby, beats real life right? (9,990 posts and counting)