politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Punters now make it a 57% chance that TMay will be out next ye

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Punters now make it a 57% chance that TMay will be out next year

There’s been more movement on the TMay exit year market on Betfair as seen in the Betdata.io chart.

Read the full story here

swing_voter

she never looked well in the job, I suspect she cannot wait to put the job behind her....

JosiasJessop

"She’s still there because there’s no clear view amongst CON MPs about her successor."

That's the main problem. I think there's another aspect playing into that, though: there are people who might quite fancy being PM, who realise that Brexit is a hot potato. Let someone else deal with it ...

edmundintokyo

I'm sure she doesn't intend to go quietly, she was making spending promises for post-Brexit.

JohnRussell

https://twitter.com/bbcthree/status/1049318995697041408?s=21

rkrkrk

JosiasJessop said:

"She’s still there because there’s no clear view amongst CON MPs about her successor."

That's the main problem. I think there's another aspect playing into that, though: there are people who might quite fancy being PM, who realise that Brexit is a hot potato. Let someone else deal with it ...

I think there's a lot to this theory. But how long before the potato cools?
I don't see that fornally leaving in March 2019 is going to calm things down.

edmundintokyo

rkrkrk said:

JosiasJessop said:

"She’s still there because there’s no clear view amongst CON MPs about her successor."

That's the main problem. I think there's another aspect playing into that, though: there are people who might quite fancy being PM, who realise that Brexit is a hot potato. Let someone else deal with it ...

I think there's a lot to this theory. But how long before the potato cools?
I don't see that fornally leaving in March 2019 is going to calm things down.

The other angle to this is that she has an incentive to make sure the potato stays in the oven for as long as possible.

Cyclefree

swing_voter said:

she never looked well in the job, I suspect she cannot wait to put the job behind her....

As a PM she has been awful despite a good initial speech. It is a shame she never followed up on the sentiments she expressed in it and that she took a hard line divisive approach on Brexit. Something like the speech she made at this year's conference should have been made 2 years ago and if it had been the country would have had a chance to be in a better place now.

But on a personal level she deserves admiration for the way she has taken on a very stressful job despite her equally stressful medical condition. Were I one of her nearest and dearest I'd have told her to pack it in ages ago.

She is in office because no-one else wants the job while Brexit is unfinished business.

The trouble is there is a delusion that post-March Brexit will be finished. Whereas in reality we will barely be starting on the next stage of it.

So the whole ghastly cycle will continue.

I have to say that I never thought Britain would vote to leave and that if it did I imagined, stupidly I now realise, that we'd probably end up remaining in the SM/CU or in the EEA or there would be some fudge whereby we'd probably end up in some form of associate membership or similar. And, to be honest, that still seems to me to be the best sort of outcome given the closeness of the result and the need to unpick 40 years of membership slowly and carefully so as to try and minimise the harm, to us and to our neighbours.

I had hoped that people - both on the British and EU side - would be sensible about this. But the way many of the leading Brexiteers have gone about their task has really put me off - and I am not at all a fan of the EU, who have not behaved intelligently either in their response. I do not know whether a second referendum is feasible or even sensible. But were I given a vote now I think I would probably vote to Remain, largely because the Brexiteers have so queered their pitch rather than because of any great love for the EU. Or I might abstain, on the basis that I really don't know what's best and I dislike both sides. But then nobody else seems to know either.

So it's all a bit of a mess.

And on that note I have work to do.

Have a good day all.

SandyRentool

So basically all of the ASAP money has switched from 2018 to 2019 as 2018 becomes time-limited. Looks like the astute punters bet on 2019 back in the summer.

If she leaves next summer, she'll have time to book a slot on next year's Strictly.

JosiasJessop

rkrkrk said:

JosiasJessop said:

"She’s still there because there’s no clear view amongst CON MPs about her successor."

That's the main problem. I think there's another aspect playing into that, though: there are people who might quite fancy being PM, who realise that Brexit is a hot potato. Let someone else deal with it ...

I think there's a lot to this theory. But how long before the potato cools?
I don't see that fornally leaving in March 2019 is going to calm things down.

The hot potato will probably remain warm for some time. But it'll probably be cool enough to handle once the main decisions on the shape and form of Brexit have been made, and blame can therefore be shifted onto the people who made those decisions: "It wasn't me guv" is one of the oldest political excuses on the block ...

As I've said before, the next Conservative leader or PM (depending on when it happens) will be someone who is keeping his or her head down at the moment. Don't back the favourites.

Jonathan

May had an impossible job. She was foolish to take it on and, despite being impossible, contrived to make the job look harder than it was.

She stays so long as there is insufficient agreement on the successor. She is a human fence upon which the Tory party sits.

Richard_Nabavi

It has long seemed to me that, having survived the immediately dangerous time of just after the GE2017 debacle, 2019 was the most likely date for her stepping down. If by then she's managed to deliver a reasonable Brexit without major disruption, she'll be able to depart with honour, duty done, and having overcome the most difficult circumstances. Of course that might be a big 'if'.

The obvious timetable in a 2019 departure would be to make the announcement in, say, May or June, leaving time for a contest with the new leader in place for the party conference in the Autumn. In party-political terms, though, there could be a case for delaying the switch to 2020, which would still give the new leader time to establish a new direction by the 2022 election, whilst still benefiting from a new-leader boost. But that assumes that Theresa May can hang on that long, both personally and politically, and it also assumes that the current unstable minority government can remain in place safely until 2022 - which is not a given.

On balance, therefore, 2019 should remain firm favourite. I don't think the party and colleagues will let her stay on into the next election. Once bitten, twice shy!

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Nabavi, perhaps. The Conservative MPs seem to have lost their taste for blood, though. May's disastrous campaign is more than enough to justify her belated defenestration.

Richard_Nabavi

Jonathan said:

May had an impossible job. She was foolish to take it on and, despite being impossible, contrived to make the job look harder than it was.

[snip].

She made a lot of unforced errors, right from the start.

MarqueeMark

"She’s still there because there’s no clear view amongst CON MPs about her successor."

But there is a very clear vew that she cannot inflict another General Election campaign on the party. The word I have been hearing on the inside since the last election was "2019". Nobody wants her to stay.

OldKingCole

Ms Cyclefree wrote, inter alia
'She is in office because no-one else wants the job while Brexit is unfinished business.'

Not quite true. Several other people want the job but not enough other people think any of those 'several others' would be any good.

Incidentally I've just been out for a short drive (to the gym and there isn't a bus) and someone on the radio was talking about how Churchill admired his father, Lord Randolph. The speaker went on to describe Lord R's many faults. And it occured to me that rather then thinking he was Churchill, Boris was really imitating Lord Randolph.

Apart from the brain tumour. I hope, TBH.

rottenborough

MarqueeMark said:

"She’s still there because there’s no clear view amongst CON MPs about her successor."

But there is a very clear vew that she cannot inflict another General Election campaign on the party. The word I have been hearing on the inside since the last election was "2019". Nobody wants her to stay.

She will try and cling on I suspect. Could get messy.

Jonathan

Richard_Nabavi said:

Jonathan said:

May had an impossible job. She was foolish to take it on and, despite being impossible, contrived to make the job look harder than it was.

[snip].

She made a lot of unforced errors, right from the start.

Her tragedy is that her political positioning is close to perfect. It’s her execution that sucks.

geoffw

David Owen interview.
He has had extensive correspondence with Theresa May on Brexit, and now talks about it and makes it public.

https://www.conservativehome.com/highlights/2018/10/interview-with-david-owen-theresa-may-has-been-very-badly-advised-about-brexit-and-should-now-embrace-the-eea-in-order-to-end-up-with-canada-plus-plus-plus.html

Richard_Nabavi

Jonathan said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Jonathan said:

May had an impossible job. She was foolish to take it on and, despite being impossible, contrived to make the job look harder than it was.

[snip].

She made a lot of unforced errors, right from the start.

Her tragedy is that her political positioning is close to perfect. It’s her execution that sucks.

Yes, that is true.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Borough, that's eminently possible, but if there's a proper effort to remove her, she's gone.

OldKingCole

geoffw said:

David Owen interview.
He has had extensive correspondence with Theresa May on Brexit, and now talks about it and makes it public.

https://www.conservativehome.com/highlights/2018/10/interview-with-david-owen-theresa-may-has-been-very-badly-advised-about-brexit-and-should-now-embrace-the-eea-in-order-to-end-up-with-canada-plus-plus-plus.html

Is he angling for a job?

williamglenn

Jonathan said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Jonathan said:

May had an impossible job. She was foolish to take it on and, despite being impossible, contrived to make the job look harder than it was.

[snip].

She made a lot of unforced errors, right from the start.

Her tragedy is that her political positioning is close to perfect. It’s her execution that sucks.

Perhaps sucking at execution was the plan.

MarqueeMark

rottenborough said:

MarqueeMark said:

"She’s still there because there’s no clear view amongst CON MPs about her successor."

But there is a very clear vew that she cannot inflict another General Election campaign on the party. The word I have been hearing on the inside since the last election was "2019". Nobody wants her to stay.

She will try and cling on I suspect. Could get messy.

Letters to the '22 from a majority of the Party would see her go. Although I imagine the Whips have already told her this.

Who has gone public to say they want her to lead them into the 2022 election? No-one. She has no powerbase, just those ambitious opponents who want to choose the time of her departure, keeping her in place until the timing better suits them.

geoffw

Her political positioning is to get equidistant from the two sides, never mind the inconsistencies. It's not even a curate's egg.

Danny565

What other potential leader do the Tories have who can appeal to "Mansfield Man"?

Amid all the focus on May's many weaknesses, people are forgetting how popular she was at the time of the election, and how she managed to appeal to people who had never voted Tory before.

AlastairMeeks

Theresa May is good at penelopising. She will continue to pull the same trick, relying on her opponents always thinking that now is not the time to act. She will do nothing to precipitate a challenge. It's very possible as a result that none will come in 2019.

2020, however, is a different matter. In my view 2020 is underrated as an exit date for her.

Theuniondivvie

OldKingCole said:

Ms Cyclefree wrote, inter alia
'She is in office because no-one else wants the job while Brexit is unfinished business.'

Not quite true. Several other people want the job but not enough other people think any of those 'several others' would be any good.

Incidentally I've just been out for a short drive (to the gym and there isn't a bus) and someone on the radio was talking about how Churchill admired his father, Lord Randolph. The speaker went on to describe Lord R's many faults. And it occured to me that rather then thinking he was Churchill, Boris was really imitating Lord Randolph.

Apart from the brain tumour. I hope, TBH.

The (rumoured) syphilis is more likely. Thank God for penicillin, eh?

Morris_Dancer

As an aside, syphilis used to be more of a fever rather than an STD. Its characteristics changed around the Elizabethan era. Sometimes reading history and trying to guess symptoms and diseases can be very tricky.

Mr. Meeks, never come across the verb form of Penelope before.

Interesting view on 2020.

OldKingCole

Theuniondivvie said:

OldKingCole said:

Ms Cyclefree wrote, inter alia
'She is in office because no-one else wants the job while Brexit is unfinished business.'

Not quite true. Several other people want the job but not enough other people think any of those 'several others' would be any good.

Incidentally I've just been out for a short drive (to the gym and there isn't a bus) and someone on the radio was talking about how Churchill admired his father, Lord Randolph. The speaker went on to describe Lord R's many faults. And it occured to me that rather then thinking he was Churchill, Boris was really imitating Lord Randolph.

Apart from the brain tumour. I hope, TBH.

The (rumoured) syphilis is more likely. Thank God for penicillin, eh?

No problems with then two children though. And no suggestion that his widow had anything wrong with her.

AlastairMeeks

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Meeks, never come across the verb form of Penelope before.

It's a favourite of mine - dithering as a conscious strategy. It comes from the Odyssey, so you will approve of its impeccably ancient roots.

tlg86

AlastairMeeks said:

Theresa May is good at penelopising. She will continue to pull the same trick, relying on her opponents always thinking that now is not the time to act. She will do nothing to precipitate a challenge. It's very possible as a result that none will come in 2019.

2020, however, is a different matter. In my view 2020 is underrated as an exit date for her.

How important do you think the local elections will be next year?

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Meeks, ahem, yes, I did know that.

We also get stentorian from Homer, after Stentor (think he was a herald).

TOPPING

George Osborne had it right at the Standard recently, and others equally so previously. She is a micro-manager who does not look beyond her immediate circle and will, eventually, be found out.

For all her undoubted positive attributes, this is now playing out, and has been for the past two years. Like a slow motion car crash. She has not lead, she has followed and has done so with unwarranted hubris.

And here we are.

AlastairMeeks

tlg86 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Theresa May is good at penelopising. She will continue to pull the same trick, relying on her opponents always thinking that now is not the time to act. She will do nothing to precipitate a challenge. It's very possible as a result that none will come in 2019.

2020, however, is a different matter. In my view 2020 is underrated as an exit date for her.

How important do you think the local elections will be next year?

Not very. I expect we'll have the same as this year - massively overinflated expectations for how Labour will do, Labour will do pretty decently but not as well as had been bruited, Conservatives will fool themselves into thinking they did ok and everything will go on as before.

JosiasJessop

Off-topic:

I'm listening to Absolute 80s as I'm trying to do some work.

Morrisey is playing.

And it reminds me that he's a twunt.

CarlottaVance

FPT:

TOPPING said:

Charles said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I agree that Leavers have been reckless about embedding Brexit and have done their level best to ensure that Brexit will be controversial and a dividing line for years.

I’m uncertain what Remainers should do. Militantly refusing to accept complicity in a national catastrophe seems reasonable, even if it leads to a worse outcome in the short term.

Alastair - life moves on.

You’d be well advised to accept whatever happens when it happens. Raging at the storm doesn’t achieve anything

Charles I presume that when Jeremy Corbyn becomes our next Prime Minister you will accept it and move on from trying to oust him at the following GE.

That's the point. at the following GE

Not before he's had a chance to implement his manifesto.

Not because he told fibs and there were spending irregularities so we must redo it now

Not because we've got an online petition/demos/dogs demo to redo it now

But

at the following GE

Same with Brexit.

By all means, come 2022, parties are welcome to campaign to rejoin - in the meantime, lets implement what the voters voted for in 2016. And not try to do an end-run behind it because we don't like the decision.

TOPPING

CarlottaVance said:

FPT:

TOPPING said:

Charles said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I agree that Leavers have been reckless about embedding Brexit and have done their level best to ensure that Brexit will be controversial and a dividing line for years.

I’m uncertain what Remainers should do. Militantly refusing to accept complicity in a national catastrophe seems reasonable, even if it leads to a worse outcome in the short term.

Alastair - life moves on.

You’d be well advised to accept whatever happens when it happens. Raging at the storm doesn’t achieve anything

Charles I presume that when Jeremy Corbyn becomes our next Prime Minister you will accept it and move on from trying to oust him at the following GE.

That's the point. at the following GE

Not before he's had a chance to implement his manifesto.

Not because he told fibs and there were spending irregularities so we must redo it now

Not because we've got an online petition/demos/dogs demo to redo it now

But

at the following GE

Same with Brexit.

By all means, come 2022, parties are welcome to campaign to rejoin - in the meantime, lets implement what the voters voted for in 2016. And not try to do an end-run behind it because we don't like the decision.

Oh so you get to say when people can start to campaign for one political outcome or another?

CarlottaVance

https://twitter.com/Berlaymonster/status/1049585375977594880

AlastairMeeks

I would place a sporting wager that if Jeremy Corbyn were to be elected Prime Minister that some of the pb Tories would decide that they didn't need to wait until the following election to oppose some at least of his policies with every fibre of their beings and would take direct actions to seek to thwart them.

Sean_F

Morris_Dancer said:

As an aside, syphilis used to be more of a fever rather than an STD. Its characteristics changed around the Elizabethan era. Sometimes reading history and trying to guess symptoms and diseases can be very tricky.

Mr. Meeks, never come across the verb form of Penelope before.

Interesting view on 2020.

One should use the correct medical term, the French Pox.

CarlottaVance

TOPPING said:

CarlottaVance said:

FPT:

TOPPING said:

Charles said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I agree that Leavers have been reckless about embedding Brexit and have done their level best to ensure that Brexit will be controversial and a dividing line for years.

I’m uncertain what Remainers should do. Militantly refusing to accept complicity in a national catastrophe seems reasonable, even if it leads to a worse outcome in the short term.

Alastair - life moves on.

You’d be well advised to accept whatever happens when it happens. Raging at the storm doesn’t achieve anything

Charles I presume that when Jeremy Corbyn becomes our next Prime Minister you will accept it and move on from trying to oust him at the following GE.

That's the point. at the following GE

Not before he's had a chance to implement his manifesto.

Not because he told fibs and there were spending irregularities so we must redo it now

Not because we've got an online petition/demos/dogs demo to redo it now

But

at the following GE

Same with Brexit.

By all means, come 2022, parties are welcome to campaign to rejoin - in the meantime, lets implement what the voters voted for in 2016. And not try to do an end-run behind it because we don't like the decision.

Oh so you get to say when people can start to campaign for one political outcome or another?

No, I say you don't get to short circuit democracy because you don't like the result.

Sean_F

O/T WRT the US Senate, it looks as though the Republicans are pulling away in Texas, Tennessee, and North Dakota, and the likelihood of the Democrats gaining the Senate is now remote.

It's unusual, but not very unusual, for the House and Senate to move in different directions, simply because only 2/3 of the States have Senate elections each year. 1982 is an example of this. The Republicans lost heavily in the House, but gained a Senate seat, simply because 1976, when the seats were last contested, had been such a good Democratic year.

TOPPING

CarlottaVance said:

TOPPING said:

CarlottaVance said:

FPT:

TOPPING said:

Charles said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I agree that Leavers have been reckless about embedding Brexit and have done their level best to ensure that Brexit will be controversial and a dividing line for years.

I’m uncertain what Remainers should do. Militantly refusing to accept complicity in a national catastrophe seems reasonable, even if it leads to a worse outcome in the short term.

Alastair - life moves on.

You’d be well advised to accept whatever happens when it happens. Raging at the storm doesn’t achieve anything

Charles I presume that when Jeremy Corbyn becomes our next Prime Minister you will accept it and move on from trying to oust him at the following GE.

That's the point. at the following GE

Not before he's had a chance to implement his manifesto.

Not because he told fibs and there were spending irregularities so we must redo it now

Not because we've got an online petition/demos/dogs demo to redo it now

But

at the following GE

Same with Brexit.

By all means, come 2022, parties are welcome to campaign to rejoin - in the meantime, lets implement what the voters voted for in 2016. And not try to do an end-run behind it because we don't like the decision.

Oh so you get to say when people can start to campaign for one political outcome or another?

No, I say you don't get to short circuit democracy because you don't like the result.

You have it wrong. The Labour Party (rightly) are straining every sinew of their collective body to overturn the last general election result. Why Jeremy Corbyn calls for it every Wednesday at PMQs as well as elsewhere. That is their role. They want the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED government out and out now.

And likewise some people hold the view that Brexit is a stupid idea.

Theuniondivvie

OldKingCole said:

Theuniondivvie said:

OldKingCole said:

Ms Cyclefree wrote, inter alia
'She is in office because no-one else wants the job while Brexit is unfinished business.'

Not quite true. Several other people want the job but not enough other people think any of those 'several others' would be any good.

Incidentally I've just been out for a short drive (to the gym and there isn't a bus) and someone on the radio was talking about how Churchill admired his father, Lord Randolph. The speaker went on to describe Lord R's many faults. And it occured to me that rather then thinking he was Churchill, Boris was really imitating Lord Randolph.

Apart from the brain tumour. I hope, TBH.

The (rumoured) syphilis is more likely. Thank God for penicillin, eh?

No problems with then two children though. And no suggestion that his widow had anything wrong with her.

Oh, I know it's a theory that has lost credence over the years, though I believe Winston privately subscribed to it. I was thinking more of Boris's potential afflictions; chancres, discomfort & social embarrassment, all good stuff when it comes to that ****.

CarlottaVance

https://twitter.com/gsoh31/status/1049600975340806144
https://twitter.com/gsoh31/status/1049601292702756865

"Another fine mess"......

Pulpstar

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/gsoh31/status/1049600975340806144
https://twitter.com/gsoh31/status/1049601292702756865

"Another fine mess"......

Minority Labour government on those numbers I reckon. Big big Tory lead midway through the parliament.

rottenborough

Sean_F said:

O/T WRT the US Senate, it looks as though the Republicans are pulling away in Texas, Tennessee, and North Dakota, and the likelihood of the Democrats gaining the Senate is now remote.

It's unusual, but not very unusual, for the House and Senate to move in different directions, simply because only 2/3 of the States have Senate elections each year. 1982 is an example of this. The Republicans lost heavily in the House, but gained a Senate seat, simply because 1976, when the seats were last contested, had been such a good Democratic year.

Chances of Dem Senate have dropped by about 10% since start of month, according to fivethirtyeight models.

Sean_F

rottenborough said:

Sean_F said:

O/T WRT the US Senate, it looks as though the Republicans are pulling away in Texas, Tennessee, and North Dakota, and the likelihood of the Democrats gaining the Senate is now remote.

It's unusual, but not very unusual, for the House and Senate to move in different directions, simply because only 2/3 of the States have Senate elections each year. 1982 is an example of this. The Republicans lost heavily in the House, but gained a Senate seat, simply because 1976, when the seats were last contested, had been such a good Democratic year.

Chances of Dem Senate have dropped by about 10% since start of month, according to fivethirtyeight models.

Manchin looks safe in West Virginia. That leaves Indiana, Arizona, Nevada, Missouri, Florida, and Montana as very close fights. I'd be surprised if the Republicans can't win at least one of those.

williamglenn

Pimlico Plumbers are running an eye-catching campaign.

https://twitter.com/PimlicoPlumbers/status/1049592980728926209

Pro_Rata

Beeb Betting Relevant Analysis on US elections.

Definitely worth another look, even if it has already been disected on the overnight thread:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/world-us-canada-45013748

Morris_Dancer

Mr. F, I stand corrected.

Pulpstar

Sean_F said:

rottenborough said:

Sean_F said:

O/T WRT the US Senate, it looks as though the Republicans are pulling away in Texas, Tennessee, and North Dakota, and the likelihood of the Democrats gaining the Senate is now remote.

It's unusual, but not very unusual, for the House and Senate to move in different directions, simply because only 2/3 of the States have Senate elections each year. 1982 is an example of this. The Republicans lost heavily in the House, but gained a Senate seat, simply because 1976, when the seats were last contested, had been such a good Democratic year.

Chances of Dem Senate have dropped by about 10% since start of month, according to fivethirtyeight models.

Manchin looks safe in West Virginia. That leaves Indiana, Arizona, Nevada, Missouri, Florida, and Montana as very close fights. I'd be surprised if the Republicans can't win at least one of those.

Nevada, Missouri and Florida are all toss up states; Indiana, Arizona Lean Dem and Montana still likely Dem.
I've backed Tester, I think he's still the safest of all those states.

JosiasJessop

williamglenn said:

Pimlico Plumbers are running an eye-catching campaign.

https://twitter.com/PimlicoPlumbers/status/1049592980728926209

Yet another numpty screeching and shouting, without a workable alternative plan.

(And yes, I know he's a remainer.)

Big_G_NorthWales

Pulpstar said:

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/gsoh31/status/1049600975340806144
https://twitter.com/gsoh31/status/1049601292702756865

"Another fine mess"......

Minority Labour government on those numbers I reckon. Big big Tory lead midway through the parliament.

Unstable from day 1

rottenborough

https://twitter.com/theobertram/status/1049600202888400896

Nemtynakht

Both on this topic and the earlier post by Mike and despite being a remainer I cannot see a deal that leaves and please remainers.

Remainers want a nice cool glass of iced lemon water and leavers a nice hot cup of tea. It suits no one to have a tepid cup of lemony tea. And trying to convince anyone that that is a nice drink is useless!

Richard_Nabavi

The IMF reckons Venezuela's implementation of John McDonnell-style policies is leading to inflation of 1.3 million percent this year, and ten million percent next year.

Richard_Nabavi

BTW: Oddschecker seems to have become completely useless recently, with most markets not shown. Is there a better alternative?

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Nabavi, I am shocked. Shocked and appalled. I was just certain socialism would work *this* time.

Sean_F

Pulpstar said:

Sean_F said:

rottenborough said:

Sean_F said:

O/T WRT the US Senate, it looks as though the Republicans are pulling away in Texas, Tennessee, and North Dakota, and the likelihood of the Democrats gaining the Senate is now remote.

It's unusual, but not very unusual, for the House and Senate to move in different directions, simply because only 2/3 of the States have Senate elections each year. 1982 is an example of this. The Republicans lost heavily in the House, but gained a Senate seat, simply because 1976, when the seats were last contested, had been such a good Democratic year.

Chances of Dem Senate have dropped by about 10% since start of month, according to fivethirtyeight models.

Manchin looks safe in West Virginia. That leaves Indiana, Arizona, Nevada, Missouri, Florida, and Montana as very close fights. I'd be surprised if the Republicans can't win at least one of those.

Nevada, Missouri and Florida are all toss up states; Indiana, Arizona Lean Dem and Montana still likely Dem.
I've backed Tester, I think he's still the safest of all those states.

If I had to pick one that the Republicans will gain, I'd nominate Missouri. Claire McKaskill is a popular Senator, but I don't see her surviving her opposition to Kavanaugh in State that's trended very rapidly Red.

philiph

Taking this snippet from the header:

That she is still in Number 10 today is a remarkable achievement given that last year she took the advice from DDavis and made the fatal decision to call the last election.

It is unlike me to leap to the defence of D Davis, but I in retrospect it is easy to assign guilt where it may not be completely deserved.

His advice should have had a condition attached:

By all means have an election because we will increase our majority, but please, do not run the worst campaign in living memory. With a decent campaign there is a chance the advice could have been sound. That is something we will never know.

Philip_Thompson

Richard_Nabavi said:

The IMF reckons Venezuela's implementation of John McDonnell-style policies is leading to inflation of 1.3 million percent this year, and ten million percent next year.

That's quite some inflation on the inflation rate!

AlastairMeeks

philiph said:

Taking this snippet from the header:

That she is still in Number 10 today is a remarkable achievement given that last year she took the advice from DDavis and made the fatal decision to call the last election.

It is unlike me to leap to the defence of D Davis, but I in retrospect it is easy to assign guilt where it may not be completely deserved.

His advice should have had a condition attached:

By all means have an election because we will increase our majority, but please, do not run the worst campaign in living memory. With a decent campaign there is a chance the advice could have been sound. That is something we will never know.

I mostly agree. But, and this is a big but, it is entirely typical of the pair of them not to consider whether they were prepared before embarking on a high-risk course of action.

John_M

philiph said:

Taking this snippet from the header:

That she is still in Number 10 today is a remarkable achievement given that last year she took the advice from DDavis and made the fatal decision to call the last election.

It is unlike me to leap to the defence of D Davis, but I in retrospect it is easy to assign guilt where it may not be completely deserved.

His advice should have had a condition attached:

By all means have an election because we will increase our majority, but please, do not run the worst campaign in living memory. With a decent campaign there is a chance the advice could have been sound. That is something we will never know.

The mistake was to run a presidential style campaign with Theresa 'No discernible charisma' May as its pacemaker. Shit policy marketing didn't help, but the Tories fell short because May is like a leaky roof; sure, you can put up with it for a while, but you're not going to go out and buy one.

AllyPally_Rob

Sean_F said:

Pulpstar said:

Sean_F said:

rottenborough said:

Sean_F said:

O/T WRT the US Senate, it looks as though the Republicans are pulling away in Texas, Tennessee, and North Dakota, and the likelihood of the Democrats gaining the Senate is now remote.

It's unusual, but not very unusual, for the House and Senate to move in different directions, simply because only 2/3 of the States have Senate elections each year. 1982 is an example of this. The Republicans lost heavily in the House, but gained a Senate seat, simply because 1976, when the seats were last contested, had been such a good Democratic year.

Chances of Dem Senate have dropped by about 10% since start of month, according to fivethirtyeight models.

Manchin looks safe in West Virginia. That leaves Indiana, Arizona, Nevada, Missouri, Florida, and Montana as very close fights. I'd be surprised if the Republicans can't win at least one of those.

Nevada, Missouri and Florida are all toss up states; Indiana, Arizona Lean Dem and Montana still likely Dem.
I've backed Tester, I think he's still the safest of all those states.

If I had to pick one that the Republicans will gain, I'd nominate Missouri. Claire McKaskill is a popular Senator, but I don't see her surviving her opposition to Kavanaugh in State that's trended very rapidly Red.

I'd back Nelson to keep his seat in Florida for the Dems aswell. The Democrat Gillum is leading in the Governor's race, so he'll pull Nelson over the line with him I expect.

archer101au

Well I am still predicting she will be gone by the end of this year, when her Brexit plan falls apart. 2018 is far from over!

BTW to reference @cycletree long post further down the thread, I do believe that if the EU had immediately offered the UK EEA with major concessions on FOM straight after Brexit the deal would have been accepted and the Leavers would have been very hard pushed to get momentum to have stopped it - obviously speaking as one who would not have supported this outcome. Barnier has wanted to play the hardass instead of the smart game. Now everyone's positions are so entrenched that it is almost impossible for them to be reconciled. There is no point blaming May for this - the EU set the terms of the discussion.

philiph

AlastairMeeks said:

philiph said:

Taking this snippet from the header:

That she is still in Number 10 today is a remarkable achievement given that last year she took the advice from DDavis and made the fatal decision to call the last election.

It is unlike me to leap to the defence of D Davis, but I in retrospect it is easy to assign guilt where it may not be completely deserved.

His advice should have had a condition attached:

By all means have an election because we will increase our majority, but please, do not run the worst campaign in living memory. With a decent campaign there is a chance the advice could have been sound. That is something we will never know.

I mostly agree. But, and this is a big but, it is entirely typical of the pair of them not to consider whether they were prepared before embarking on a high-risk course of action.

Hard to argue with that.
It did appear that Labour were better prepared for the 2017 election than the Conservatives. That is pretty dire as the Conservatives had the greater control of the timing.

MarqueeMark

Richard_Nabavi said:

The IMF reckons Venezuela's implementation of John McDonnell-style policies is leading to inflation of 1.3 million percent this year, and ten million percent next year.

That's a lot of eggs required to buy a loaf.....

Andy_Cooke

philiph said:

Taking this snippet from the header:

That she is still in Number 10 today is a remarkable achievement given that last year she took the advice from DDavis and made the fatal decision to call the last election.

It is unlike me to leap to the defence of D Davis, but I in retrospect it is easy to assign guilt where it may not be completely deserved.

His advice should have had a condition attached:

By all means have an election because we will increase our majority, but please, do not run the worst campaign in living memory. With a decent campaign there is a chance the advice could have been sound. That is something we will never know.

They should have respected the vote of the 2015 General Election, tried to implement the manifesto on which they were elected (and on which they won the vote) and not tried to overturn the result that granted them only a narrow majority.

MarqueeMark

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/gsoh31/status/1049600975340806144
https://twitter.com/gsoh31/status/1049601292702756865

"Another fine mess"......

And what of the UKIP vote? They won't have candidates, so all this seat projections is pointless, without knowing UKIP "second prefs".

OldKingCole

Sort of on topic, it’s only in the last few days that we’ve learned that Mrs M called the 2017 election ‘on the advice of David Davis’. I don’t think, although I could be wrong, that that was anywhere near received wisdom at the time.

Is there evidence that the Sage of East Yorkshire was influential in that decision?

Tissue_Price

Richard_Nabavi said:

It has long seemed to me that, having survived the immediately dangerous time of just after the GE2017 debacle, 2019 was the most likely date for her stepping down. If by then she's managed to deliver a reasonable Brexit without major disruption, she'll be able to depart with honour, duty done, and having overcome the most difficult circumstances. Of course that might be a big 'if'.

The obvious timetable in a 2019 departure would be to make the announcement in, say, May or June, leaving time for a contest with the new leader in place for the party conference in the Autumn. In party-political terms, though, there could be a case for delaying the switch to 2020, which would still give the new leader time to establish a new direction by the 2022 election, whilst still benefiting from a new-leader boost. But that assumes that Theresa May can hang on that long, both personally and politically, and it also assumes that the current unstable minority government can remain in place safely until 2022 - which is not a given.

On balance, therefore, 2019 should remain firm favourite. I don't think the party and colleagues will let her stay on into the next election. Once bitten, twice shy!

This would seem to make sense. I'm not clear as to whether TM can trigger a leadership election without formally resigning, which might make a big difference as to which month gets settled as the winner in the below market. Either way, Jul-Sep looks a tasty price @ 7.

https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.125589838

CarlottaVance

Good question:

https://twitter.com/AdamWagner1/status/1049609940850098176?s=20

John_M

OldKingCole said:

Sort of on topic, it’s only in the last few days that we’ve learned that Mrs M called the 2017 election ‘on the advice of David Davis’. I don’t think, although I could be wrong, that that was anywhere near received wisdom at the time.

Is there evidence that the Sage of East Yorkshire was influential in that decision?

Only reportage; Shipman's 'Fall Out' is clear that Timothy, Hammond and Davies were all lobbying for her to go to the country (for different reasons, it has to be said), but the final decision was May's alone.

williamglenn

@Morris_Dancer look away now.



https://www.citymetric.com/politics/what-would-regions-england-look-federal-uk-2679

tlg86

OldKingCole said:

Sort of on topic, it’s only in the last few days that we’ve learned that Mrs M called the 2017 election ‘on the advice of David Davis’. I don’t think, although I could be wrong, that that was anywhere near received wisdom at the time.

Is there evidence that the Sage of East Yorkshire was influential in that decision?

I'm pretty sure Andrew Marr asked Davis about this and he didn't deny the claim.

DavidL

Quite an interesting press release from the BoE about the consequences of Brexit on Financial Services: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/statement/fpc/2018/financial-policy-committee-statement-october-2018.pdf?la=en&hash=A10878A3FF65433E1296FD552C4406C9D28ACAC2

The short version is that the UK is legislating to allow business to carry on pretty much as normal. The EU, not so much. The Bank is pointing out that this is now pressing and the damage to the EU could be material.

Pulpstar

There are some mismatches on price and narrative punters should be aware of in the Betfair and 538 markets:

Betfair requires 51 GOP senators for a GOP Maj, when effectively 50 senators would allow the reds to keep control (Depending on what side of the bed Murkowski, Flake and Collins get out of in the morning). Pence has the casting vote, but 50 is not good nough for GOP maj on Betfair.
The Democrats can effectively take control with 49 senators... as King and Sanders aren't going to vote through GOP legislation. However Betfair needs 51 - so Dem Betfair control of the senate would be an utterly appalling night for the GOP and according to 538 looks very unlikely at the moment.

Here are the Betfair prices and 'true' odds.

True price (Using 538 model); Betfair price
Republican Maj 1.55 64.6% 1.46 - 1.49
No overall Maj 3.2 31.3% 3.9 - 4.1
Democrat Maj 24.39 4.1% 11 - 14

Dem Maj = 47 or less GOP senators
NOM = 48, 49 or 50 GOP Senators
Rep Maj = 51+ GOP Senators

edmundintokyo

Everyone's thinking about the short-term issues but there are two big long-term trends here as well, both working in the same direction: Political parties have become increasingly democratic, and their members have become increasingly nuts.

This gives deposing a sitting leader a very serious downside, and protects leaders who are merely bad, and not actively astonishingly terrible.

CarlottaVance

You’d think the Venezuelan Secret Service would take steps to stop detainees junping from 10th floor windows....

https://www.thedailybeast.com/venezuela-suspect-in-maduro-assassination-attempt-dies-in-mysterious-window-fall

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Glenn, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPD5q6DC43M

Sean_F

CarlottaVance said:

Good question:

https://twitter.com/AdamWagner1/status/1049609940850098176?s=20

I don't know if there's any Brexit polling on the legal profession. I expect that solicitors and barristers voted much like upper middle class voters generally, about 58% to 42% in favour of Remain.

Richard_Nabavi

Tissue_Price said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

It has long seemed to me that, having survived the immediately dangerous time of just after the GE2017 debacle, 2019 was the most likely date for her stepping down. If by then she's managed to deliver a reasonable Brexit without major disruption, she'll be able to depart with honour, duty done, and having overcome the most difficult circumstances. Of course that might be a big 'if'.

The obvious timetable in a 2019 departure would be to make the announcement in, say, May or June, leaving time for a contest with the new leader in place for the party conference in the Autumn. In party-political terms, though, there could be a case for delaying the switch to 2020, which would still give the new leader time to establish a new direction by the 2022 election, whilst still benefiting from a new-leader boost. But that assumes that Theresa May can hang on that long, both personally and politically, and it also assumes that the current unstable minority government can remain in place safely until 2022 - which is not a given.

On balance, therefore, 2019 should remain firm favourite. I don't think the party and colleagues will let her stay on into the next election. Once bitten, twice shy!

This would seem to make sense. I'm not clear as to whether TM can trigger a leadership election without formally resigning, which might make a big difference as to which month gets settled as the winner in the below market. Either way, Jul-Sep looks a tasty price @ 7.

https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.125589838

I'm sure she'll remain leader and PM until the next leader is chosen, as Cameron did in 2016.

Richard_Nabavi

Sean_F said:

CarlottaVance said:

Good question:

https://twitter.com/AdamWagner1/status/1049609940850098176?s=20

I don't know if there's any Brexit polling on the legal profession. I expect that solicitors and barristers voted much like upper middle class voters generally, about 58% to 42% in favour of Remain.

We can add Helena Kennedy QC to the remarkably long list of clever and previously sensible people who have completely lost their marbles over Brexit. 'They don't like homosexuals, they don't like human rights', for heaven's sake!

OldKingCole

williamglenn said:

@Morris_Dancer look away now.



https://www.citymetric.com/politics/what-would-regions-england-look-federal-uk-2679

Interesting thought. Essex is split between London and East Anglia. It is, but that’s rarely recognised. Just so long as the County Cricket ground stays in Real (i.e. East Anglian) Essex!

Big_G_NorthWales

archer101au said:

Well I am still predicting she will be gone by the end of this year, when her Brexit plan falls apart. 2018 is far from over!

BTW to reference @cycletree long post further down the thread, I do believe that if the EU had immediately offered the UK EEA with major concessions on FOM straight after Brexit the deal would have been accepted and the Leavers would have been very hard pushed to get momentum to have stopped it - obviously speaking as one who would not have supported this outcome. Barnier has wanted to play the hardass instead of the smart game. Now everyone's positions are so entrenched that it is almost impossible for them to be reconciled. There is no point blaming May for this - the EU set the terms of the discussion.

I think you hope TM is gone as she is not following your instructions rather than any realistic likelyhood before March 19. There is no one to replace her and if she stands down a leadership election will take place with maybe 6 or more candidates. It will take 2 - 3 months and TM would still be needed to oversee the government

May/June 2019 has always been my best bet for her to stand down and a proper election process to take place for her successor

Sean_F

Richard_Nabavi said:

Sean_F said:

CarlottaVance said:

Good question:

https://twitter.com/AdamWagner1/status/1049609940850098176?s=20

I don't know if there's any Brexit polling on the legal profession. I expect that solicitors and barristers voted much like upper middle class voters generally, about 58% to 42% in favour of Remain.

We can add Helena Kennedy QC to the remarkably long list of clever and previously sensible people who have completely lost their marbles over Brexit. 'They don't like homosexuals, they don't like human rights', for heaven's sake!

I would expect the breakdown of Leave/Remain support also to reflect geography. People working in City law firms will have very heavily supported Remain, people working in provincial firms will likely have broken for Leave.

rottenborough

Double your popcorn orders kids:

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/chris-williamson-deselection_uk_5bbbcc57e4b0876edaa0f39f?3wn

TheScreamingEagles

https://twitter.com/tseofpb/status/1049618462623043584?s=21

felix

Chris Williamson may face attempts to deselect him in Derby - he's annoyed the TU's. What a bitch Karma is sometimes

DavidL

OldKingCole said:

williamglenn said:

@Morris_Dancer look away now.



https://www.citymetric.com/politics/what-would-regions-england-look-federal-uk-2679

Interesting thought. Essex is split between London and East Anglia. It is, but that’s rarely recognised. Just so long as the County Cricket ground stays in Real (i.e. East Anglian) Essex!

How can Wessex not include Winchester?

rottenborough

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/tseofpb/status/1049618462623043584?s=21

I think I may die laughing...

TheScreamingEagles

Northumbria?

Yer having a laugh.

It is Yorkshire or Greater Yorkshire.

rkrkrk

Pulpstar said:

There are some mismatches on price and narrative punters should be aware of in the Betfair and 538 markets:

Betfair requires 51 GOP senators for a GOP Maj, when effectively 50 senators would allow the reds to keep control (Depending on what side of the bed Murkowski, Flake and Collins get out of in the morning). Pence has the casting vote, but 50 is not good nough for GOP maj on Betfair.
The Democrats can effectively take control with 49 senators... as King and Sanders aren't going to vote through GOP legislation. However Betfair needs 51 - so Dem Betfair control of the senate would be an utterly appalling night for the GOP and according to 538 looks very unlikely at the moment.

Here are the Betfair prices and 'true' odds.

True price (Using 538 model); Betfair price
Republican Maj 1.55 64.6% 1.46 - 1.49
No overall Maj 3.2 31.3% 3.9 - 4.1
Democrat Maj 24.39 4.1% 11 - 14

Dem Maj = 47 or less GOP senators
NOM = 48, 49 or 50 GOP Senators
Rep Maj = 51+ GOP Senators

Thanks, I've laid the Dems for Senate on similar grounds.

TheScreamingEagles

rottenborough said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/tseofpb/status/1049618462623043584?s=21

I think I may die laughing...

I’m assuming the trade unions have obtained all the horcruxes.

HYUFD

Provided May gets a Withdrawal Agreement and Transition Period she could be there for several more years, especially given no alternative Tory leader polls better than she does.

However if it looks like we will end up with No Deal as May insists on Chequers being in writing for the EU as the basis for a future trading agreement then weekend newspaper reports suggest even Cabinet Ministers will desert her and she would be replaced by a new leader more open to a future Canada style FTA deal

HYUFD

williamglenn said:

@Morris_Dancer look away now.



https://www.citymetric.com/politics/what-would-regions-england-look-federal-uk-2679

Why not just have an English Parliament?

HYUFD

Sean_F said:

O/T WRT the US Senate, it looks as though the Republicans are pulling away in Texas, Tennessee, and North Dakota, and the likelihood of the Democrats gaining the Senate is now remote.

It's unusual, but not very unusual, for the House and Senate to move in different directions, simply because only 2/3 of the States have Senate elections each year. 1982 is an example of this. The Republicans lost heavily in the House, but gained a Senate seat, simply because 1976, when the seats were last contested, had been such a good Democratic year.

It could be 50 50 in the Senate though, with Murkowski the key swing vote (she was the only Republican who opposed Kavanaugh' s nomination but did not vote as her pair was at a wedding)

OldKingCole

TheScreamingEagles said:

Northumbria?

Yer having a laugh.

It is Yorkshire or Greater Yorkshire.

You might, at a pinch, get away with Northumbria in Lancashire but Yorkshire! It’d worse than Brexit!

OldKingCole

DavidL said:

OldKingCole said:

williamglenn said:

@Morris_Dancer look away now.



https://www.citymetric.com/politics/what-would-regions-england-look-federal-uk-2679

Interesting thought. Essex is split between London and East Anglia. It is, but that’s rarely recognised. Just so long as the County Cricket ground stays in Real (i.e. East Anglian) Essex!

How can Wessex not include Winchester?

Excellent point. Who dreamed up this?