politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The great Betfair TMay resignation date row

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The great Betfair TMay resignation date row

Last Friday TMay formally quit as CON leader which opened the way for a leadership contest. She is staying on as acting leader whilst the battle to replace her goes on and that won’t be completed until July.

Read the full story here

edmundintokyo

Seems right, acting leader is still leader.

AlastairMeeks

I decided not to get involved in this market when it became apparent that it would be decided by textual analysis.

eek

It’s the word official that I think is the problem here - May is now acting leader which isn’t the same as being the official leader - she officially resigned on Friday

Pulpstar

At best Betfair has been incompetent over this one, some reckon they're in the market themselves,........

OblitusSumMe

eek said:

It’s the word official that I think is the problem here - May is now acting leader which isn’t the same as being the official leader - she officially resigned on Friday

She is still down as being leader on the Electoral Commission website. That seems fairly "official" in terms of being leader.

The problem is that they didn't define the rules clearly enough in advance. You can certainly argue it either way.

Philip_Thompson

Acting leader is still leader. She is officially still leader. The 1922 committees wording was that she "remains" acting leader not has become it, so there is continuity.

Plus the Electoral Commission has a register of who the parties legal official leader is and Theresa May is still [I believe] official leader according to them.

So it seems that in their "reasonable discretion" given that both the 1922 say she "remains" [acting] leader and given that the Electoral Commission says she is leader, that she is still leader.

TheWhiteRabbit

AlastairMeeks said:

I decided not to get involved in this market when it became apparent that it would be decided by textual analysis.

Ambiguity over the stated rules is fine, it's rules risk.

Then BF started firing off seemingly random observations to punters. That's a false market.

surbiton19

OblitusSumMe said:

eek said:

It’s the word official that I think is the problem here - May is now acting leader which isn’t the same as being the official leader - she officially resigned on Friday

She is still down as being leader on the Electoral Commission website. That seems fairly "official" in terms of being leader.

The problem is that they didn't define the rules clearly enough in advance. You can certainly argue it either way.

I hate to come into this debate. But when an employee resigns, does he/she leave the employer on that day or once the notice period is over and then he/she leaves for good..

Philip_Thompson

TheWhiteRabbit said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I decided not to get involved in this market when it became apparent that it would be decided by textual analysis.

Ambiguity over the stated rules is fine, it's rules risk.

Then BF started firing off seemingly random observations to punters. That's a false market.

Did they? People have quoted things that didn't agree with their own observations (when they believed that May's "resignation" was sufficient) but Betfair seem to have been reasonably consistent. The market will be settled when she's no longer leader, which she still is.

OblitusSumMe

If the contest to replace her doesn't go to a members ballot then the question will be moot - she'd still be replaced in June. Perhaps an escape for Betfair..?

AlastairMeeks

Incidentally, Boris Johnson seeking to bribe higher rate taxpayers in the south east is a really bad electoral calculation for the Tories. Their new target market of hardcore Leavers earns much less than this and is much more interested in better public services. They are going to be really unimpressed with money being used to bribe what they see as rich Londoners, whether or not the cost of living for Londoners merits it.

Higher rate taxpayers in London and the south east are by and large either already fiercely committed to Brexit and therefore in the bag or (more likely) think the Conservatives are completely unhinged and a few quid isn't going to buy their votes back.

TheWhiteRabbit

Philip_Thompson said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

AlastairMeeks said:

I decided not to get involved in this market when it became apparent that it would be decided by textual analysis.

Ambiguity over the stated rules is fine, it's rules risk.

Then BF started firing off seemingly random observations to punters. That's a false market.

Did they? People have quoted things that didn't agree with their own observations (when they believed that May's "resignation" was sufficient) but Betfair seem to have been reasonably consistent. The market will be settled when she's no longer leader, which she still is.

We had at lease two contradictory proposition, followed by - "don't ask us, only the traders can say anything" - plus, er, a Tweet from Betfair Help.

MaxPB

Gardenwalker said:

I see that post-Brexit, attention is going to turn to “stringent environmental, health and safety and other regulations”...

It’s like Germany doesn’t exist, isn’t it?

Clearly we should have done what the Germans did and just ignored or cheated the environmental regulations tests!

If VW was British, you can bet they would have been landed with unimaginably large fines. One rule for them etc...

HYUFD

https://twitter.com/toryboypierce/status/1137972819617361920?s=20

OblitusSumMe

surbiton19 said:

OblitusSumMe said:

eek said:

It’s the word official that I think is the problem here - May is now acting leader which isn’t the same as being the official leader - she officially resigned on Friday

She is still down as being leader on the Electoral Commission website. That seems fairly "official" in terms of being leader.

The problem is that they didn't define the rules clearly enough in advance. You can certainly argue it either way.

I hate to come into this debate. But when an employee resigns, does he/she leave the employer on that day or once the notice period is over and then he/she leaves for good..

Well that varies doesn't it? Sometimes people are paid their notice period but told not to come into work.

JackW

I think Chris Grayling should sort this mess out .... What could possibly go wrong ?!?

Philip_Thompson

OblitusSumMe said:

surbiton19 said:

OblitusSumMe said:

eek said:

It’s the word official that I think is the problem here - May is now acting leader which isn’t the same as being the official leader - she officially resigned on Friday

She is still down as being leader on the Electoral Commission website. That seems fairly "official" in terms of being leader.

The problem is that they didn't define the rules clearly enough in advance. You can certainly argue it either way.

I hate to come into this debate. But when an employee resigns, does he/she leave the employer on that day or once the notice period is over and then he/she leaves for good..

Well that varies doesn't it? Sometimes people are paid their notice period but told not to come into work.

May is serving her notice period though. She's still acting leader during this notice period.

MaxPB

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

Of course they want to trade with us. And we have got exactly the same deal with South Korea as we had as an EU member state. So, no improvement - but now it will be harder and more expensive to trade with our biggest export market. Can you explain how that benefits the UK?

That wasn't the point you made, though. You said that we'd get worse terms now that we're leaving. We haven't, they are the same.

You're also falling into the trap of thinking that trade deals are fixed in time. I agree that some are, especially ones with bureaucratic blocs like the EU, but bilateral trade treaties are very moveable beasts. If new industries pop up, or the government approaches SK with some new area they want to discuss you can bet that both sides will enter into talks. Doing that within the EU is basically impossible as you need 27 other people to agree changes before even approaching the other party.

RoW trade is definitely one area where this country excels and will continue to do so in our out of the EU. I'd wager that out of the EU and out of th customs union the UK will start to customise existing trade deals and push for more services liberalisation and mutual recognition of services bodies/standards, something the EU has always been unwilling to do internally let alone externally.

As for EU trade, honestly, no one can say what it's going to look like, only that it will be different.

We already had a trade deal with South Korea. So the Koreans and the UK have the status quo, which is exactly my point. Except overall we are down because we are in the process of making it harder and more expensive to trade with our biggest export market.

But you said that other nations would make the terms of trade worse for us. That's not what's happening. In all cases the terms are the same and in the case of Switzerland marginally better.

Quincel

There's no right answer, but there are wrong ones. And not clarifying the rules on the site once she announced her plans is a wrong answer.

TOPPING

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

Of course they want to trade with us. And we have got exactly the same deal with South Korea as we had as an EU member state. So, no improvement - but now it will be harder and more expensive to trade with our biggest export market. Can you explain how that benefits the UK?

That wasn't the point you made, though. You said that we'd get worse terms now that we're leaving. We haven't, they are the same.

You're also falling into the trap of thinking that trade deals are fixed in time. I agree that some are, especially ones with bureaucratic blocs like the EU, but bilateral trade treaties are very moveable beasts. If new industries pop up, or the government approaches SK with some new area they want to discuss you can bet that both sides will enter into talks. Doing that within the EU is basically impossible as you need 27 other people to agree changes before even approaching the other party.

RoW trade is definitely one area where this country excels and will continue to do so in our out of the EU. I'd wager that out of the EU and out of th customs union the UK will start to customise existing trade deals and push for more services liberalisation and mutual recognition of services bodies/standards, something the EU has always been unwilling to do internally let alone externally.

As for EU trade, honestly, no one can say what it's going to look like, only that it will be different.

We already had a trade deal with South Korea. So the Koreans and the UK have the status quo, which is exactly my point. Except overall we are down because we are in the process of making it harder and more expensive to trade with our biggest export market.

But you said that other nations would make the terms of trade worse for us. That's not what's happening. In all cases the terms are the same and in the case of Switzerland marginally better.

So what was the point?

Philip_Thompson

TOPPING said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

Of course they want to trade with us. And we have got exactly the same deal with South Korea as we had as an EU member state. So, no improvement - but now it will be harder and more expensive to trade with our biggest export market. Can you explain how that benefits the UK?

That wasn't the point you made, though. You said that we'd get worse terms now that we're leaving. We haven't, they are the same.

You're also falling into the trap of thinking that trade deals are fixed in time. I agree that some are, especially ones with bureaucratic blocs like the EU, but bilateral trade treaties are very moveable beasts. If new industries pop up, or the government approaches SK with some new area they want to discuss you can bet that both sides will enter into talks. Doing that within the EU is basically impossible as you need 27 other people to agree changes before even approaching the other party.

RoW trade is definitely one area where this country excels and will continue to do so in our out of the EU. I'd wager that out of the EU and out of th customs union the UK will start to customise existing trade deals and push for more services liberalisation and mutual recognition of services bodies/standards, something the EU has always been unwilling to do internally let alone externally.

As for EU trade, honestly, no one can say what it's going to look like, only that it will be different.

We already had a trade deal with South Korea. So the Koreans and the UK have the status quo, which is exactly my point. Except overall we are down because we are in the process of making it harder and more expensive to trade with our biggest export market.

But you said that other nations would make the terms of trade worse for us. That's not what's happening. In all cases the terms are the same and in the case of Switzerland marginally better.

So what was the point?

We can improve existing deals [eg add services to them] or sign new ones.

HYUFD

AlastairMeeks said:

Incidentally, Boris Johnson seeking to bribe higher rate taxpayers in the south east is a really bad electoral calculation for the Tories. Their new target market of hardcore Leavers earns much less than this and is much more interested in better public services. They are going to be really unimpressed with money being used to bribe what they see as rich Londoners, whether or not the cost of living for Londoners merits it.

Higher rate taxpayers in London and the south east are by and large either already fiercely committed to Brexit and therefore in the bag or (more likely) think the Conservatives are completely unhinged and a few quid isn't going to buy their votes back.

Many C2s and C1 Brexit Party voters will go back to the Tories under Boris anyway, this measure will attract some AB voters in London marginals like Battersea, Kensington Finchley and Golders Green and Uxbridge and Wimbledon the Tories need to hold or gain from Labour with voters who are fiscally conservative, less keen on Brexit but dislike Corbyn. It is a shrewd move actually

MaxPB

TOPPING said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

Of course they want to trade with us. And we have got exactly the same deal with South Korea as we had as an EU member state. So, no improvement - but now it will be harder and more expensive to trade with our biggest export market. Can you explain how that benefits the UK?

That wasn't the point you made, though. You said that we'd get worse terms now that we're leaving. We haven't, they are the same.

You're also falling into the trap of thinking that trade deals are fixed in time. I agree that some are, especially ones with bureaucratic blocs like the EU, but bilateral trade treaties are very moveable beasts. If new industries pop up, or the government approaches SK with some new area they want to discuss you can bet that both sides will enter into talks. Doing that within the EU is basically impossible as you need 27 other people to agree changes before even approaching the other party.

RoW trade is definitely one area where this country excels and will continue to do so in our out of the EU. I'd wager that out of the EU and out of th customs union the UK will start to customise existing trade deals and push for more services liberalisation and mutual recognition of services bodies/standards, something the EU has always been unwilling to do internally let alone externally.

As for EU trade, honestly, no one can say what it's going to look like, only that it will be different.

We already had a trade deal with South Korea. So the Koreans and the UK have the status quo, which is exactly my point. Except overall we are down because we are in the process of making it harder and more expensive to trade with our biggest export market.

But you said that other nations would make the terms of trade worse for us. That's not what's happening. In all cases the terms are the same and in the case of Switzerland marginally better.

So what was the point?

The same today. We no longer need to get permission from 27 other parties to make beneficial changes.

Philip_Thompson

Quincel said:

There's no right answer, but there are wrong ones. And not clarifying the rules on the site once she announced her plans is a wrong answer.

Indeed.

A simple solution would be to say that the date will be settled by when she is no longer listed as official leader by the Electoral Commission. That is an official post she holds which I believe is regarded as official by law and it would not be them adjudicating it but independent bodies. Clear and simple. Before the next edition of this market opens this confusion should be cleared up.

Nigel_Foremain

From last thread, where someone pointed out to me that we elect MPs, not the PM. While resisting the temptation to say the oft used quote relating to Mr Sherlock Holmes, it should be pointed out that the PM of this country is, by long convention, chosen as First Among Equals by her/his peers, i.e. the parliamentary party. It is not intended that she/he should be First Among The Swivel Eyed.

OblitusSumMe

Philip_Thompson said:

OblitusSumMe said:

surbiton19 said:

OblitusSumMe said:

eek said:

It’s the word official that I think is the problem here - May is now acting leader which isn’t the same as being the official leader - she officially resigned on Friday

She is still down as being leader on the Electoral Commission website. That seems fairly "official" in terms of being leader.

The problem is that they didn't define the rules clearly enough in advance. You can certainly argue it either way.

I hate to come into this debate. But when an employee resigns, does he/she leave the employer on that day or once the notice period is over and then he/she leaves for good..

Well that varies doesn't it? Sometimes people are paid their notice period but told not to come into work.

May is serving her notice period though. She's still acting leader during this notice period.

I agree with that interpretation, as I've stated, but I can see the argument for the post of acting leader being different to official leader. Pulpstar has referred to Betfair making this distinction in relation to acting managers in the next manager markets. So they've created ambiguity in a situation which otherwise shouldn't be ambiguous by their previous actions.

Now they are contradicting these previous rulings and creating more ambiguity. If they defined the market more clearly in the first place they wouldn't have this problem.

AlastairMeeks

HYUFD said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Incidentally, Boris Johnson seeking to bribe higher rate taxpayers in the south east is a really bad electoral calculation for the Tories. Their new target market of hardcore Leavers earns much less than this and is much more interested in better public services. They are going to be really unimpressed with money being used to bribe what they see as rich Londoners, whether or not the cost of living for Londoners merits it.

Higher rate taxpayers in London and the south east are by and large either already fiercely committed to Brexit and therefore in the bag or (more likely) think the Conservatives are completely unhinged and a few quid isn't going to buy their votes back.

Many C2s and C1 Brexit Party voters will go back to the Tories under Boris anyway, this measure will attract some AB voters in London marginals like Battersea, Kensington Finchley and Golders Green and Uxbridge and Wimbledon the Tories need to hold or gain from Labour with voters who are fiscally conservative, less keen on Brexit but dislike Corbyn. It is a shrewd move actually

Describe to me the kind of voter who you think will be attracted to the Conservatives as a result. Because the AB voters I know aren't looking at pocket book politics right now.

Philip_Thompson

OblitusSumMe said:

Philip_Thompson said:

OblitusSumMe said:

surbiton19 said:

OblitusSumMe said:

eek said:

It’s the word official that I think is the problem here - May is now acting leader which isn’t the same as being the official leader - she officially resigned on Friday

She is still down as being leader on the Electoral Commission website. That seems fairly "official" in terms of being leader.

The problem is that they didn't define the rules clearly enough in advance. You can certainly argue it either way.

I hate to come into this debate. But when an employee resigns, does he/she leave the employer on that day or once the notice period is over and then he/she leaves for good..

Well that varies doesn't it? Sometimes people are paid their notice period but told not to come into work.

May is serving her notice period though. She's still acting leader during this notice period.

I agree with that interpretation, as I've stated, but I can see the argument for the post of acting leader being different to official leader. Pulpstar has referred to Betfair making this distinction in relation to acting managers in the next manager markets. So they've created ambiguity in a situation which otherwise shouldn't be ambiguous by their previous actions.

Now they are contradicting these previous rulings and creating more ambiguity. If they defined the market more clearly in the first place they wouldn't have this problem.

Acting managers are not the next manager and that is clarified in advance. May is not a next PM or next leader she is the existing one, that is different.

Pulpstar

I've done a small amount of money in this one but others with more in this than me are heading straight to IBAS.

Some that Betfair needs to get its house in order on:

1) If a CS bod doesn't know something or other, they need to state that and not just agree with someone over twitter.

2) Other leadership contests need clarifying in the rules which need to be rewritten.

3 i ) US Elections - Turnout needs to have a decisive denominator. This is never clarified properly. Is it eligible electorate or population. The figures are always given nice and neat for UK elections but other countries don't have official figures to hand. A vote denominator is needed in these cases.

3 ii) Settlement of states in the US potentially being too early. The horrifically slow counting in some of the heavy Dem cities and massive rural-urban polarisation of the electorate could lead to the POTUS (Or more likely individual state markets) being settled too early for Trump. A small risk but the Michigan totals were being adjusted ~ 4 days later, crucially after the result had been settled on Betfair. It didn't create a wrong winner but in future it could happen.

5) Next PM market. This one could potentially get... ambiguous. Is it when whoever is received by the Queen, or at some other point that others here have stated.

Gardenwalker

Is this the most boring thread ever?

May is Leader of the Conservative Party.
Having indicated her intention to resign, she has now done so.

Candidates to replace her are currently progressing through the interview process. Until an appointment is made, May remains Leader.

Nothing has changed!

OblitusSumMe

HYUFD said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Incidentally, Boris Johnson seeking to bribe higher rate taxpayers in the south east is a really bad electoral calculation for the Tories. Their new target market of hardcore Leavers earns much less than this and is much more interested in better public services. They are going to be really unimpressed with money being used to bribe what they see as rich Londoners, whether or not the cost of living for Londoners merits it.

Higher rate taxpayers in London and the south east are by and large either already fiercely committed to Brexit and therefore in the bag or (more likely) think the Conservatives are completely unhinged and a few quid isn't going to buy their votes back.

Many C2s and C1 Brexit Party voters will go back to the Tories under Boris anyway, this measure will attract some AB voters in London marginals like Battersea, Kensington Finchley and Golders Green and Uxbridge and Wimbledon the Tories need to hold or gain from Labour with voters who are fiscally conservative, less keen on Brexit but dislike Corbyn. It is a shrewd move actually

Shrewd would be finding a way to do that with a cost of ~£100m at most, not 100 times as much - which instead looks desperate.

Edit: As a general point anything that costs ~£10bn pa should be something that you would describe as "vital" or at least "necessary". The Exchequer is not so flush that we can chuck around £10bns on things lightly.

SouthamObserver

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

Of course they want to trade with us. And we have got exactly the same deal with South Korea as we had as an EU member state. So, no improvement - but now it will be harder and more expensive to trade with our biggest export market. Can you explain how that benefits the UK?

That wasn't the point you made, though. You said that we'd get worse terms now that we're leaving. We haven't, they are the same.

You're also falling into the trap of thinking that trade deals are fixed in time. I agree that some are, especially ones with bureaucratic blocs like the EU, but bilateral trade treaties are very moveable beasts. If new industries pop up, or the government approaches SK with some new area they want to discuss you can bet that both sides will enter into talks. Doing that within the EU is basically impossible as you need 27 other people to agree changes before even approaching the other party.

RoW trade is definitely one area where this country excels and will continue to do so in our out of the EU. I'd wager that out of the EU and out of th customs union the UK will start to customise existing trade deals and push for more services liberalisation and mutual recognition of services bodies/standards, something the EU has always been unwilling to do internally let alone externally.

As for EU trade, honestly, no one can say what it's going to look like, only that it will be different.

We already had a trade deal with South Korea. So the Koreans and the UK have the status quo, which is exactly my point. Except overall we are down because we are in the process of making it harder and more expensive to trade with our biggest export market.

But you said that other nations would make the terms of trade worse for us. That's not what's happening. In all cases the terms are the same and in the case of Switzerland marginally better.

No, I didn't say that. I said that to get trade deals the UK will have to offer better terms to countries than they have now at a time when we have made it harder and more expensive for ourselves to trade with our biggest export market. That puts us in a weak negotiating position. Like Korea, the choice for everyone is status quo or better trading terms. We do not have status quo.

SouthamObserver

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/toryboypierce/status/1137972819617361920?s=20

Yep, Andrew wants a tax cut.

Alistair

AlastairMeeks said:

I decided not to get involved in this market when it became apparent that it would be decided by textual analysis.

I have made 7 of your earth pounds on this by entering and then rapidly exiting the market when I saw the two contradictory posts by betfair support.

MaxPB

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

Of course they want to trade with us. And we have got exactly the same deal with South Korea as we had as an EU member state. So, no improvement - but now it will be harder and more expensive to trade with our biggest export market. Can you explain how that benefits the UK?

That wasn't the point you made, though. You said that we'd get worse terms now that we're leaving. We haven't, they are the same.

You're also falling into the trap of thinking that trade deals are fixed in time. I agree that some are, especially ones with bureaucratic blocs like the EU, but bilateral trade treaties are very moveable beasts. If new industries pop up, or the government approaches SK with some new area they want to discuss you can bet that both sides will enter into talks. Doing that within the EU is basically impossible as you need 27 other people to agree changes before even approaching the other party.

RoW trade is definitely one area where this country excels and will continue to do so in our out of the EU. I'd wager that out of the EU and out of th customs union the UK will start to customise existing trade deals and push for more services liberalisation and mutual recognition of services bodies/standards, something the EU has always been unwilling to do internally let alone externally.

As for EU trade, honestly, no one can say what it's going to look like, only that it will be different.

We already had a trade deal with South Korea. So the Koreans and the UK have the status quo, which is exactly my point. Except overall we are down because we are in the process of making it harder and more expensive to trade with our biggest export market.

But you said that other nations would make the terms of trade worse for us. That's not what's happening. In all cases the terms are the same and in the case of Switzerland marginally better.

No, I didn't say that. I said that to get trade deals the UK will have to offer better terms to countries than they have now at a time when we have made it harder and more expensive for ourselves to trade with our biggest export market. That puts us in a weak negotiating position. Like Korea, the choice for everyone is status quo or better trading terms. We do not have status quo.

But that hasn't happened. In all cases the existing terms have just been rolled into a bilateral deal.

MarqueeMark

Theresa May is Prime Minister.

She is not leader of the Conservative Party. That position is currently vacant.

Pulpstar

Gardenwalker said:

Is this the most boring thread ever?

May is Leader of the Conservative Party.
Having indicated her intention to resign, she has now done so.

Candidates to replace her are currently progressing through the interview process. Until an appointment is made, May remains Leader.

Nothing has changed!

No it's an important one. The clue is in the name - the website is politicalbetting.com not politicalguffawingonwithouteverplacingawager.com

Philip_Thompson

MarqueeMark said:

Theresa May is Prime Minister.

She is not leader of the Conservative Party. That position is currently vacant.

Is that what the Conservatives have recorded with the Electoral Commission?

SouthamObserver

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

Of course they want to trade with us. And we have got exactly the same deal with South Korea as we had as an EU member state. So, no improvement - but now it will be harder and more expensive to trade with our biggest export market. Can you explain how that benefits the UK?

That wasn't the point you made, though. You said that we'd get worse terms now that we're leaving. We haven't, they are the same.

You're also falling into the trap of thinking that trade deals are fixed in time. I agree that some are, especially ones with bureaucratic blocs like the EU, but bilateral trade treaties are very moveable beasts. If new industries pop up, or the government approaches SK with some new area they want to discuss you can bet that both sides will enter into talks. Doing that within the EU is basically impossible as you need 27 other people to agree changes before even approaching the other party.

RoW trade is definitely one area where this country excels and will continue to do so in our out of the EU. I'd wager that out of the EU and out of th customs union the UK will start to customise existing trade deals and push for more services liberalisation and mutual recognition of services bodies/standards, something the EU has always been unwilling to do internally let alone externally.

As for EU trade, honestly, no one can say what it's going to look like, only that it will be different.

We already had a trade deal with South Korea. So the Koreans and the UK have the status quo, which is exactly my point. Except overall we are down because we are in the process of making it harder and more expensive to trade with our biggest export market.

But you said that other nations would make the terms of trade worse for us. That's not what's happening. In all cases the terms are the same and in the case of Switzerland marginally better.

No, I didn't say that. I said that to get trade deals the UK will have to offer better terms to countries than they have now at a time when we have made it harder and more expensive for ourselves to trade with our biggest export market. That puts us in a weak negotiating position. Like Korea, the choice for everyone is status quo or better trading terms. We do not have status quo.

But that hasn't happened. In all cases the existing terms have just been rolled into a bilateral deal.

Yep - status quo, so no additional benefits to the UK. While we make it harder and more expensive to trade with our biggest export market. So, overall, we are down.

SouthamObserver

Instead of sending £350 million to the EU every week, let's spend it on tax cuts for the wealthiest instead.

Alistair

MarqueeMark said:

Theresa May is Prime Minister.

She is not leader of the Conservative Party. That position is currently vacant.

She's definetly acting leader.

Whether that is the the same as the leadership position she very clearly and officially stopped being is another matter.

Philip_Thompson

http://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/English/Registrations/PP52

edmundintokyo

This is turning out to be a big problem for Augur, the decentralized prediction market that runs on the Ethereum blockchain, because there's nobody in charge, and anybody can create a market.

It's possible to make money by confusing people with tricksy markets, so it's turning into a cat-and-mouse game with the developers who are trying to come up with ways for people to identify bad markets while scammers try to make their tricksy markets look non-tricksy. But in this case the mouse is a cat, called Poyo, whose fur is very soft.

JackW

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/toryboypierce/status/1137972819617361920?s=20

Yep, Andrew wants a tax cut.

If there is scope for tax cuts then the old Coalition policy priority of raising the tax threshold should be implemented. £15k should be the initial target.

OblitusSumMe

Philip_Thompson said:

OblitusSumMe said:

Philip_Thompson said:

OblitusSumMe said:

surbiton19 said:

OblitusSumMe said:

eek said:

It’s the word official that I think is the problem here - May is now acting leader which isn’t the same as being the official leader - she officially resigned on Friday

She is still down as being leader on the Electoral Commission website. That seems fairly "official" in terms of being leader.

The problem is that they didn't define the rules clearly enough in advance. You can certainly argue it either way.

I hate to come into this debate. But when an employee resigns, does he/she leave the employer on that day or once the notice period is over and then he/she leaves for good..

Well that varies doesn't it? Sometimes people are paid their notice period but told not to come into work.

May is serving her notice period though. She's still acting leader during this notice period.

I agree with that interpretation, as I've stated, but I can see the argument for the post of acting leader being different to official leader. Pulpstar has referred to Betfair making this distinction in relation to acting managers in the next manager markets. So they've created ambiguity in a situation which otherwise shouldn't be ambiguous by their previous actions.

Now they are contradicting these previous rulings and creating more ambiguity. If they defined the market more clearly in the first place they wouldn't have this problem.

Acting managers are not the next manager and that is clarified in advance. May is not a next PM or next leader she is the existing one, that is different.

You have created a logical inconsistency there on the basis of whether the acting leader/manager is the prior leader/manager. That wasn't specified in advance for this market.

That's why there is a dispute, as the use of the word "officially" implied that a different interpretation would be used.

MarqueeMark

Philip_Thompson said:

MarqueeMark said:

Theresa May is Prime Minister.

She is not leader of the Conservative Party. That position is currently vacant.

Is that what the Conservatives have recorded with the Electoral Commission?

Why do they need to record it? I assume they will let the Electoral Commission know when the vacancy is filled.

If there is no vacancy, how can there be a contest to fill it? May didn't resign as leader of the Conservative Party "pending the appointment of my successor". She is gone.

Not that I have a dog in this fight....

Philip_Thompson

SouthamObserver said:

Yep - status quo, so no additional benefits to the UK. While we make it harder and more expensive to trade with our biggest export market. So, overall, we are down.

The starting point is status quo..

Improving on that is for the long term. Getting the status quo right is the baseline point to start with.

david_herdson

On topic, I tend to agree with Betfair's opinion here but it's certainly an arguable case either way.

To me, it turns on whether there was any gap between May resigning as permanent leader and becoming acting leader. Had there been, I think the market should have been settled with May having ceased to be leader as at that point.

However, this isn't the case. With everything having been announced and arranged in advance, her leadership was continuous as her status changed from permanent to acting leader and as such, her leadership tenure won't end until she steps down following the conclusion of the election to succeed her (black swans permitting).

TheWhiteRabbit

What a slew of rubbish from every candidate this weekend. Frankly depressing.

Johnson has decided my bank account is his priority.

Hunt wants to slash abortions, whilst simultaneously confirming he has no plans to actually do that

Gove wants to replace VAT, for no real reason, with an inferior alternative (probably at the cost of billions).

Each of them called out the other on their idiocy.

Did anyone actually say anything coherent???

None of it would pass let alone with Brexit still to deal with, but still.

DecrepitJohnL

The only way to settle this to everyone's satisfaction is for the 1922 to whizz through the MPs' ballots and then, like last time, for the runner-up to drop out before it goes to the members. That way, there's a new leader and PM in June and everyone is happy (well, except the members, especially the 30,000 not-entryists who have just joined).

Foxy

HYUFD said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Incidentally, Boris Johnson seeking to bribe higher rate taxpayers in the south east is a really bad electoral calculation for the Tories. Their new target market of hardcore Leavers earns much less than this and is much more interested in better public services. They are going to be really unimpressed with money being used to bribe what they see as rich Londoners, whether or not the cost of living for Londoners merits it.

Higher rate taxpayers in London and the south east are by and large either already fiercely committed to Brexit and therefore in the bag or (more likely) think the Conservatives are completely unhinged and a few quid isn't going to buy their votes back.

Many C2s and C1 Brexit Party voters will go back to the Tories under Boris anyway, this measure will attract some AB voters in London marginals like Battersea, Kensington Finchley and Golders Green and Uxbridge and Wimbledon the Tories need to hold or gain from Labour with voters who are fiscally conservative, less keen on Brexit but dislike Corbyn. It is a shrewd move actually

Looks to me that those voters will prefer the financially sensible, anti Brexit, internationalist Lib Dems.

It will be very hard for the Tories to keep a coalition of the rich and Tommy Robinson supporters together for much longer. I agree that all the leadership candidates bar McVey will opt for the former over the latter, who will be on the shitty end of Brexit.

TOPPING

MaxPB said:

TOPPING said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

Of course they want to trade with us. And we have got exactly the same deal with South Korea as we had as an EU member state. So, no improvement - but now it will be harder and more expensive to trade with our biggest export market. Can you explain how that benefits the UK?

That wasn't the point you made, though. You said that we'd get worse terms now that we're leaving. We haven't, they are the same.

You're also falling into the trap of thinking that trade deals are fixed in time. I agree that some are, especially ones with bureaucratic blocs like the EU, but bilateral trade treaties are very moveable beasts. If new industries pop up, or the government approaches SK with some new area they want to discuss you can bet that both sides will enter into talks. Doing that within the EU is basically impossible as you need 27 other people to agree changes before even approaching the other party.

RoW trade is definitely one area where this country excels and will continue to do so in our out of the EU. I'd wager that out of the EU and out of th customs union the UK will start to customise existing trade deals and push for more services liberalisation and mutual recognition of services bodies/standards, something the EU has always been unwilling to do internally let alone externally.

As for EU trade, honestly, no one can say what it's going to look like, only that it will be different.

We already had a trade deal with South Korea. So the Koreans and the UK have the status quo, which is exactly my point. Except overall we are down because we are in the process of making it harder and more expensive to trade with our biggest export market.

But you said that other nations would make the terms of trade worse for us. That's not what's happening. In all cases the terms are the same and in the case of Switzerland marginally better.

So what was the point?

The same today. We no longer need to get permission from 27 other parties to make beneficial changes.

Doesn't really add up to a hill of beans though, does it?

All this crap for some undefined "beneficial changes".

tpfkar

AlastairMeeks said:

Incidentally, Boris Johnson seeking to bribe higher rate taxpayers in the south east is a really bad electoral calculation for the Tories. Their new target market of hardcore Leavers earns much less than this and is much more interested in better public services. They are going to be really unimpressed with money being used to bribe what they see as rich Londoners, whether or not the cost of living for Londoners merits it.

Higher rate taxpayers in London and the south east are by and large either already fiercely committed to Brexit and therefore in the bag or (more likely) think the Conservatives are completely unhinged and a few quid isn't going to buy their votes back.

I agree with this. What is Boris playing at? Surely it would be more efficient just to offer tax breaks for Tory members. This seems to be throwing billions in the wrong place and writes every opposition leaflet on the economy for his premiership.

Sunil_Prasannan

TheWhiteRabbit said:

What a slew of rubbish from every candidate this weekend. Frankly depressing.

Johnson has decided my bank account is his priority.

Hunt wants to slash abortions, whilst simultaneously confirming he has no plans to actually do that

Gove wants to replace VAT, for no real reason, with an inferior alternative (probably at the cost of billions).

Each of them called out the other on their idiocy.

Did anyone actually say anything coherent???

None of it would pass let alone with Brexit still to deal with, but still.

One for all and all for one
Tory candidates are ready
One for all and all for one
Fooling everybody
One for all and all for one
Could sound pretty corny
If you have a Brexit Plan
Think how it could be

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-xO72s5EBY

SouthamObserver

TOPPING said:

MaxPB said:

TOPPING said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

Of course they want to trade with us. And we have got exactly the same deal with South Korea as we had as an EU member state. So, no improvement - but now it will be harder and more expensive to trade with our biggest export market. Can you explain how that benefits the UK?

That wasn't the point you made, though. You said that we'd get worse terms now that we're leaving. We haven't, they are the same.

You're also falling into the trap of thinking that trade deals are fixed in time. I agree that some are, especially ones with bureaucratic blocs like the EU, but bilateral trade treaties are very moveable beasts. If new industries pop up, or the government approaches SK with some new area they want to discuss you can bet that both sides will enter into talks. Doing that within the EU is basically impossible as you need 27 other people to agree changes before even approaching the other party.

RoW trade is definitely one area where this country excels and will continue to do so in our out of the EU. I'd wager that out of the EU and out of th customs union the UK will start to customise existing trade deals and push for more services liberalisation and mutual recognition of services bodies/standards, something the EU has always been unwilling to do internally let alone externally.

As for EU trade, honestly, no one can say what it's going to look like, only that it will be different.

We already had a trade deal with South Korea. So the Koreans and the UK have the status quo, which is exactly my point. Except overall we are down because we are in the process of making it harder and more expensive to trade with our biggest export market.

But you said that other nations would make the terms of trade worse for us. That's not what's happening. In all cases the terms are the same and in the case of Switzerland marginally better.

So what was the point?

The same today. We no longer need to get permission from 27 other parties to make beneficial changes.

Doesn't really add up to a hill of beans though, does it?

All this crap for some undefined "beneficial changes".

It's quite sweet, in a way, that people still have faith in the likes of Johnson, Fox, Leadsom, Raab and co to negotiate beneficial trade deals for the UK at a time when they are utterly incapable of negotiating a way out of the EU that does not cause the UK immense damage.

kinabalu

TheWhiteRabbit said:

What a slew of rubbish from every candidate this weekend. Frankly depressing.

Johnson has decided my bank account is his priority.

Hunt wants to slash abortions, whilst simultaneously confirming he has no plans to actually do that

Gove wants to replace VAT, for no real reason, with an inferior alternative (probably at the cost of billions).

Each of them called out the other on their idiocy.

Did anyone actually say anything coherent???

None of it would pass let alone with Brexit still to deal with, but still.

+1

tlg86

I don't have money on this market, but I think she ceased to be leader last Friday.

Philip_Thompson

TOPPING said:

MaxPB said:

TOPPING said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

Of course they want to trade with us. And we have got exactly the same deal with South Korea as we had as an EU member state. So, no improvement - but now it will be harder and more expensive to trade with our biggest export market. Can you explain how that benefits the UK?

That wasn't the point you made, though. You said that we'd get worse terms now that we're leaving. We haven't, they are the same.

You're also falling into the trap of thinking that trade deals are fixed in time. I agree that some are, especially ones with bureaucratic blocs like the EU, but bilateral trade treaties are very moveable beasts. If new industries pop up, or the government approaches SK with some new area they want to discuss you can bet that both sides will enter into talks. Doing that within the EU is basically impossible as you need 27 other people to agree changes before even approaching the other party.

RoW trade is definitely one area where this country excels and will continue to do so in our out of the EU. I'd wager that out of the EU and out of th customs union the UK will start to customise existing trade deals and push for more services liberalisation and mutual recognition of services bodies/standards, something the EU has always been unwilling to do internally let alone externally.

As for EU trade, honestly, no one can say what it's going to look like, only that it will be different.

We already had a trade deal with South Korea. So the Koreans and the UK have the status quo, which is exactly my point. Except overall we are down because we are in the process of making it harder and more expensive to trade with our biggest export market.

But you said that other nations would make the terms of trade worse for us. That's not what's happening. In all cases the terms are the same and in the case of Switzerland marginally better.

So what was the point?

The same today. We no longer need to get permission from 27 other parties to make beneficial changes.

Doesn't really add up to a hill of beans though, does it?

All this crap for some undefined "beneficial changes".

This is the debate we had before the referendum.

Pulpstar

Higher rate tax cut going down like cold sick in the Mail comments...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7121909/Boris-Johnson-vows-raise-40p-income-tax-threshold-80-000-10billion-pledge.html

another_richard

TheWhiteRabbit said:

What a slew of rubbish from every candidate this weekend. Frankly depressing.

Johnson has decided my bank account is his priority.

Hunt wants to slash abortions, whilst simultaneously confirming he has no plans to actually do that

Gove wants to replace VAT, for no real reason, with an inferior alternative (probably at the cost of billions).

Each of them called out the other on their idiocy.

Did anyone actually say anything coherent???

None of it would pass let alone with Brexit still to deal with, but still.

You're right about VAT.

I've never heard anyone say we should replace it with some sales tax.

williamglenn

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

MaxPB said:

TOPPING said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

Of course they want to trade with us. And we have got exactly the same deal with South Korea as we had as an EU member state. So, no improvement - but now it will be harder and more expensive to trade with our biggest export market. Can you explain how that benefits the UK?

That wasn't the point you made, though. You said that we'd get worse terms now that we're leaving. We haven't, they are the same.

You're also falling into the trap of thinking that trade deals are fixed in time. I agree that some are, especially ones with bureaucratic blocs like the EU, but bilateral trade treaties are very moveable beasts. If new industries pop up, or the government approaches SK with some new area they want to discuss you can bet that both sides will enter into talks. Doing that within the EU is basically impossible as you need 27 other people to agree changes before even approaching the other party.

RoW trade is definitely one area where this country excels and will continue to do so in our out of the EU. I'd wager that out of the EU and out of th customs union the UK will start to customise existing trade deals and push for more services liberalisation and mutual recognition of services bodies/standards, something the EU has always been unwilling to do internally let alone externally.

As for EU trade, honestly, no one can say what it's going to look like, only that it will be different.

We already had a trade deal with South Korea. So the Koreans and the UK have the status quo, which is exactly my point. Except overall we are down because we are in the process of making it harder and more expensive to trade with our biggest export market.

But you said that other nations would make the terms of trade worse for us. That's not what's happening. In all cases the terms are the same and in the case of Switzerland marginally better.

So what was the point?

The same today. We no longer need to get permission from 27 other parties to make beneficial changes.

Doesn't really add up to a hill of beans though, does it?

All this crap for some undefined "beneficial changes".

This is the debate we had before the referendum.

What solution did we decide for the Irish border before the referendum?

MaxPB

SouthamObserver said:

Yep - status quo, so no additional benefits to the UK. While we make it harder and more expensive to trade with our biggest export market. So, overall, we are down.

The benefit is being able to open up the UK-SK deal without needing permission from 27 other nations. It's not some perceived benefit it is a real tangible gain. Overall the UK-SK trading relationship is better today than it was under the EU, something you said wasn't possible as we'd have to offer better terms to potential partners, we haven't.

Quincel

Lol

SouthamObserver

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

Yep - status quo, so no additional benefits to the UK. While we make it harder and more expensive to trade with our biggest export market. So, overall, we are down.

The benefit is being able to open up the UK-SK deal without needing permission from 27 other nations. It's not some perceived benefit it is a real tangible gain. Overall the UK-SK trading relationship is better today than it was under the EU, something you said wasn't possible as we'd have to offer better terms to potential partners, we haven't.

No, the UK-SK trading relationship is exactly the same. The UK-EU trading relationship is about to get a lot worse. Overall, we are significantly down.

GIN1138

I think Raabs "aspiration" to cut income tax would be much more attractive to wider electorate...

Nigel_Foremain

tpfkar said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Incidentally, Boris Johnson seeking to bribe higher rate taxpayers in the south east is a really bad electoral calculation for the Tories. Their new target market of hardcore Leavers earns much less than this and is much more interested in better public services. They are going to be really unimpressed with money being used to bribe what they see as rich Londoners, whether or not the cost of living for Londoners merits it.

Higher rate taxpayers in London and the south east are by and large either already fiercely committed to Brexit and therefore in the bag or (more likely) think the Conservatives are completely unhinged and a few quid isn't going to buy their votes back.

I agree with this. What is Boris playing at? Surely it would be more efficient just to offer tax breaks for Tory members. This seems to be throwing billions in the wrong place and writes every opposition leaflet on the economy for his premiership.

Tax cuts, and being seen as an advocate of tax cuts, is normally a very beneficial thing for any prospective Tory leader among the Tory faithful. It is the intent that is important. It isn't enough for me to vote for the lying little charlatan though.

Nigel_Foremain

TOPPING said:

MaxPB said:

TOPPING said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

Of course they want to trade with us. And we have got exactly the same deal with South Korea as we had as an EU member state. So, no improvement - but now it will be harder and more expensive to trade with our biggest export market. Can you explain how that benefits the UK?

That wasn't the point you made, though. You said that we'd get worse terms now that we're leaving. We haven't, they are the same.

You're also falling into the trap of thinking that trade deals are fixed in time. I agree that some are, especially ones with bureaucratic blocs like the EU, but bilateral trade treaties are very moveable beasts. If new industries pop up, or the government approaches SK with some new area they want to discuss you can bet that both sides will enter into talks. Doing that within the EU is basically impossible as you need 27 other people to agree changes before even approaching the other party.

RoW trade is definitely one area where this country excels and will continue to do so in our out of the EU. I'd wager that out of the EU and out of th customs union the UK will start to customise existing trade deals and push for more services liberalisation and mutual recognition of services bodies/standards, something the EU has always been unwilling to do internally let alone externally.

As for EU trade, honestly, no one can say what it's going to look like, only that it will be different.

We already had a trade deal with South Korea. So the Koreans and the UK have the status quo, which is exactly my point. Except overall we are down because we are in the process of making it harder and more expensive to trade with our biggest export market.

But you said that other nations would make the terms of trade worse for us. That's not what's happening. In all cases the terms are the same and in the case of Switzerland marginally better.

So what was the point?

The same today. We no longer need to get permission from 27 other parties to make beneficial changes.

Doesn't really add up to a hill of beans though, does it?

All this crap for some undefined "beneficial changes".

I am going to make beneficial changes to my very very small piece of pie, which is not nearly as big as my old piece of much much larger piece of pie, and I will enjoy those beneficial changes to offset my extreme hunger

SouthamObserver

tpfkar said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Incidentally, Boris Johnson seeking to bribe higher rate taxpayers in the south east is a really bad electoral calculation for the Tories. Their new target market of hardcore Leavers earns much less than this and is much more interested in better public services. They are going to be really unimpressed with money being used to bribe what they see as rich Londoners, whether or not the cost of living for Londoners merits it.

Higher rate taxpayers in London and the south east are by and large either already fiercely committed to Brexit and therefore in the bag or (more likely) think the Conservatives are completely unhinged and a few quid isn't going to buy their votes back.

I agree with this. What is Boris playing at? Surely it would be more efficient just to offer tax breaks for Tory members. This seems to be throwing billions in the wrong place and writes every opposition leaflet on the economy for his premiership.

Because it is not necessary, it is clearly what he believes. But he has given labour and the LDs a gift-wrapped present. The Trump candidate will find out quite soon that Trump is not very popular in the UK.

tlg86

Pulpstar said:

Higher rate tax cut going down like cold sick in the Mail comments...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7121909/Boris-Johnson-vows-raise-40p-income-tax-threshold-80-000-10billion-pledge.html

If it coincided with hiking interest rates to 3.0%, I think that would be fair enough.

TOPPING

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

Yep - status quo, so no additional benefits to the UK. While we make it harder and more expensive to trade with our biggest export market. So, overall, we are down.

The benefit is being able to open up the UK-SK deal without needing permission from 27 other nations. It's not some perceived benefit it is a real tangible gain. Overall the UK-SK trading relationship is better today than it was under the EU, something you said wasn't possible as we'd have to offer better terms to potential partners, we haven't.

Do you ascribe to the view that the larger your bargaining power the better the likely deal you achieve?

Stuartinromford

TheWhiteRabbit said:

What a slew of rubbish from every candidate this weekend. Frankly depressing.

Johnson has decided my bank account is his priority.

Hunt wants to slash abortions, whilst simultaneously confirming he has no plans to actually do that

Gove wants to replace VAT, for no real reason, with an inferior alternative (probably at the cost of billions).

Each of them called out the other on their idiocy.

Did anyone actually say anything coherent???

None of it would pass let alone with Brexit still to deal with, but still.

Theory: None of them actually wants the job. Not really.
They have to go for it, because political careers work on an "up or out" basis.
But the next PM will face the same Brexit hell that TM did, only worse. So there's a reverse Catch-22; anyone wanting to the PM hasn't enough grip on reality to be allowed to.

So what's a boy or girl to do? Campaign seriously and hope that one's unsuitability comes to light.

It's probably a wrong theory, but how can you distinguish it from the current reality?

Nigel_Foremain

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Incidentally, Boris Johnson seeking to bribe higher rate taxpayers in the south east is a really bad electoral calculation for the Tories. Their new target market of hardcore Leavers earns much less than this and is much more interested in better public services. They are going to be really unimpressed with money being used to bribe what they see as rich Londoners, whether or not the cost of living for Londoners merits it.

Higher rate taxpayers in London and the south east are by and large either already fiercely committed to Brexit and therefore in the bag or (more likely) think the Conservatives are completely unhinged and a few quid isn't going to buy their votes back.

Many C2s and C1 Brexit Party voters will go back to the Tories under Boris anyway, this measure will attract some AB voters in London marginals like Battersea, Kensington Finchley and Golders Green and Uxbridge and Wimbledon the Tories need to hold or gain from Labour with voters who are fiscally conservative, less keen on Brexit but dislike Corbyn. It is a shrewd move actually

Looks to me that those voters will prefer the financially sensible, anti Brexit, internationalist Lib Dems.

It will be very hard for the Tories to keep a coalition of the rich and Tommy Robinson supporters together for much longer. I agree that all the leadership candidates bar McVey will opt for the former over the latter, who will be on the shitty end of Brexit.

Depends who you classify as "rich", but the better off are probably more likely to recognise the stupidity of Brexit as the reason for their declining prosperity, so yes, they will defect to the Lib Dems. The Tory party will become an even more condensed coalition of the angry old babyboomer men that gave us Brexit as a policy in the first place.

williamglenn

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

Of course they want to trade with us. And we have got exactly the same deal with South Korea as we had as an EU member state. So, no improvement - but now it will be harder and more expensive to trade with our biggest export market. Can you explain how that benefits the UK?

That wasn't the point you made, though. You said that we'd get worse terms now that we're leaving. We haven't, they are the same.

You're also falling into the trap of thinking that trade deals are fixed in time. I agree that some are, especially ones with bureaucratic blocs like the EU, but bilateral trade treaties are very moveable beasts. If new industries pop up, or the government approaches SK with some new area they want to discuss you can bet that both sides will enter into talks. Doing that within the EU is basically impossible as you need 27 other people to agree changes before even approaching the other party.

RoW trade is definitely one area where this country excels and will continue to do so in our out of the EU. I'd wager that out of the EU and out of th customs union the UK will start to customise existing trade deals and push for more services liberalisation and mutual recognition of services bodies/standards, something the EU has always been unwilling to do internally let alone externally.

As for EU trade, honestly, no one can say what it's going to look like, only that it will be different.

We already had a trade deal with South Korea. So the Koreans and the UK have the status quo, which is exactly my point. Except overall we are down because we are in the process of making it harder and more expensive to trade with our biggest export market.

But you said that other nations would make the terms of trade worse for us. That's not what's happening. In all cases the terms are the same and in the case of Switzerland marginally better.

No, I didn't say that. I said that to get trade deals the UK will have to offer better terms to countries than they have now at a time when we have made it harder and more expensive for ourselves to trade with our biggest export market. That puts us in a weak negotiating position. Like Korea, the choice for everyone is status quo or better trading terms. We do not have status quo.

But that hasn't happened. In all cases the existing terms have just been rolled into a bilateral deal.

That's not what's happened with South Korea. Fox has just agreed a continuity agreement, but it doesn't commit South Korea to offering the same terms in a full FTA.

Theuniondivvie

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

MaxPB said:

TOPPING said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

Of course they want to trade with us. And we have got exactly the same deal with South Korea as we had as an EU member state. So, no improvement - but now it will be harder and more expensive to trade with our biggest export market. Can you explain how that benefits the UK?

That wasn't the point you made, though. You said that we'd get worse terms now that we're leaving. We haven't, they are the same.

You're also falling into the trap of thinking that trade deals are fixed in time. I agree that some are, especially ones with bureaucratic blocs like the EU, but bilateral trade treaties are very moveable beasts. If new industries pop up, or the government approaches SK with some new area they want to discuss you can bet that both sides will enter into talks. Doing that within the EU is basically impossible as you need 27 other people to agree changes before even approaching the other party.

RoW trade is definitely one area where this country excels and will continue to do so in our out of the EU. I'd wager that out of the EU and out of th customs union the UK will start to customise existing trade deals and push for more services liberalisation and mutual recognition of services bodies/standards, something the EU has always been unwilling to do internally let alone externally.

As for EU trade, honestly, no one can say what it's going to look like, only that it will be different.

We already had a trade deal with South Korea. So the Koreans and the UK have the status quo, which is exactly my point. Except overall we are down because we are in the process of making it harder and more expensive to trade with our biggest export market.

But you said that other nations would make the terms of trade worse for us. That's not what's happening. In all cases the terms are the same and in the case of Switzerland marginally better.

So what was the point?

The same today. We no longer need to get permission from 27 other parties to make beneficial changes.

Doesn't really add up to a hill of beans though, does it?

All this crap for some undefined "beneficial changes".

This is the debate we had before the referendum.

What solution did we decide for the Irish border before the referendum?

'What's the Irish border?'

Nigel_Foremain

Philip_Thompson said:

MarqueeMark said:

Theresa May is Prime Minister.

She is not leader of the Conservative Party. That position is currently vacant.

Is that what the Conservatives have recorded with the Electoral Commission?

It is like having a supplier deal with Sainsburys Tesco Morrisons and Waitrose and telling them to go and stuff themselves, because we now have a deal with Budgens.

OblitusSumMe

Stuartinromford said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

What a slew of rubbish from every candidate this weekend. Frankly depressing.

Johnson has decided my bank account is his priority.

Hunt wants to slash abortions, whilst simultaneously confirming he has no plans to actually do that

Gove wants to replace VAT, for no real reason, with an inferior alternative (probably at the cost of billions).

Each of them called out the other on their idiocy.

Did anyone actually say anything coherent???

None of it would pass let alone with Brexit still to deal with, but still.

Theory: None of them actually wants the job. Not really.
They have to go for it, because political careers work on an "up or out" basis.
But the next PM will face the same Brexit hell that TM did, only worse. So there's a reverse Catch-22; anyone wanting to the PM hasn't enough grip on reality to be allowed to.

So what's a boy or girl to do? Campaign seriously and hope that one's unsuitability comes to light.

It's probably a wrong theory, but how can you distinguish it from the current reality?

If we accept your premise - that being PM now would be "hell" - then you could argue that it might be the last chance for any of these politicians to become PM because of the consequences for the Conservative Party.

Given that these are politicians I'm sure they'd decide that any opportunity to be PM, regardless of the circumstances, is better than none. And, who knows, something may turn up, May was crap, so there's also upside potential.

Richard_Nabavi

edmundintokyo said:

This is turning out to be a big problem for Augur, the decentralized prediction market that runs on the Ethereum blockchain, because there's nobody in charge, and anybody can create a market.

It's possible to make money by confusing people with tricksy markets, so it's turning into a cat-and-mouse game with the developers who are trying to come up with ways for people to identify bad markets while scammers try to make their tricksy markets look non-tricksy. But in this case the mouse is a cat, called Poyo, whose fur is very soft.

This is a general, systemic problem with blockchain - by design, there's no-one who can be held to account or who provides any kind of guarantee. For that reason, I think that it will end up being a niche technology with limited applications.

Nigel_Foremain

Nigel_Foremain said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MarqueeMark said:

Theresa May is Prime Minister.

She is not leader of the Conservative Party. That position is currently vacant.

Is that what the Conservatives have recorded with the Electoral Commission?

It is like having a supplier deal with Sainsburys Tesco Morrisons and Waitrose and telling them to go and stuff themselves, because we now have a deal with Budgens.

Whoops, response to wrong quote!

surbiton19

JackW said:

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/toryboypierce/status/1137972819617361920?s=20

Yep, Andrew wants a tax cut.

If there is scope for tax cuts then the old Coalition policy priority of raising the tax threshold should be implemented. £15k should be the initial target.

Agreed

Chris

Nigel_Foremain said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Incidentally, Boris Johnson seeking to bribe higher rate taxpayers in the south east is a really bad electoral calculation for the Tories. Their new target market of hardcore Leavers earns much less than this and is much more interested in better public services. They are going to be really unimpressed with money being used to bribe what they see as rich Londoners, whether or not the cost of living for Londoners merits it.

Higher rate taxpayers in London and the south east are by and large either already fiercely committed to Brexit and therefore in the bag or (more likely) think the Conservatives are completely unhinged and a few quid isn't going to buy their votes back.

Many C2s and C1 Brexit Party voters will go back to the Tories under Boris anyway, this measure will attract some AB voters in London marginals like Battersea, Kensington Finchley and Golders Green and Uxbridge and Wimbledon the Tories need to hold or gain from Labour with voters who are fiscally conservative, less keen on Brexit but dislike Corbyn. It is a shrewd move actually

Looks to me that those voters will prefer the financially sensible, anti Brexit, internationalist Lib Dems.

It will be very hard for the Tories to keep a coalition of the rich and Tommy Robinson supporters together for much longer. I agree that all the leadership candidates bar McVey will opt for the former over the latter, who will be on the shitty end of Brexit.

Depends who you classify as "rich", but the better off are probably more likely to recognise the stupidity of Brexit as the reason for their declining prosperity, so yes, they will defect to the Lib Dems. The Tory party will become an even more condensed coalition of the angry old babyboomer men that gave us Brexit as a policy in the first place.

Isn't this announcement aimed at the Tory membership rather than the electorate at large? Like the stuff about the Brexit date?

More to the point, does anyone _not_ think Boris Johnson would say anything to become Prime Minister, and would break his word without compunction if he succeeds - restrained only by a calculation of his personal interest?

JackW

Just a little future thoughlet as we edge toward the official start line for this wonderful orgy of Conservative navel gazing :

..............................................................................................................................

Time marches on and we are basking in balmy July sunshine. Roger Federer has lost the Men's Singles Final to Nick Krygios. England lose the Cricket World Cup on the final ball as Mark Wood's excellent yorker hits the stumps, fails to remove the bails and runs away for four byes and India win by one wicket.

Tuesday 25th 5:30pm - Sir Graham Brady announces that Boris Johnson has won the Conservative leadership beating Jeremy Hunt by 65,092 to 45,281.

Wednesday 26th 10:00 - Sky News Breaking News .... Boris Johnson announces his resignation as Conservative Party leader after overnight revelations in the Guardian.

Thursday 27th 7:00pm Buckingham Palace - Theresa May advises the Queen that she has been asked by acclaim to remain leader of the Conservative party.

Friday 28th - The Metropolitan police announce an investigation into the spontaneous combustion of some members of the ERG, including Peter Bone, Steve Baker and Mark Francois.

MaxPB

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

Yep - status quo, so no additional benefits to the UK. While we make it harder and more expensive to trade with our biggest export market. So, overall, we are down.

The benefit is being able to open up the UK-SK deal without needing permission from 27 other nations. It's not some perceived benefit it is a real tangible gain. Overall the UK-SK trading relationship is better today than it was under the EU, something you said wasn't possible as we'd have to offer better terms to potential partners, we haven't.

No, the UK-SK trading relationship is exactly the same. The UK-EU trading relationship is about to get a lot worse. Overall, we are significantly down.

It's not the same, it's now a two party agreement. It's completely different to a 29 party agreement.

Again, speaking on the narrow point of third country deals, not the EU trade deal. We are clearly in a better position than we were in for the 10 or so that have been rolled into bilateral agreements and with SK coming to the party it probably paves the way for Canada, Japan and the other major ones to be pushed over the line before October 31st.

Whether you want to admit it or not isn't relevant because it is true.

Theuniondivvie

*Breaking*

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1138007777618661376

Pulpstar

Can someone with a Times subscription have a read of

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tory-leadership-boris-johnson-leads-the-field-in-race-to-succeed-theresa-may-as-prime-minister-6vxc6pg7b

It's the only source quoted (Stuff on Twitter refers to his chairing of her 2016 campaign) for Tim Loughton to be backing Leadsom

GIN1138

Theuniondivvie said:

*Breaking*

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1138007777618661376

Er...

Chris

JackW said:

Just a little future thoughlet as we edge toward the official start line for this wonderful orgy of Conservative navel gazing :

..............................................................................................................................

Time marches on and we are basking in balmy July sunshine. Roger Federer has lost the Men's Singles Final to Nick Krygios. England lose the Cricket World Cup on the final ball as Mark Wood's excellent yorker hits the stumps, fails to remove the bails and runs away for four byes and India win by one wicket.

Tuesday 25th 5:30pm - Sir Graham Brady announces that Boris Johnson has won the Conservative leadership beating Jeremy Hunt by 65,092 to 45,281.

Wednesday 26th 10:00 - Sky News Breaking News .... Boris Johnson announces his resignation as Conservative Party leader after overnight revelations in the Guardian.

Revelations about what Johnson did between winning the leadership and the Guardian going to press?

MaxPB

TOPPING said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

Yep - status quo, so no additional benefits to the UK. While we make it harder and more expensive to trade with our biggest export market. So, overall, we are down.

The benefit is being able to open up the UK-SK deal without needing permission from 27 other nations. It's not some perceived benefit it is a real tangible gain. Overall the UK-SK trading relationship is better today than it was under the EU, something you said wasn't possible as we'd have to offer better terms to potential partners, we haven't.

Do you ascribe to the view that the larger your bargaining power the better the likely deal you achieve?

It depends on what you want to achieve and the EU, while big, has 28 different agendas so any bargaining power is diluted by that factor quite significantly.

In the case of the US, yes it's clear that being the larger party helps in negotiations as Trump is showing wrt Mexico and China. But there aren't 27 other nations to contend with there so it's a bit easier to weild that power.

As I said, a bilateral deal works better for us as we don't need the permission of 27 other nations to open it up for changes. That's a tangible benefit.

Harris_Tweed

On topic: I agree with Betfair. TM still looks like Tory leader from where I'm standing.

On Boris: he's clearly on a mission to impress his current electorate, without caring a jot for the next (possibly imminently so). It's probably not a bad short-term plan. But he's making difficult-to-deliver promises like No Deal Brexit by Oct 31 which will entirely alienate the 48%, and higher-rate income tax cuts which will alienate a different 48 (or whatever) per cent. The boundaries of those two groups are unlikely to be co-terminous. Team Boris may shrink more than he's predicting. (Although he may also gamble.. possibly rightly.. that Corbyn's even less attractive).

Theuniondivvie

https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1138007744785653760

Wonder when it becomes a 'technical recession'?

Philip_Thompson

TOPPING said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

Yep - status quo, so no additional benefits to the UK. While we make it harder and more expensive to trade with our biggest export market. So, overall, we are down.

The benefit is being able to open up the UK-SK deal without needing permission from 27 other nations. It's not some perceived benefit it is a real tangible gain. Overall the UK-SK trading relationship is better today than it was under the EU, something you said wasn't possible as we'd have to offer better terms to potential partners, we haven't.

Do you ascribe to the view that the larger your bargaining power the better the likely deal you achieve?

So long as that bargaining power is united and agile.

I subscribe to the view that agility is more important than brute strength.

SouthamObserver

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

Yep - status quo, so no additional benefits to the UK. While we make it harder and more expensive to trade with our biggest export market. So, overall, we are down.

The benefit is being able to open up the UK-SK deal without needing permission from 27 other nations. It's not some perceived benefit it is a real tangible gain. Overall the UK-SK trading relationship is better today than it was under the EU, something you said wasn't possible as we'd have to offer better terms to potential partners, we haven't.

No, the UK-SK trading relationship is exactly the same. The UK-EU trading relationship is about to get a lot worse. Overall, we are significantly down.

It's not the same, it's now a two party agreement. It's completely different to a 29 party agreement.

Again, speaking on the narrow point of third country deals, not the EU trade deal. We are clearly in a better position than we were in for the 10 or so that have been rolled into bilateral agreements and with SK coming to the party it probably paves the way for Canada, Japan and the other major ones to be pushed over the line before October 31st.

Whether you want to admit it or not isn't relevant because it is true.

Overall we are in a worse position. We have several status quo agreements, largely with comparatively insignificant trading partners, but are about to make it much harder and more expensive to trade with our biggest one. I suspect you understand that but, for understandable reasons, find it hard to admit.

williamglenn

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

Yep - status quo, so no additional benefits to the UK. While we make it harder and more expensive to trade with our biggest export market. So, overall, we are down.

The benefit is being able to open up the UK-SK deal without needing permission from 27 other nations. It's not some perceived benefit it is a real tangible gain. Overall the UK-SK trading relationship is better today than it was under the EU, something you said wasn't possible as we'd have to offer better terms to potential partners, we haven't.

Do you ascribe to the view that the larger your bargaining power the better the likely deal you achieve?

So long as that bargaining power is united and agile.

I subscribe to the view that agility is more important than brute strength.

Does the UK display unity and agility in your view?

Foxy

Nigel_Foremain said:

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Incidentally, Boris Johnson seeking to bribe higher rate taxpayers in the south east is a really bad electoral calculation for the Tories. Their new target market of hardcore Leavers earns much less than this and is much more interested in better public services. They are going to be really unimpressed with money being used to bribe what they see as rich Londoners, whether or not the cost of living for Londoners merits it.

Higher rate taxpayers in London and the south east are by and large either already fiercely committed to Brexit and therefore in the bag or (more likely) think the Conservatives are completely unhinged and a few quid isn't going to buy their votes back.

Many C2s and C1 Brexit Party voters will go back to the Tories under Boris anyway, this measure will attract some AB voters in London marginals like Battersea, Kensington Finchley and Golders Green and Uxbridge and Wimbledon the Tories need to hold or gain from Labour with voters who are fiscally conservative, less keen on Brexit but dislike Corbyn. It is a shrewd move actually

Looks to me that those voters will prefer the financially sensible, anti Brexit, internationalist Lib Dems.

It will be very hard for the Tories to keep a coalition of the rich and Tommy Robinson supporters together for much longer. I agree that all the leadership candidates bar McVey will opt for the former over the latter, who will be on the shitty end of Brexit.

Depends who you classify as "rich", but the better off are probably more likely to recognise the stupidity of Brexit as the reason for their declining prosperity, so yes, they will defect to the Lib Dems. The Tory party will become an even more condensed coalition of the angry old babyboomer men that gave us Brexit as a policy in the first place.

I would suggest that the rich are those on twice Median income. The vast majority of these would be of working age. Obviously there are some rich, with lower incomes but substantial wealth in other assets, most frequently housing, and often retired. Boris may well want to appeal to the former as he already has the latter. Shafting the Brexit voting CDEs in the old coalfields is the first thing to do post Brexit for the Tories, it is good that Boris is willing to flag it up in advance.

Presumably Boris and a nimber of MPs are in the 100% tax bracket, like myself due to with drawal of personal and pension allowances. Not that I expect much sympathy, but it does create some incentives to take it a bit easy.

https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1136141052220452865?s=19

JackW

ONS - Economy contracted by 0.4% in April with a "dramatic" fall in car production :

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48579630

kinabalu

Difficult one for Betfair.

1. Assume that a hostile Martian lands today and says, "I will destroy your planet unless I can have a meeting right now with the leader of the Conservative Party". Who will be wheeled out? Theresa May. The 'Acting' neither adds nor subtracts anything. Of course she is acting. It goes without saying. She is 'acting' in her capacity as party leader to meet the Martian and save the planet. Ergo Theresa May is the leader of the Conservative Party.

2. The key date (per the Betfair rules) is the one on which "Theresa May OFFICIALLY ceases to be the leader of the Conservative Party". Note that it does not feel the need to say 'officially' twice. It does not say "officially ceases to be the official leader" of the party. OK. So last Friday it was announced that "Theresa May has OFFICIALLY stepped down as leader of the Conservative Party." Ergo, unless the word 'officially' was included in error in the Betfair rules, or it is being misused, Theresa May is NOT the leader of the Conservative Party.

When I started writing this, I was inclining towards agreeing with Betfair, i.e. judging (1) to be a superior argument to (2). However, the very act of going through it in such forensic detail has changed my mind - I now think (2) is the better argument and therefore, on balance, that Betfair have got this tricky call wrong.

Disclosure of personal interest - I made £15.71 either way.

SouthamObserver

MaxPB said:

TOPPING said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

Yep - status quo, so no additional benefits to the UK. While we make it harder and more expensive to trade with our biggest export market. So, overall, we are down.

The benefit is being able to open up the UK-SK deal without needing permission from 27 other nations. It's not some perceived benefit it is a real tangible gain. Overall the UK-SK trading relationship is better today than it was under the EU, something you said wasn't possible as we'd have to offer better terms to potential partners, we haven't.

Do you ascribe to the view that the larger your bargaining power the better the likely deal you achieve?

It depends on what you want to achieve and the EU, while big, has 28 different agendas so any bargaining power is diluted by that factor quite significantly.

In the case of the US, yes it's clear that being the larger party helps in negotiations as Trump is showing wrt Mexico and China. But there aren't 27 other nations to contend with there so it's a bit easier to weild that power.

As I said, a bilateral deal works better for us as we don't need the permission of 27 other nations to open it up for changes. That's a tangible benefit.

A more flexible trading relationship with the Faeroe Islands is more beneficial to us than being in the single market and customs union. It's a view, I guess.

Philip_Thompson

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TOPPING said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

Yep - status quo, so no additional benefits to the UK. While we make it harder and more expensive to trade with our biggest export market. So, overall, we are down.

The benefit is being able to open up the UK-SK deal without needing permission from 27 other nations. It's not some perceived benefit it is a real tangible gain. Overall the UK-SK trading relationship is better today than it was under the EU, something you said wasn't possible as we'd have to offer better terms to potential partners, we haven't.

Do you ascribe to the view that the larger your bargaining power the better the likely deal you achieve?

So long as that bargaining power is united and agile.

I subscribe to the view that agility is more important than brute strength.

Does the UK display unity and agility in your view?

Yes. Though I've said before the Scots would be more agile and better off if they became independent.

I'm consistent.

Morris_Dancer

FPT: F1: post-race ramble:
https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2019/06/canada-post-race-analysis-2019.html

Chris

Theuniondivvie said:

https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1138007744785653760

Wonder when it becomes a 'technical recession'?

This is the genius of the Tory party though - they're cleverly going to boost the economy by triggering another round of Brexit stockpiling.

That reminds me, I must check my stock of toilet paper...

MaxPB

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

Yep - status quo, so no additional benefits to the UK. While we make it harder and more expensive to trade with our biggest export market. So, overall, we are down.

The benefit is being able to open up the UK-SK deal without needing permission from 27 other nations. It's not some perceived benefit it is a real tangible gain. Overall the UK-SK trading relationship is better today than it was under the EU, something you said wasn't possible as we'd have to offer better terms to potential partners, we haven't.

No, the UK-SK trading relationship is exactly the same. The UK-EU trading relationship is about to get a lot worse. Overall, we are significantly down.

It's not the same, it's now a two party agreement. It's completely different to a 29 party agreement.

Again, speaking on the narrow point of third country deals, not the EU trade deal. We are clearly in a better position than we were in for the 10 or so that have been rolled into bilateral agreements and with SK coming to the party it probably paves the way for Canada, Japan and the other major ones to be pushed over the line before October 31st.

Whether you want to admit it or not isn't relevant because it is true.

Overall we are in a worse position. We have several status quo agreements, largely with comparatively insignificant trading partners, but are about to make it much harder and more expensive to trade with our biggest one. I suspect you understand that but, for understandable reasons, find it hard to admit.

On the contrary, I fully admit that our trade terms with the EU will not be the same. The compromises in sovereignty were too great to continue with that particular bargain. Economics wasn't, and still isn't the only factor wrt our EU relationship. If it was confined to a trading relationship then I would have happily voted to remain but it wasn't so I didn't.