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.
Worse, because we actually had a deal with Budgens.
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.
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.
If by "Faeroe Islands" you mean "Rest of the World" then yes.
Which of the European Union or "Faeroe Islands" [aka Rest of the World] represents most of our trade? Which of the European Union or "Faeroe Islands" [aka Rest of the World] forms most of the world economy? Which of the European Union or "Faeroe Islands" [aka Rest of the World] is growing faster? Which of the European Union or "Faeroe Islands" [aka Rest of the World] is 93% of the global population?
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.
Please outline in specific words where I said that. Seriously, I dare you.
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.
Yes, of course. "Officially", if it means anything, means de jure rather than de facto. "Acting" means de facto, not de jure.
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.
What is the UK's united view on Brexit?
That we should leave the European Union. That was determined on 23/06/16
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.
That's not true. All we have are interim agreements to maintain continuity that have significant gaps. Switzerland has agreed to maintain existing cumulation rules for 3 years only. We are putting ourselves in a position where more countries will have ongoing leverage against us.
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.
What is the UK's united view on Brexit?
That we should leave the European Union. That was determined on 23/06/16
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.
What is the UK's united view on Brexit?
That we should leave the European Union. That was determined on 23/06/16
The fact that parliament voted against the government's withdrawal agreement suggests that we are far from united.
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.
Yes, of course. "Officially", if it means anything, means de jure rather than de facto. "Acting" means de facto, not de jure.
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.
That's not true. All we have are interim agreements to maintain continuity that have significant gaps. Switzerland has agreed to maintain existing cumulation rules for 3 years only. We are putting ourselves in a position where more countries will have ongoing leverage against us.
That's literally because no one knows whether we're going to stay in the customs union or not.
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....
I believe they need to record it as they are obliged to inform the Electoral Commission of any changes by law. So if they are recording "The Rt Hon Theresa May MP" as "Leader" in an official capacity and she isn't leader then they are breaking the law.
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.
What is the UK's united view on Brexit?
That we should leave the European Union. That was determined on 23/06/16
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.
Please outline in specific words where I said that. Seriously, I dare you.
“Bilateral deals work better for us”. We have a bilateral deal with the Faeroe Islands, don’t we?
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.
What is the UK's united view on Brexit?
That we should leave the European Union. That was determined on 23/06/16
United is an interesting interpretation of a split down the middle of 52/48%!
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.
Yes, of course. "Officially", if it means anything, means de jure rather than de facto. "Acting" means de facto, not de jure.
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.
Yes, of course. "Officially", if it means anything, means de jure rather than de facto. "Acting" means de facto, not de jure.
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.
Please outline in specific words where I said that. Seriously, I dare you.
“Bilateral deals work better for us”. We have a bilateral deal with the Faeroe Islands, don’t we?
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).
It would have been more sensible for the rules to have specified the date of resignation. That is what punters were weighing up, months in advance.
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.
If by "Faeroe Islands" you mean "Rest of the World" then yes.
Which of the European Union or "Faeroe Islands" [aka Rest of the World] represents most of our trade? Which of the European Union or "Faeroe Islands" [aka Rest of the World] forms most of the world economy? Which of the European Union or "Faeroe Islands" [aka Rest of the World] is growing faster? Which of the European Union or "Faeroe Islands" [aka Rest of the World] is 93% of the global population?
Which is our single biggest export market? What deals do we need to do to compensate for the loss of access to that we are in the process of inflicting on ourselves?
Does anyone have any idea why Leadsom is so short in the betting??
There's been lots of speculation on that for many days now; no-one has a better idea than some rich backers of Leadsom want to make her campaign look more viable than it really is.
Looking at it another way, if the leader of the Tory party were temporarily incapacitated by illness, and an acting leader were appointed, who would "officially" be the leader?
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.
Yes, of course. "Officially", if it means anything, means de jure rather than de facto. "Acting" means de facto, not de jure.
Interestingly the only recent period when Wikipedia thinks the post of leader was vacant was when John Major resigned to trigger the "put up or shut up" leadership contest.
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.
If by "Faeroe Islands" you mean "Rest of the World" then yes.
Which of the European Union or "Faeroe Islands" [aka Rest of the World] represents most of our trade? Which of the European Union or "Faeroe Islands" [aka Rest of the World] forms most of the world economy? Which of the European Union or "Faeroe Islands" [aka Rest of the World] is growing faster? Which of the European Union or "Faeroe Islands" [aka Rest of the World] is 93% of the global population?
Which is our single biggest export market? What deals do we need to do to compensate for the loss of access to that we are in the process of inflicting on ourselves?
Our single biggest export market depends upon how you define it. If you mean between the European Union and the Rest of the World then it is the Rest of the World. If you mean country, then it is the United States of America. If you mean by single market it is the European Union.
We can do lots of deals to more than compensate just as other nations have. Of the CANZUK nations we have been compared to then we are the poorest and have the fewest trade deals with the worlds leading economies. Pre-EU we were the second richest behind only Canada.
On topic: I think the electoral Commission point is decisive on this. The Conservative Party has a legal obligation to notify the Commission promptly if there is a change of leader. Therefore, if the party doesn't make such a notification, Nothing Has Changed, and Theresa May is still officially leader.
You mean the Conservative Party constitution declares that the leader shall be the person identified on that web page?
If you say so, I bow to your superior knowledge, but I find it surprising.
No the law does.
Out of curiosity, can you quote the wording of that law?
IANAL but from the Electoral Commission website:
Registration requirements for political parties
When registering, parties need to provide us with some information about their party structure, including a financial scheme, their constitution and details of any branches of the party that manage their own finances (“accounting units”). They must also appoint people to the official roles of:
Party leader Treasurer Nominating officer
Registered parties must keep details of these roles up to date and inform us of any changes.
No update to the "official role" of "Party leader" has been done yet, despite the fact that the party "must keep details of these roles up to date and inform ... of any changes".
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 hat 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.
If by "Faeroe Islands" you mean "Rest of the World" then yes.
Which of the European Union or "Faeroe Islands" [aka Rest of the World] represents most of our trade? Which of the European Union or "Faeroe Islands" [aka Rest of the World] forms most of the world economy? Which of the European Union or "Faeroe Islands" [aka Rest of the World] is growing faster? Which of the European Union or "Faeroe Islands" [aka Rest of the World] is 93% of the global population?
Which is our single biggest export market? What deals do we need to do to compensate for the loss of access to that we are in the process of inflicting on ourselves?
Our single biggest export market depends upon how you define it. If you mean between the European Union and the Rest of the World then it is the Rest of the World. If you mean country, then it is the United States of America. If you mean by single market it is the European Union.
We can do lots of deals to more than compensate just as other nations have. Of the CANZUK nations we have been compared to then we are the poorest and have the fewest trade deals with the worlds leading economies. Pre-EU we were the second richest behind only Canada.
I mean single market. Which deals will compensate?
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.
Please outline in specific words where I said that. Seriously, I dare you.
“Bilateral deals work better for us”. We have a bilateral deal with the Faeroe Islands, don’t we?
Does anyone have any idea why Leadsom is so short in the betting??
This comes up a lot. Two possibilities are:
1. A supporter is backing her to keep the price short in order to give the impression she is more popular than she is. This is a tactic sometimes used in politics, and usually credited to former Liberal MP Clement Freud.
2. Genuine backers think Leadsom can come through the middle as the last Leaver standing if Boris and Gove both implode. This is what happened in the last leadership election, and might have started again with yesterday's cocaine story.
Take your pick. Note also that from time to time it has been possible to arb Leadsom between the Next Leader and Next Prime Minister markets.
Gone are the days where you could flash a tax cut to the electorate. The public, rightly, want decent public services.
You can get away with tax cuts where people have high confidence in public services, but we are far, far away from that.
What it does show us is that most of the Tory candidates are idiots. They wouldn't make a shortlist for a sales job, never mind running the entire bloody country.
Off topic, PaddyPower have lost a £25 bet I placed with them in October 2017 on Jeremy Hunt as next Tory leader at 40/1. It's disappeared from my online open bets record.
Obviously, this is of concern to me at the present time. One of their help agents confirmed it was still active but I've just phoned another who said they couldn't find it on a quick look but would send me a full account statement for the last two years to be sure.
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).
It would have been more sensible for the rules to have specified the date of resignation. That is what punters were weighing up, months in advance.
It would have been more sensible to have been explicit about how the market would operate in the entirely predictable scenario of the departing leader continuing to act as leader, during the contest to replace them.
Off topic, PaddyPower have lost a £25 bet I placed with them in October 2017 on Jeremy Hunt as next Tory leader at 40/1. It's disappeared from my online open bets record.
Obviously, this is of concern to me at the present time. One of their help agents confirmed it was still active but I've just phoned another who said they couldn't find it on a quick look but would send me a full account statement for the last two years to be sure.
Any tips on how to handle this?
Like many bookies, they don't display old bets (Lord only know why!). It should be still on their books though. I wouldn't worry about it - the time to make a fuss is if it becomes a winner, otherwise why waste your time?
Our single biggest export market depends upon how you define it. If you mean between the European Union and the Rest of the World then it is the Rest of the World. If you mean country, then it is the United States of America. If you mean by single market it is the European Union.
We can do lots of deals to more than compensate just as other nations have. Of the CANZUK nations we have been compared to then we are the poorest and have the fewest trade deals with the worlds leading economies. Pre-EU we were the second richest behind only Canada.
I mean single market. Which deals will compensate?
I am not interested in just one single market alone that forms a minority and shrinking of our trade, I'm interested in the whole globe. Why be just a little European only bothered by 7% of the globes population?
As for which deals will compensate, long-term lots will. In 1992 I moved to Australia, the UK was still in the EEC. Since then the UK has seen the EU become the European Union and Australia has signed trade deals with much of the globe.
Then the UK GDP/capita was 110.3% of Australia's. Now the UK GDP/capita is 76.4% of Australia's.
We have declined from 10% bigger to 24% smaller. Just as Europe has declined as a share of the global economy while Australia has signed trade deals we lack with growing economies.
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.
Off topic, PaddyPower have lost a £25 bet I placed with them in October 2017 on Jeremy Hunt as next Tory leader at 40/1. It's disappeared from my online open bets record.
Obviously, this is of concern to me at the present time. One of their help agents confirmed it was still active but I've just phoned another who said they couldn't find it on a quick look but would send me a full account statement for the last two years to be sure.
Any tips on how to handle this?
Like many bookies, they don't display old bets (Lord only know why!). It should be still on their books though. I wouldn't worry about it - the time to make a fuss is if it becomes a winner, otherwise why waste your time?
Because I'm crapping my pants!
That bet is the basis of me safely laying off Hunt at 6s and 7s on Betfair and it's making me feel insecure. If I'm not sure I'm going to be much more wary about that position.
Say what you like about Betfair but your cash and money is always 100% transparent.
Our single biggest export market depends upon how you define it. If you mean between the European Union and the Rest of the World then it is the Rest of the World. If you mean country, then it is the United States of America. If you mean by single market it is the European Union.
We can do lots of deals to more than compensate just as other nations have. Of the CANZUK nations we have been compared to then we are the poorest and have the fewest trade deals with the worlds leading economies. Pre-EU we were the second richest behind only Canada.
I mean single market. Which deals will compensate?
I am not interested in just one single market alone that forms a minority and shrinking of our trade, I'm interested in the whole globe. Why be just a little European only bothered by 7% of the globes population?
As for which deals will compensate, long-term lots will. In 1992 I moved to Australia, the UK was still in the EEC. Since then the UK has seen the EU become the European Union and Australia has signed trade deals with much of the globe.
Then the UK GDP/capita was 110.3% of Australia's. Now the UK GDP/capita is 76.4% of Australia's.
We have declined from 10% bigger to 24% smaller. Just as Europe has declined as a share of the global economy while Australia has signed trade deals we lack with growing economies.
Why does trading with the rest of the world have to involve making it harder and more expensive to trade with our biggest export market?
Will leaving the EU mean we magically get all the natural resources that Australia has and other countries want?
Off topic, PaddyPower have lost a £25 bet I placed with them in October 2017 on Jeremy Hunt as next Tory leader at 40/1. It's disappeared from my online open bets record.
Obviously, this is of concern to me at the present time. One of their help agents confirmed it was still active but I've just phoned another who said they couldn't find it on a quick look but would send me a full account statement for the last two years to be sure.
Any tips on how to handle this?
Short term: as you are doing, though when you next speak to someone who can find it, make a note of the bet number.
Medium term: make a note of the number whenever you place long-term ante-post bets.
Long term to when hell freezes over: lobby the entirely useless Gambling Commission to require bookmakers' sites to show all bets and not just those placed in the last six months, as is common.
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).
Yes, exactly right. The simplest and most unflattering interpretation of Johnson is the correct one. He has, has only ever had, a single objective - to become PM.
Unfortunately, it would appear that he is about to achieve it.
Off topic, PaddyPower have lost a £25 bet I placed with them in October 2017 on Jeremy Hunt as next Tory leader at 40/1. It's disappeared from my online open bets record.
Obviously, this is of concern to me at the present time. One of their help agents confirmed it was still active but I've just phoned another who said they couldn't find it on a quick look but would send me a full account statement for the last two years to be sure.
Any tips on how to handle this?
Short term: as you are doing, though when you next speak to someone who can find it, make a note of the bet number.
Medium term: make a note of the number whenever you place long-term ante-post bets.
Long term to when hell freezes over: lobby the entirely useless Gambling Commission to require bookmakers' sites to show all bets and not just those placed in the last six months, as is common.
On topic, the real issue here is not as much which way the bet gets settled, but that their customer service team provided a number of ambiguous and contradictory responses to questions about it.
It also doesn’t help that all their markets about next party leaders say explicitly that acting leaders don’t count.
Going forward they need to be much more careful in their writing of terms for bets such as this, which are often more complicated to adjudicate than a football or cricket match.
A terrible cynic might suggest that if there was £3000 in this market rather than £3m, they’d have voided it over the ambiguity, but 5% of £3m is a not insignificant sum of commission.
Gone are the days where you could flash a tax cut to the electorate. The public, rightly, want decent public services.
You can get away with tax cuts where people have high confidence in public services, but we are far, far away from that.
What it does show us is that most of the Tory candidates are idiots. They wouldn't make a shortlist for a sales job, never mind running the entire bloody country.
Pretty much. Stewart seems the only realistic pragmatist there. Although Hunt and Hancock seem good too to a lesser degree.
Our single biggest export market depends upon how you define it. If you mean between the European Union and the Rest of the World then it is the Rest of the World. If you mean country, then it is the United States of America. If you mean by single market it is the European Union.
We can do lots of deals to more than compensate just as other nations have. Of the CANZUK nations we have been compared to then we are the poorest and have the fewest trade deals with the worlds leading economies. Pre-EU we were the second richest behind only Canada.
I mean single market. Which deals will compensate?
I am not interested in just one single market alone that forms a minority and shrinking of our trade, I'm interested in the whole globe. Why be just a little European only bothered by 7% of the globes population?
As for which deals will compensate, long-term lots will. In 1992 I moved to Australia, the UK was still in the EEC. Since then the UK has seen the EU become the European Union and Australia has signed trade deals with much of the globe.
Then the UK GDP/capita was 110.3% of Australia's. Now the UK GDP/capita is 76.4% of Australia's.
We have declined from 10% bigger to 24% smaller. Just as Europe has declined as a share of the global economy while Australia has signed trade deals we lack with growing economies.
Just as Europe has declined as a share of the global economy while Australia has signed trade deals we lack with growing economies.
Australia has also declined as a share of the global economy over the same period. That's just a function of globalisation and the rapid development of China.
Interestingly the only recent period when Wikipedia thinks the post of leader was vacant was when John Major resigned to trigger the "put up or shut up" leadership contest.
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....
I believe they need to record it as they are obliged to inform the Electoral Commission of any changes by law. So if they are recording "The Rt Hon Theresa May MP" as "Leader" in an official capacity and she isn't leader then they are breaking the law.
But she's still Prime Minister. Saying she is "acting leader" of the Conservative Party satisfies the EC requirements - there's no "replacement" to inform the EC of yet.
Our single biggest export market depends upon how you define it. If you mean between the European Union and the Rest of the World then it is the Rest of the World. If you mean country, then it is the United States of America. If you mean by single market it is the European Union.
We can do lots of deals to more than compensate just as other nations have. Of the CANZUK nations we have been compared to then we are the poorest and have the fewest trade deals with the worlds leading economies. Pre-EU we were the second richest behind only Canada.
I mean single market. Which deals will compensate?
I am not interested in just one single market alone that forms a minority and shrinking of our trade, I'm interested in the whole globe. Why be just a little European only bothered by 7% of the globes population?
As for which deals will compensate, long-term lots will. In 1992 I moved to Australia, the UK was still in the EEC. Since then the UK has seen the EU become the European Union and Australia has signed trade deals with much of the globe.
Then the UK GDP/capita was 110.3% of Australia's. Now the UK GDP/capita is 76.4% of Australia's.
We have declined from 10% bigger to 24% smaller. Just as Europe has declined as a share of the global economy while Australia has signed trade deals we lack with growing economies.
Why does trading with the rest of the world have to involve making it harder and more expensive to trade with our biggest export market?
Will leaving the EU mean we magically get all the natural resources that Australia has and other countries want?
1: Becase our biggest export market forbids us from signing trade deals with the rest of the world.
2: No, but natural resources Australia had in 1992 too, unless they magically gained them in recent years and are not all that it trades. The same has happened with regards to other comparable countries too. Name any developed non-European English speaking nation that we have done better than please since 1992.
Re: Leadsom`s ridiculously short odds - the "rich backer" theory doesn`t seem likely as 1) she is lowly priced across all bookies incuding the exchanges and 2) too much money has been placed on this market for her odds to be affected so much by one or a few backers. I`d say she has a 50/1 chance at best whereas she is top-priced 9/1 (and has been taking money today).
Might I suggest that we are all missing something?
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....
I believe they need to record it as they are obliged to inform the Electoral Commission of any changes by law. So if they are recording "The Rt Hon Theresa May MP" as "Leader" in an official capacity and she isn't leader then they are breaking the law.
But she's still Prime Minister. Saying she is "acting leader" of the Conservative Party satisfies the EC requirements - there's no "replacement" to inform the EC of yet.
Prime Minister is moot, this is a party political matter not a matter of state.
She is being recorded "officially" as "Leader" as per the terms of Betfair's bet. When she is no longer officially leader then the party is obliged by law to inform the Electoral Commission of that and they will update the website accordingly.
Does anyone have any idea why Leadsom is so short in the betting??
I don't think her price is obviously so false and have not joined the rush to lay at 10. With Gove gone and Raab not firing, if Johnson implodes, Leadsom is well placed as a Leaver vs Hunt. I think she could be considerably shorter than 10 in a couple of days - might lay her then.
Our single biggest export market depends upon how you define it. If you mean between the European Union and the Rest of the World then it is the Rest of the World. If you mean country, then it is the United States of America. If you mean by single market it is the European Union.
We can do lots of deals to more than compensate just as other nations have. Of the CANZUK nations we have been compared to then we are the poorest and have the fewest trade deals with the worlds leading economies. Pre-EU we were the second richest behind only Canada.
I mean single market. Which deals will compensate?
I am not interested in just one single market alone that forms a minority and shrinking of our trade, I'm interested in the whole globe. Why be just a little European only bothered by 7% of the globes population?
As for which deals will compensate, long-term lots will. In 1992 I moved to Australia, the UK was still in the EEC. Since then the UK has seen the EU become the European Union and Australia has signed trade deals with much of the globe.
Then the UK GDP/capita was 110.3% of Australia's. Now the UK GDP/capita is 76.4% of Australia's.
We have declined from 10% bigger to 24% smaller. Just as Europe has declined as a share of the global economy while Australia has signed trade deals we lack with growing economies.
Why does trading with the rest of the world have to involve making it harder and more expensive to trade with our biggest export market?
Will leaving the EU mean we magically get all the natural resources that Australia has and other countries want?
1: Becase our biggest export market forbids us from signing trade deals with the rest of the world.
2: No, but natural resources Australia had in 1992 too, unless they magically gained them in recent years and are not all that it trades. The same has happened with regards to other comparable countries too. Name any developed non-European English speaking nation that we have done better than please since 1992.
Speaking English doesn't make you part of some kind of magic circle that confers economic success. We have outperformed peer countries in our region, on average, over that period. If you're envious of the New World, move there and don't look back.
Re: Leadsom`s ridiculously short odds - the "rich backer" theory doesn`t seem likely as 1) she is lowly priced across all bookies incuding the exchanges and 2) too much money has been placed on this market for her odds to be affected so much by one or a few backers. I`d say she has a 50/1 chance at best whereas she is top-priced 9/1 (and has been taking money today).
Might I suggest that we are all missing something?
Our single biggest export market depends upon how you define it. If you mean between the European Union and the Rest of the World then it is the Rest of the World. If you mean country, then it is the United States of America. If you mean by single market it is the European Union.
We can do lots of deals to more than compensate just as other nations have. Of the CANZUK nations we have been compared to then we are the poorest and have the fewest trade deals with the worlds leading economies. Pre-EU we were the second richest behind only Canada.
I mean single market. Which deals will compensate?
I am not interested in just one single market alone that forms a minority and shrinking of our trade, I'm interested in the whole globe. Why be just a little European only bothered by 7% of the globes population?
As for which deals will compensate, long-term lots will. In 1992 I moved to Australia, the UK was still in the EEC. Since then the UK has seen the EU become the European Union and Australia has signed trade deals with much of the globe.
Then the UK GDP/capita was 110.3% of Australia's. Now the UK GDP/capita is 76.4% of Australia's.
We have declined from 10% bigger to 24% smaller. Just as Europe has declined as a share of the global economy while Australia has signed trade deals we lack with growing economies.
Why does trading with the rest of the world have to involve making it harder and more expensive to trade with our biggest export market?
Will leaving the EU mean we magically get all the natural resources that Australia has and other countries want?
1: Becase our biggest export market forbids us from signing trade deals with the rest of the world.
2: No, but natural resources Australia had in 1992 too, unless they magically gained them in recent years and are not all that it trades. The same has happened with regards to other comparable countries too. Name any developed non-European English speaking nation that we have done better than please since 1992.
Demand has increased since 1992. This is pretty basic stuff.
Name any other non-European English speaking nation that has the UK’s economy. That said, I suspect we are faring significantly better than a number of non-European English speaking countries in, say, Africa and the Caribbean.
Re: Leadsom`s ridiculously short odds - the "rich backer" theory doesn`t seem likely as 1) she is lowly priced across all bookies incuding the exchanges and 2) too much money has been placed on this market for her odds to be affected so much by one or a few backers. I`d say she has a 50/1 chance at best whereas she is top-priced 9/1 (and has been taking money today).
Might I suggest that we are all missing something?
Deja vu.
She unexpectedly came through and reached the final two last time. People may be betting that the same will happen again.
Re: Leadsom`s ridiculously short odds - the "rich backer" theory doesn`t seem likely as 1) she is lowly priced across all bookies incuding the exchanges and 2) too much money has been placed on this market for her odds to be affected so much by one or a few backers. I`d say she has a 50/1 chance at best whereas she is top-priced 9/1 (and has been taking money today).
Might I suggest that we are all missing something?
Deja vu.
She unexpectedly came through and reached the final two last time. People may be betting that the same will happen again.
Re: Leadsom`s ridiculously short odds - the "rich backer" theory doesn`t seem likely as 1) she is lowly priced across all bookies incuding the exchanges and 2) too much money has been placed on this market for her odds to be affected so much by one or a few backers. I`d say she has a 50/1 chance at best whereas she is top-priced 9/1 (and has been taking money today).
Might I suggest that we are all missing something?
Deja vu.
She unexpectedly came through and reached the final two last time. People may be betting that the same will happen again.
That's not entirely true. She had comfortably the second most public backers before the first ballot in 2016. In fact all 5 candidates were in the same order before the first ballot as when May was elected (i.e. they were eliminated in the same order as they would have been if all votes had been on the day of the first ballot).
Re: Leadsom`s ridiculously short odds - the "rich backer" theory doesn`t seem likely as 1) she is lowly priced across all bookies incuding the exchanges and 2) too much money has been placed on this market for her odds to be affected so much by one or a few backers. I`d say she has a 50/1 chance at best whereas she is top-priced 9/1 (and has been taking money today).
Might I suggest that we are all missing something?
The bookies are just following Betfair.
Agreed. I think Ladbrokes said a few days ago they were taking virtually no money on her, and only shortening the odds to avoid people arbing them with Betfair.
Re: Leadsom`s ridiculously short odds - the "rich backer" theory doesn`t seem likely as 1) she is lowly priced across all bookies incuding the exchanges and 2) too much money has been placed on this market for her odds to be affected so much by one or a few backers. I`d say she has a 50/1 chance at best whereas she is top-priced 9/1 (and has been taking money today).
Might I suggest that we are all missing something?
I did theorise that her Betfair backer was the drug supplier to the rest of the cabinet...
Re: Leadsom`s ridiculously short odds - the "rich backer" theory doesn`t seem likely as 1) she is lowly priced across all bookies incuding the exchanges and 2) too much money has been placed on this market for her odds to be affected so much by one or a few backers. I`d say she has a 50/1 chance at best whereas she is top-priced 9/1 (and has been taking money today).
Might I suggest that we are all missing something?
Deja vu.
She unexpectedly came through and reached the final two last time. People may be betting that the same will happen again.
That's not entirely true. She had comfortably the second most public backers before the first ballot in 2016.
Re: Leadsom`s ridiculously short odds - the "rich backer" theory doesn`t seem likely as 1) she is lowly priced across all bookies incuding the exchanges and 2) too much money has been placed on this market for her odds to be affected so much by one or a few backers. I`d say she has a 50/1 chance at best whereas she is top-priced 9/1 (and has been taking money today).
Might I suggest that we are all missing something?
The other bookies are following to some extent Betfair’s lead on the prices, to avoid opening up an arb vs the exchange.
Edit: @Pulpstar makes the same point (and he’s got way more cash than me laying Leadsom!), as does @Quincel
Alternative Leadsom theory - someone's bot is picking up on her 2016 leadership activity in twitter.
That's an interesting thought, although you'd have thought that unless this is the bot's first outing, the problem would have shown itself before, perhaps when it tried to back last year's Derby winner last week, for instance.
It is also possible that said dodgy bot is in a false feedback loop with the main bookmaking firms. The betting shops are blindly following Betfair, and Betfair's market is being set by a bot taking its cue (or at least some of its input) from the odds set by the bookies.
Alternative Leadsom theory - someone's bot is picking up on her 2016 leadership activity in twitter.
That's an interesting thought, although you'd have thought that unless this is the bot's first outing, the problem would have shown itself before, perhaps when it tried to back last year's Derby winner last week, for instance.
It is also possible that said dodgy bot is in a false feedback loop with the main bookmaking firms. The betting shops are blindly following Betfair, and Betfair's market is being set by a bot taking its cue (or at least some of its input) from the odds set by the bookies.
Re: Leadsom`s ridiculously short odds - the "rich backer" theory doesn`t seem likely as 1) she is lowly priced across all bookies incuding the exchanges and 2) too much money has been placed on this market for her odds to be affected so much by one or a few backers. I`d say she has a 50/1 chance at best whereas she is top-priced 9/1 (and has been taking money today).
Might I suggest that we are all missing something?
Deja vu.
She unexpectedly came through and reached the final two last time. People may be betting that the same will happen again.
That's not entirely true. She had comfortably the second most public backers before the first ballot in 2016.
The first ballot is still a long way away. Last time Johnson backed her after he pulled out of the race.
Firstly, it's three days away and while there is still time for intrigue nothing to boost Leadsom has happened yet.
But secondly, my point is that her 2nd place last time wasn't unexpected once the candidates were known. If that holds this time, she isn't even near the running unless someone big drops out and endorses her. Her odds shouldn't be third favourite if she needs that to happen.
Demand has increased since 1992. This is pretty basic stuff.
Name any other non-European English speaking nation that has the UK’s economy. That said, I suspect we are faring significantly better than a number of non-European English speaking countries in, say, Africa and the Caribbean.
Great so we're not third world, that is the bar you want to set? You want to compare us to third world economies rather than say Canada, Australia or New Zealand?
In 1992 New Zealand's GDP/capita was roughly half of ours. It is now roughly the same. Proportionately they have doubled relative to us.
In 1992 Canada's GDP/capita was roughly the same as ours. It is now over 25% bigger than ours.
In 1992 the EEC was 24% of the global economy (nearly 30% including nations that have since joined). Today it is 16%.
Stop turning your nose up at the rest of the world.
Re: Leadsom`s ridiculously short odds - the "rich backer" theory doesn`t seem likely as 1) she is lowly priced across all bookies incuding the exchanges and 2) too much money has been placed on this market for her odds to be affected so much by one or a few backers. I`d say she has a 50/1 chance at best whereas she is top-priced 9/1 (and has been taking money today).
Might I suggest that we are all missing something?
Deja vu.
She unexpectedly came through and reached the final two last time. People may be betting that the same will happen again.
That's not entirely true. She had comfortably the second most public backers before the first ballot in 2016.
Re: Leadsom`s ridiculously short odds - the "rich backer" theory doesn`t seem likely as 1) she is lowly priced across all bookies incuding the exchanges and 2) too much money has been placed on this market for her odds to be affected so much by one or a few backers. I`d say she has a 50/1 chance at best whereas she is top-priced 9/1 (and has been taking money today).
Might I suggest that we are all missing something?
The other bookies are following to some extent Betfair’s lead on the prices, to avoid opening up an arb vs the exchange.
Edit: @Pulpstar makes the same point (and he’s got way more cash than me laying Leadsom!), as does @Quincel
I mentioned before, I think it has taken ~£50k or so to keep Leadsom at 9/1. That's not so bad compared to other ways of marketing your candidate.
it is definitely one or two actors in the market, though I cannot be sure what their motive is.
Our single biggest export market depends upon how you define it. If you mean between the European Union and the Rest of the World then it is the Rest of the World. If you mean country, then it is the United States of America. If you mean by single market it is the European Union.
We can do lots of deals to more than compensate just as other nations have. Of the CANZUK nations we have been compared to then we are the poorest and have the fewest trade deals with the worlds leading economies. Pre-EU we were the second richest behind only Canada.
I mean single market. Which deals will compensate?
I am not interested in just one single market alone that forms a minority and shrinking of our trade, I'm interested in the whole globe. Why be just a little European only bothered by 7% of the globes population?
As for which deals will compensate, long-term lots will. In 1992 I moved to Australia, the UK was still in the EEC. Since then the UK has seen the EU become the European Union and Australia has signed trade deals with much of the globe.
Then the UK GDP/capita was 110.3% of Australia's. Now the UK GDP/capita is 76.4% of Australia's.
We have declined from 10% bigger to 24% smaller. Just as Europe has declined as a share of the global economy while Australia has signed trade deals we lack with growing economies.
Why does trading with the rest of the world have to involve making it harder and more expensive to trade with our biggest export market?
Will leaving the EU mean we magically get all the natural resources that Australia has and other countries want?
1: Becase our biggest export market forbids us from signing trade deals with the rest of the world.
2: No, but natural resources Australia had in 1992 too, unless they magically gained them in recent years and are not all that it trades. The same has happened with regards to other comparable countries too. Name any developed non-European English speaking nation that we have done better than please since 1992.
Re: Leadsom`s ridiculously short odds - the "rich backer" theory doesn`t seem likely as 1) she is lowly priced across all bookies incuding the exchanges and 2) too much money has been placed on this market for her odds to be affected so much by one or a few backers. I`d say she has a 50/1 chance at best whereas she is top-priced 9/1 (and has been taking money today).
Might I suggest that we are all missing something?
The bookies are just following Betfair.
Agreed. I think Ladbrokes said a few days ago they were taking virtually no money on her, and only shortening the odds to avoid people arbing them with Betfair.
I don't understand this, can someone please explain. Surely if the Betfair odds are wrong and Ladbrokes are taking virtually no money on her surely they would make more money by lengthening the odds and permitting people to arb them with Betfair?
If Betfair says 9/1, but the true value should be say 30/1, then if Ladbrokes put odds of perhaps 20/1 up then punters could arb with Betfair but Ladbrokes are still getting good margins themselves.
Re: Leadsom`s ridiculously short odds - the "rich backer" theory doesn`t seem likely as 1) she is lowly priced across all bookies incuding the exchanges and 2) too much money has been placed on this market for her odds to be affected so much by one or a few backers. I`d say she has a 50/1 chance at best whereas she is top-priced 9/1 (and has been taking money today).
Might I suggest that we are all missing something?
The other bookies are following to some extent Betfair’s lead on the prices, to avoid opening up an arb vs the exchange.
Edit: @Pulpstar makes the same point (and he’s got way more cash than me laying Leadsom!), as does @Quincel
I mentioned before, I think it has taken ~£50k or so to keep Leadsom at 9/1. That's not so bad compared to other ways of marketing your candidate.
it is definitely one or two actors in the market, though I cannot be sure what their motive is.
Raab's joke would have been good if he'd told it better. His son couldn't decide whether to support England or Brazil in the World Cup, so went for a 50/50 approach: England in the first half of the tournament, and Brazil in the second.
Why would the major bookies follow Betfair? Perhaps i`m naive, but I thought that each bookies` odds were a reflection of their own liablities to each possible outcome. Why would Ladbrokes care if there is an arb with Betfair? This is making me want to lay Leadsom too (don`t misinterpret).
Comments
Which of the European Union or "Faeroe Islands" [aka Rest of the World] represents most of our trade?
Which of the European Union or "Faeroe Islands" [aka Rest of the World] forms most of the world economy?
Which of the European Union or "Faeroe Islands" [aka Rest of the World] is growing faster?
Which of the European Union or "Faeroe Islands" [aka Rest of the World] is 93% of the global population?
Officers
Leader The Rt Hon Theresa May MP
If you say so, I bow to your superior knowledge, but I find it surprising.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leader_of_the_Conservative_Party_(UK)
We can do lots of deals to more than compensate just as other nations have. Of the CANZUK nations we have been compared to then we are the poorest and have the fewest trade deals with the worlds leading economies. Pre-EU we were the second richest behind only Canada.
Registration requirements for political parties
When registering, parties need to provide us with some information about their party structure, including a financial scheme, their constitution and details of any branches of the party that manage their own finances (“accounting units”). They must also appoint people to the official roles of:
Party leader
Treasurer
Nominating officer
Registered parties must keep details of these roles up to date and inform us of any changes.
No update to the "official role" of "Party leader" has been done yet, despite the fact that the party "must keep details of these roles up to date and inform ... of any changes".
You can get away with tax cuts where people have high confidence in public services, but we are far, far away from that.
1. A supporter is backing her to keep the price short in order to give the impression she is more popular than she is. This is a tactic sometimes used in politics, and usually credited to former Liberal MP Clement Freud.
2. Genuine backers think Leadsom can come through the middle as the last Leaver standing if Boris and Gove both implode. This is what happened in the last leadership election, and might have started again with yesterday's cocaine story.
Take your pick. Note also that from time to time it has been possible to arb Leadsom between the Next Leader and Next Prime Minister markets.
Obviously, this is of concern to me at the present time. One of their help agents confirmed it was still active but I've just phoned another who said they couldn't find it on a quick look but would send me a full account statement for the last two years to be sure.
Any tips on how to handle this?
As for which deals will compensate, long-term lots will. In 1992 I moved to Australia, the UK was still in the EEC. Since then the UK has seen the EU become the European Union and Australia has signed trade deals with much of the globe.
Then the UK GDP/capita was 110.3% of Australia's.
Now the UK GDP/capita is 76.4% of Australia's.
We have declined from 10% bigger to 24% smaller. Just as Europe has declined as a share of the global economy while Australia has signed trade deals we lack with growing economies.
That bet is the basis of me safely laying off Hunt at 6s and 7s on Betfair and it's making me feel insecure. If I'm not sure I'm going to be much more wary about that position.
Say what you like about Betfair but your cash and money is always 100% transparent.
Will leaving the EU mean we magically get all the natural resources that Australia has and other countries want?
Medium term: make a note of the number whenever you place long-term ante-post bets.
Long term to when hell freezes over: lobby the entirely useless Gambling Commission to require bookmakers' sites to show all bets and not just those placed in the last six months, as is common.
Unfortunately, it would appear that he is about to achieve it.
It saddens me very much.
It also doesn’t help that all their markets about next party leaders say explicitly that acting leaders don’t count.
Going forward they need to be much more careful in their writing of terms for bets such as this, which are often more complicated to adjudicate than a football or cricket match.
A terrible cynic might suggest that if there was £3000 in this market rather than £3m, they’d have voided it over the ambiguity, but 5% of £3m is a not insignificant sum of commission.
Someone would have got wind of such a plot by now.
2: No, but natural resources Australia had in 1992 too, unless they magically gained them in recent years and are not all that it trades. The same has happened with regards to other comparable countries too. Name any developed non-European English speaking nation that we have done better than please since 1992.
Might I suggest that we are all missing something?
She is being recorded "officially" as "Leader" as per the terms of Betfair's bet. When she is no longer officially leader then the party is obliged by law to inform the Electoral Commission of that and they will update the website accordingly.
https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/latest-news/philip-davies-interview-i-don-t-care-if-morons-on-social-media-want-to-hate-me-1-9112455
Esther for PM. Esther for Number 10.
Name any other non-European English speaking nation that has the UK’s economy. That said, I suspect we are faring significantly better than a number of non-European English speaking countries in, say, Africa and the Caribbean.
She unexpectedly came through and reached the final two last time. People may be betting that the same will happen again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Conservative_Party_(UK)_leadership_election#Timeline
https://youtu.be/zz1kc9cSHfI
Edit: @Pulpstar makes the same point (and he’s got way more cash than me laying Leadsom!), as does @Quincel
It is also possible that said dodgy bot is in a false feedback loop with the main bookmaking firms. The betting shops are blindly following Betfair, and Betfair's market is being set by a bot taking its cue (or at least some of its input) from the odds set by the bookies.
What 'extra' proportion do the bookies have?
But secondly, my point is that her 2nd place last time wasn't unexpected once the candidates were known. If that holds this time, she isn't even near the running unless someone big drops out and endorses her. Her odds shouldn't be third favourite if she needs that to happen.
In 1992 New Zealand's GDP/capita was roughly half of ours. It is now roughly the same. Proportionately they have doubled relative to us.
In 1992 Canada's GDP/capita was roughly the same as ours. It is now over 25% bigger than ours.
In 1992 the EEC was 24% of the global economy (nearly 30% including nations that have since joined). Today it is 16%.
Stop turning your nose up at the rest of the world.
A 25 runner sprint handicap would probably be an easier puzzle to solve than UK politics atm.
it is definitely one or two actors in the market, though I cannot be sure what their motive is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_trading_partners_of_Australia
If Betfair says 9/1, but the true value should be say 30/1, then if Ladbrokes put odds of perhaps 20/1 up then punters could arb with Betfair but Ladbrokes are still getting good margins themselves.
This is making me want to lay Leadsom too (don`t misinterpret).