Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A 16/1 tip to start off your Sunday morning
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A 16/1 tip to start off your Sunday morning
Graphics: top one is from Paddy Power, the bottom one is from Ladbrokes
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
What's to like?
The rest not so much.
Shouldn't we be aiming for something a bit higher than "It won't devastate us"?
There's a debate to come, isn't there? That's a major hazard. And I see no reason why he should exceed YouGov's estimate.
He'll win easilt enough, but 80% is a very high bar.
Ideally, Hunt will condede and we can at least start the process of Boris choosing his team, ready for a properly functioning Govt. again....
It's interesting, though, to note how he's dominated the contest. What he's done is offer a series of minor gaffes - the bus-making hobby is a classic example - which journalsits have seized on, making him the story without really doing him any harm with his supporters. That is a Trump technique and it exploits the story-hungry media very effectively. Hunt quietly plodding on with that and that policy statement doesn't compete.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/07/what-sir-ivan-rogers-gets-wrong-about-brexit/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/07/indonesias-much-loved-disaster-agency-chief-dies-of-cancer
One can quite easily imagine a hardline Brexiteer taking control of DfID for example and proudly on day one announcing their intention to abolish the department, or taking control of CLG and pretending they were Eric Pickles circa 2010 as if the last 9 years haven't happened.
The supply of ambitious MPs always exceeds demand.
(The deal has significant flaws, most obviously the backstop, although the political class collectively opposing every option is not to their credit).
To turn back the clock, I was very surprised when, after the first defeat, May didn't propose a new vote which was her deal or another referendum. It would've, I think, almost certainly have passed.
And if it didn't, it would at least have moved things forward towards an actual decision.
That's the greatest criticism of our politicians right now. They're not making a decision of any kind, merely prolonging uncertainty.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-48899243
Iran's breaching the uranium enrichment limit.
Totally agree about uncertainty. That's part of the problem with the extension and the potential prospect of another and/or several more. Businesses won't invest (at all, or in this country - depending on their nature) until they know the trading environment that they will be dealing in. And where they really need to invest and have the option between the UK and elsewhere, they have no option but to go elsewhere. By the time someone actually moves us on to the next stage, that investment will be gone forever. Of course if they can get over the frustration of the constant melodrama, the EU no doubt realise that rolling extensions have many advantages for themselves.
So I can only conclude he hasn't read it.
1) Robert Tombs is an idiot.
2) Robert Tombs is not an idiot, knows what he writing is rubbish but is willing to do it anyway for the money and the publicity.
I’m not sure which is worse.
And even the rest is just ultimately a treaty, which we could, if we wished, abrogate from.
Yes, it was him. He ought to stick to medieval history or whatever his speciality is.
Still, writing rubbish for money is very on trend these days. One of its finest proponents is about to become PM. So one can hardly blame Tombs for wanting to join in.
Whichever option is eventually chosen by a single yes/no vote, then needs implementing in primary legislation, which needs to go through both Houses and is amendable in the usual manner.
It’s a recipe for stalemate.
I will admit I find Tombs' work quite heavy going, compared to that of say Price or Doyle.
It was the Spectator blog which caused arguably killed off the Withdrawal agreement at source with that ridiculous hatchet job with took enormous chunks of the rules surrounding the transition period (which of course in effect largely replicated current EU arrangements) and determined that they bound the UK to them for ever more. So many ERG members tied themselves to publicly rubbishing and opposing the WA on the back of it that by the time some of them realised the error of their ways and finally came round to voting for it, it was too late to save it.
(1) It would perpetuate the doctrines of “direct effect” and supremacy of EU law over UK law (including new EU laws on which the UK would have no voice or vote), under which the UK courts are required to strike down Acts of Parliament if found to be inconsistent with EU law or even vaguely drafted treaty provisions. The doctrines apply to the provisions of the WA itself and also any long term relationship agreement with the EU that would replace it.
(2) The WA would perpetuate the jurisdiction of the ECJ either directly, or via a backdoor mechanism modelled on the EU’s agreement with Ukraine, under which the supposedly neutral arbitral tribunal set up under the WA would be bound on matters of EU law by decisions of the ECJ. Meanwhile the ECJ itself would have become an entirely foreign court with no post-Brexit British judge.
(3) The WA has uniquely stringent mechanisms for breaches by the UK, which would make the UK subject to financial penalties or even to discriminatory trade sanctions. Any attempted recourse by the UK to WTO disputes procedures would be prohibited.
https://briefingsforbrexit.com/avoiding-the-trap-of-the-withdrawal-agreement-the-way-ahead-for-a-new-prime-minister/
(Con 417, Lab 147, SNP 56, LD 8; the latter masking 3 losses and 3 gains)
You said that “once we are in a single currency there will be plenty of time to adjust to any relative value disparities”
We’ll have all the time in the world
But there are only 2 ways to do it:
1) mass unemployment and population drain from the over valued region/country
2) fiscal transfers
I suggest that both of these are politically impossible.
A good manager chooses subordinates who are competent enough to know when they can take decisions without serious risk. That's better than the "I must see everything" model, because the manager isn't likely to be any more expert on, say, paperclips than the Minister who spends all day on the subject.
As a reasonably senior manager myself, I struggle with this. I have strong intuitive views, unsupported by evidence, on what makes a good charity appeal. I constantly want to overrule experts in my team who do this as their main job. But they're usually right and I'm probably wrong. So I settle for looking briefly at their ideas and usually nodding them through. But I don't have the ego drive that most PMs have, and that may be a reason why we tend to get micromanagers in Number 10.
Likewise he claims May's Deal is Brexit In Name Only because it isn't the Brexit he wants.
Fundamentally I agree totally - which is where this thread started. The danger that a "no deal Brexit" Government won't end up with subordinates competent enough to take decisions without serious risk. Because the most competent ones will be excluded either by their personal choice, or by the elevation of Brexiteer ideologues to deliver the main Government policy.
In some ways it's the same problem Labour have for entirely different reasons (and obviously from a different angle - they don't take decisions!). The Labour front bench is a joke (you can disagree if you wish) but I have no doubt that with a different leadership it could be miles ahead in the polls in very short time, not least because there is serious heavyweight talent and ability on their backbenches that could be rapidly brought back from the cold.
I am also very suspicious of OGH previous thread, perhaps setting him up to then quickly knock him over. There are reasons Boris might not get a very big polling bounce akin to historic comparisons
1. Brexit. All our politics today is through prism of brexit. If you are die hard Remainer why would you warm to him in opinion poll?
2. Celebrity. Following on from above, he’s the biggest thing to celebrity politician we have had for very long time, meaning he’s hardly a fresh face or unknown quantity. If you were to ask people about Gordon brown as prime minister today they would say what an absolute load of crap, but probably wouldn’t have on the day he became prime minister, not so I argue with Boris, just reading this site alone he has already been quantified, weigh measured and for many found wanting, so once in job will instantly start meeting their expectations.
https://www.bitebackpublishing.com/books/punch-and-judy-politics
If the United Kingdom does not comply with a decision referred to in Article 95(1) of this Agreement, or fails to give legal effect in the United Kingdom's legal order to a decision, as referred to in that provision, that was addressed to a natural or legal person residing or established in the United Kingdom, the European Commission may, within 4 years from the date of the decision concerned, bring the matter to the Court of Justice of the European Union in accordance with the procedural requirements laid down in Article 258 TFEU or the second subparagraph of Article 108(2) TFEU, as the case may be...Judgments and orders of the Court of Justice of the European Union handed down before the end of the transition period, as well as such judgments and orders handed down after the end of the transition period in proceedings referred to in Articles 86 and 87, shall have binding force in their entirety on and in the United Kingdom...
So, they are binding during the transition period, and cases arising from the TP have a limitation of four years to be brought.
And after that, nothing. Instead, if you look lower down, a special Arbitration Commission would be established. It could refer to the CJEU to make rulings on EU law, but although it could not set aside those rulings they would not apply directly in Britain.
Incidentally, I've never heard of those three people. Are they meant to be somehow impressive?
I've no doubt that OGH doesn't give much credence to the poll (and will have said so previously on here), and agree that he was probably being mischievous in doing a thread about it (especially several weeks after it was published!), for other reasons.
https://www.bitebackpublishing.com/books/punch-and-judy-politics
Interesting. Wonder if Johnson has read the book, and might seek to return to the previous situation?
Although actually - wasn't there always a way around it? - there used to be this farce at PMQs where dozens of MPs questions (which all had to be pre-submitted) were "asking about the PM's engagements for the day" - which would then lead (after the PM "referred to the answer they gave a few moments ago") to a basically open question that would hardly ever be ruled out of order.
Did that not pre-date Thatcher?
And of course the LOTO could always ask whatever they wished.
I am coming round to the idea that the Lib Dems will annihilate labour in London and the South and Boris will do the same in leave seats with the SNP running riot in Scotland
I see little prospect of a Corbyn led labour government, indeed I would not be surprised to see the Lib Dems being in a very strong position post any GE
The Art of Action: How Leaders Close the Gaps Between Plans, Actions and Results https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1857885597/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_DMAiDbYZFM1TQ
The failure of the Brexiteers is the failure to have a strategy, the failure to know what they are trying to achieve and the failure to convince others that it is a worthwhile objective.
It's as bad in Labour. We have the Jonestown Jeremy at all costs wing. Unlike the Tory Kool-aid drinkers who don't know it will kill them, the fanatical Jezbollah worshippers DO know it will kill them and don't care, better dead than "Tory-lite"