If the estimates of the hit to the economy of Boris’s Brexit deal are at all correct, imagine what the combination of that and this level of spending will mean for us all.
If the estimates of the hit to the economy of Boris’s Brexit deal are at all correct, imagine what the combination of that and this level of spending will mean for us all.
OnlyLivingBoy said: "That's interesting. My model has Labour winning it with the Lib Dems 3rd, although the Tories would win if BXP were squeezed right down. Maybe my model is just wrong."
Your model doesn`t allow for the Chuka factor??
I haven't allowed for any seat/candidate specific factors yet, apart from in Brighton Pavilion and Buckingham. I am not convinced Chuka is a huge factor either way. I wonder whether the model is too favourable to Labour in heavy remain voting seats.
Mr. Stocky, I have some sympathy with Umunna. That might sound odd, but he actually had the nerve to leave Labour rather than put up with the far left and rise in anti-Semitism, and I think he deserves credit rather than censure for doing that, in stark contrast to the dozens of moderates who wibble about the situation being unacceptable and are currently campaigning for the unacceptable to become the Prime Minister.
I'm surprised he didn't fight Streatham. Perhaps it is difficult campaigning against those who once stood beside you. He could perhaps have shifted a couple of miles west and won Wimbledon.
Not sure if this has been pointed out already, but the spreads on the LibDems at all the spread-bet providers have dropped quite sharply over the weekend: they were at 45-50, now 39-44.
Which party has the compensating rise?
The Conservatives, I think, although I don't have the previous figure for them. The current spreads at Sporting Index are:
Con 321-329 Lab 209-217 LD 39-44 SNP 48-51
SpreadEx have Con 2 seats lower and Lab 2 higher, with the SNP one lower.
Richard_Nabavi said: "Not sure if this has been pointed out already, but the spreads on the LibDems at all the spread-bet providers have dropped quite sharply over the weekend: they were at 45-50, now 39-44."
Yes, I noticed this too. However, some commentators on podcasts I listen to still talk of LibDems winning 50+ seats. I`d love to see 50+ seats but can`t see it myself. I think they will come second in an awful lot of consituencies.
I can only see about thirty LD wins if it goes over that then you are in different territory and could be talking 60 but the initial threshold will be difficult to breach.
nichomar said: "I can only see about thirty LD wins if it goes over that then you are in different territory and could be talking 60 but the initial threshold will be difficult to breach."
nichomar said: "I can only see about thirty LD wins if it goes over that then you are in different territory and could be talking 60 but the initial threshold will be difficult to breach."
Yes, at this stage I`m predicting 30-32
Their support is in a zone where a couple of percentage points could add 20 or 30 seats, I think it is very hard to call. I am projecting just 27 but a week ago with the polls just a bit more favourable to them I forecast double that.
Swinson will no doubt fall back on sex, claiming Farage is being beastly because he's a misogynist. Well, if your glossy hagiography tells us you are our next PM (as it does), show us how you are going to mix it with that all-round liberal nice guy, Mr. Putin. Girl.....
She's better equipped to deal with VVP than the current incumbent who is straining every podgy sinew to implement one of Russia's most important foreign policy goals of the last 20 years and is retaining one of Dymtro Firtash's winged monkeys as an advisor.
The Dmitri Firtash connection - not just here - but in the US to Giuliani is well worth investigating. Complicated, though. So of interest mainly to investigative nerds. Sadly.
Not sure if this has been pointed out already, but the spreads on the LibDems at all the spread-bet providers have dropped quite sharply over the weekend: they were at 45-50, now 39-44.
Which party has the compensating rise?
The Conservatives, I think, although I don't have the previous figure for them. The current spreads at Sporting Index are:
Con 321-329 Lab 209-217 LD 39-44 SNP 48-51
SpreadEx have Con 2 seats lower and Lab 2 higher, with the SNP one lower.
Farage claims they will take more Labour votes than Tory ones and The Brexit party will 'hurt Labour in most extraordinary way'. Sounds painful.
If they withdraw candidates in the South & Scotland where the Tories have leads of under 10,000 then you would say he's definitely onside with Boris. Otherwise we cannot be sure who he is helping and who he is hindering.
If the estimates of the hit to the economy of Boris’s Brexit deal are at all correct, imagine what the combination of that and this level of spending will mean for us all.
One offsets the other.
The spending has to be paid for. And it will - by us, through increased taxes, and by our children, through increased borrowing.
If the estimates of the hit to the economy of Boris’s Brexit deal are at all correct, imagine what the combination of that and this level of spending will mean for us all.
One offsets the other.
The spending has to be paid for. And it will - by us, through increased taxes, and by our children, through increased borrowing.
Assuming the spending actually occurs. It's one of Boris' promises, remember.
If the estimates of the hit to the economy of Boris’s Brexit deal are at all correct, imagine what the combination of that and this level of spending will mean for us all.
One offsets the other.
The spending has to be paid for. And it will - by us, through increased taxes, and by our children, through increased borrowing.
Or through the growth increase we can get once freed from the constraints of the sclerotic and slowly growing European Union.
This is precisely the sort of thing that will lead to the Scottish Conservatives retaining almost all their seats.
Based on that photo, there's no mistaking an SNP activist and a ray of sunshine......
Indeed. Once you tune out all the sarcasm and sledging, you recognise they are getting rather nervous that the Scottish Conservatives might piss on their parade.
The best way for any Unionist to stop independence getting legs next year is to deny the SNP any of the gains they want in Scotland this year, and deny the possibility of any alternative Government led by Corbyn.
That means Labour are utterly toast in Scotland, and the Tories will retain most of their seats. On a very good night, they might only lost 2-3 but gain 5-6 others.
Which is why I've taken the 16/1 on Tories on 16+ seats with Ladbrokes.
With punters like this - betting with the heart rather than the head - Shadsy will be leading a comfortable retirement.
I am betting with my head, and I expect to do well.
Growing a field of sugar cane takes X kg of CO2 out of the atmosphere, burning it puts X kg of CO2 back into the atmosphere = net zero.
Burning fossil fuels quickly releases the carbon trapped by forests over potentially millions of years. Planting a new forest is not going to recapture the carbon stored from millions of years of decaying pre-historic forests.
I don't see the significance of the pedigree of carbon being released. Surely what matters to the greenhouse effect is the quantity being released.
To get the same energy, burning oil and burning biomass release the same carbon (if anything, I'd say fossil fuels tend to be more efficient, so there might be less carbon released for energy gained). Then it is just a matter of which offsetting method draws more carbon out of the atmosphere, a forest, or a new biomass crop.
Electricity from biomass is no cheaper than renewables, and extremely unlikely to fall in price in the same way that they will over the next decade. It would make considerably more sense to plant more forests and not cut them down.
In the very short term - the next decade - it would make sense to replace coal with natural gas. Virtually no one burns oil for electricity, other than emergency generators.
Fun fact, the island of St Lucia gets all its power from burning imported oil.
Fun fact, only one British league football team is mentioned in the New Testament.
Orient?
Wolves Arsenal Spurs
must all be in with a chance
(But are we taking KJV or RSV)?
The King James Bible still refers to the First Division and thinks Liverpool are the champions. But the New Revised Standard Version does at least mention Karren Brady. However it's only the Apocrypha that refers to the forbidden Gospel of St Ferguson.
And only one District Council is mentioned in the Old Testament
The Scottish results could be very different to the rest of Britain..........as usual.
I think we will see big unionist tactical voting meaning Scott Tories keep most of their seats. And almost all of the Scott Tories will have first time incumbency support
Growing a field of sugar cane takes X kg of CO2 out of the atmosphere, burning it puts X kg of CO2 back into the atmosphere = net zero.
Burning fossil fuels quickly releases the carbon trapped by forests over potentially millions of years. Planting a new forest is not going to recapture the carbon stored from millions of years of decaying pre-historic forests.
I don't see the significance of the pedigree of carbon being released. Surely what matters to the greenhouse effect is the quantity being released.
To get the same energy, burning oil and burning biomass release the same carbon (if anything, I'd say fossil fuels tend to be more efficient, so there might be less carbon released for energy gained). Then it is just a matter of which offsetting method draws more carbon out of the atmosphere, a forest, or a new biomass crop.
Electricity from biomass is no cheaper than renewables, and extremely unlikely to fall in price in the same way that they will over the next decade. It would make considerably more sense to plant more forests and not cut them down.
In the very short term - the next decade - it would make sense to replace coal with natural gas. Virtually no one burns oil for electricity, other than emergency generators.
Fun fact, the island of St Lucia gets all its power from burning imported oil.
Fun fact, only one British league football team is mentioned in the New Testament.
Orient?
Wolves Arsenal Spurs
must all be in with a chance
(But are we taking KJV or RSV)?
The King James Bible still refers to the First Division and thinks Liverpool are the champions. But the New Revised Standard Version does at least mention Karren Brady. However it's only the Apocrypha that refers to the forbidden Gospel of St Ferguson.
And only one District Council is mentioned in the Old Testament
If the estimates of the hit to the economy of Boris’s Brexit deal are at all correct, imagine what the combination of that and this level of spending will mean for us all.
One offsets the other.
The spending has to be paid for. And it will - by us, through increased taxes, and by our children, through increased borrowing.
"The spending has to be paid for." If there is the deflationary "hit to the economy" which you assert, which results in unemployment and underutilized capacity then the opportunity cost of increased spending to offset it is zero.
Just because we've wallowed around in hung parliaments or small majorities for what seems like ages doesn't mean the next election will be the same:
ANY Majority @ 22 looks to be a buy (Worth paying 1 pt over Tory maj to get Labour Maj chucked in however unlikely that seems right now) Con 400 Ups @ 3 is also. That probably won't win but the implied volatility of the Election is on your side here.
The advantage of Maj over buying CON at 329 is you get a hard stop at CON 326 - if the Tories shit the bed you've got very limited losses.
Just because we've wallowed around in hung parliaments or small majorities for what seems like ages doesn't mean the next election will be the same:
ANY Majority @ 22 looks to be a buy (Worth paying 1 pt over Tory maj to get Labour Maj chucked in however unlikely that seems right now) Con 400 Ups @ 3 is also. That probably won't win but the implied volatility of the Election is on your side here.
The advantage of Tory Maj over buying CON at 329 is you get a hard stop at CON 326 - if the Tories shit the bed you've got very limited losses.
Presumably that's any majority at 2.2? If it's 22 I'm in for sure!
Richard_Nabavi said: "Not sure if this has been pointed out already, but the spreads on the LibDems at all the spread-bet providers have dropped quite sharply over the weekend: they were at 45-50, now 39-44."
Yes, I noticed this too. However, some commentators on podcasts I listen to still talk of LibDems winning 50+ seats. I`d love to see 50+ seats but can`t see it myself. I think they will come second in an awful lot of consituencies.
I can only see about thirty LD wins if it goes over that then you are in different territory and could be talking 60 but the initial threshold will be difficult to breach.
45-50 looked utterly impossible to me.
Number 34 'most winnable' seat for LibDems is Burnley, a constituency where they amassed 15% of the vote in 2017, and coterminus with the Burnley LAD which was 66.6% Brexity in 2016.
I could look in more detail but given the above, do I need to?
I agree, thirty is top end. Moreover there's still betting value in this area.
Can we have more TBP v Tory interviews please? Watching a lady from TBP gut a Tory MP on sky just now was brilliant. Far more convincing on why Johnson’s deal is crap than any other I’ve seen.
Yes I'm rooting for a strong performance on Dec 12th from BXP.
Odd place to be.
Not in northern and Welsh labour seats I assume ,as they will take non conservative voting labour supporters depressing the labour vote further
In fact Farage made it clear he is coming after labour in the northern seats
Just because we've wallowed around in hung parliaments or small majorities for what seems like ages doesn't mean the next election will be the same:
ANY Majority @ 22 looks to be a buy (Worth paying 1 pt over Tory maj to get Labour Maj chucked in however unlikely that seems right now) Con 400 Ups @ 3 is also. That probably won't win but the implied volatility of the Election is on your side here.
The advantage of Tory Maj over buying CON at 329 is you get a hard stop at CON 326 - if the Tories shit the bed you've got very limited losses.
Presumably that's any majority at 2.2? If it's 22 I'm in for sure!
Or through the growth increase we can get once freed from the constraints of the sclerotic and slowly growing European Union.
Whilst slowly growing might be a statement of fact, "sclerotic" as if it has a negative effect on our economy is a nonsense.
Why is it a nonsense? Euroslerosis has been a known issue for decades now. Economists have discussed Eurosclerosis since the 1970s and it is still an issue today. The term sclerosis has been adopted based on the medical term to reflect Europes inflexible market conditions leading to slugglish economic performance. This was a major issue in prior decades and has shown up again in Europe in recent years.
It is an article of faith among many that the UK faces a downside and no upside from leaving the sclerotic European Union but if an independent United Kingdom can be more flexible and more agile at adapting to the modern market then we could benefit and grow more.
Or through the growth increase we can get once freed from the constraints of the sclerotic and slowly growing European Union.
Whilst slowly growing might be a statement of fact, "sclerotic" as if it has a negative effect on our economy is a nonsense.
Why is it a nonsense? Euroslerosis has been a known issue for decades now. Economists have discussed Eurosclerosis since the 1970s and it is still an issue today. The term sclerosis has been adopted based on the medical term to reflect Europes inflexible market conditions leading to slugglish economic performance. This was a major issue in prior decades and has shown up again in Europe in recent years.
It is an article of faith among many that the UK faces a downside and no upside from leaving the sclerotic European Union but if an independent United Kingdom can be more flexible and more agile at adapting to the modern market then we could benefit and grow more.
Just because we've wallowed around in hung parliaments or small majorities for what seems like ages doesn't mean the next election will be the same:
ANY Majority @ 22 looks to be a buy (Worth paying 1 pt over Tory maj to get Labour Maj chucked in however unlikely that seems right now) Con 400 Ups @ 3 is also. That probably won't win but the implied volatility of the Election is on your side here.
The advantage of Maj over buying CON at 329 is you get a hard stop at CON 326 - if the Tories shit the bed you've got very limited losses.
camel said: "45-50 looked utterly impossible to me."
You can sell Sporting Index`s Lib Dem 50-up market at 3.5. Looks a banker to me.
I don`t spread bet myself - it scares me. I had IG Index and SP Index accounts years ago. One year I did so badly that IG sent me a massive side of smoked salmon for Xmas as thanks for being a "valued client".
Or through the growth increase we can get once freed from the constraints of the sclerotic and slowly growing European Union.
Whilst slowly growing might be a statement of fact, "sclerotic" as if it has a negative effect on our economy is a nonsense.
Why is it a nonsense? Euroslerosis has been a known issue for decades now. Economists have discussed Eurosclerosis since the 1970s and it is still an issue today. The term sclerosis has been adopted based on the medical term to reflect Europes inflexible market conditions leading to slugglish economic performance. This was a major issue in prior decades and has shown up again in Europe in recent years.
It is an article of faith among many that the UK faces a downside and no upside from leaving the sclerotic European Union but if an independent United Kingdom can be more flexible and more agile at adapting to the modern market then we could benefit and grow more.
Anglosclerosis next, then.
You think we'll be inflexible once we're out? Its possible and if the Corbynites win quite probable but that doesn't seem likely to me at the moment.
Just because we've wallowed around in hung parliaments or small majorities for what seems like ages doesn't mean the next election will be the same:
ANY Majority @ 22 looks to be a buy (Worth paying 1 pt over Tory maj to get Labour Maj chucked in however unlikely that seems right now) Con 400 Ups @ 3 is also. That probably won't win but the implied volatility of the Election is on your side here.
The advantage of Maj over buying CON at 329 is you get a hard stop at CON 326 - if the Tories shit the bed you've got very limited losses.
Hmm, I don't think I'd go for the Any Majority bet. That's effectively a 324-up market (assuming they interpret a majority in that way, which isn't clear in the rules). So you need the Tories (or Labour, ha ha) to get 346 seats before you even start to make a profit, but you make a loss everywhere else. Yes, you've limited your downside, but you've also reduced your upside and much increased the risk of a loss.
Just because we've wallowed around in hung parliaments or small majorities for what seems like ages doesn't mean the next election will be the same:
ANY Majority @ 22 looks to be a buy (Worth paying 1 pt over Tory maj to get Labour Maj chucked in however unlikely that seems right now) Con 400 Ups @ 3 is also. That probably won't win but the implied volatility of the Election is on your side here.
The advantage of Maj over buying CON at 329 is you get a hard stop at CON 326 - if the Tories shit the bed you've got very limited losses.
Can’t you get Con 400+ at Ladbrokes for 5/1?
Buying ANY majority is clearly better than Tory seats 400+ at 5-1.
400 Tory seats would mean a majority of 150. That means at a buy of 22 seats you're getting 5.8 - 1.
In addition you're getting some stake back if Labour win a majority.
& You also win if the Tories get less than 400 seats.
camel said: "45-50 looked utterly impossible to me."
You can sell Sporting Index`s Lib Dem 50-up market at 3.5. Looks a banker to me.
I don`t spread bet myself - it scares me. I had IG Index and SP Index accounts years ago. One year I did so badly that IG sent me a massive side of smoked salmon for Xmas as thanks for being a "valued client".
I'm very much an amateur. I don't have enough grip on my two-toed feet to negotiate slippery slopes.
Just reinforces the view that our political system is a stitch up by and for the old duopoly. Let's have an electoral systems that guarantees we will have either a Tory or Labour-led government and just to be on the safe side lets exclude everyone else from the TV debates.
Just because we've wallowed around in hung parliaments or small majorities for what seems like ages doesn't mean the next election will be the same:
ANY Majority @ 22 looks to be a buy (Worth paying 1 pt over Tory maj to get Labour Maj chucked in however unlikely that seems right now) Con 400 Ups @ 3 is also. That probably won't win but the implied volatility of the Election is on your side here.
The advantage of Maj over buying CON at 329 is you get a hard stop at CON 326 - if the Tories shit the bed you've got very limited losses.
Can’t you get Con 400+ at Ladbrokes for 5/1?
Buying ANY majority is clearly better than Tory seats 400+ at 5-1.
400 Tory seats would mean a majority of 150. That means at a buy of 22 seats you're getting 5.8 - 1.
In addition you're getting some stake back if Labour win a majority.
& You also win if the Tories get less than 400 seats.
400 Tory seats would be an 'elective dictatorship' and no mistake.
Just because we've wallowed around in hung parliaments or small majorities for what seems like ages doesn't mean the next election will be the same:
ANY Majority @ 22 looks to be a buy (Worth paying 1 pt over Tory maj to get Labour Maj chucked in however unlikely that seems right now) Con 400 Ups @ 3 is also. That probably won't win but the implied volatility of the Election is on your side here.
The advantage of Maj over buying CON at 329 is you get a hard stop at CON 326 - if the Tories shit the bed you've got very limited losses.
Can’t you get Con 400+ at Ladbrokes for 5/1?
Buying ANY majority is clearly better than Tory seats 400+ at 5-1.
400 Tory seats would mean a majority of 150. That means at a buy of 22 seats you're getting 5.8 - 1.
In addition you're getting some stake back if Labour win a majority.
& You also win if the Tories get less than 400 seats.
Just because we've wallowed around in hung parliaments or small majorities for what seems like ages doesn't mean the next election will be the same:
ANY Majority @ 22 looks to be a buy (Worth paying 1 pt over Tory maj to get Labour Maj chucked in however unlikely that seems right now) Con 400 Ups @ 3 is also. That probably won't win but the implied volatility of the Election is on your side here.
The advantage of Maj over buying CON at 329 is you get a hard stop at CON 326 - if the Tories shit the bed you've got very limited losses.
Hmm, I don't think I'd go for the Any Majority bet. That's effectively a 324-up market (assuming they interpret a majority in that way, which isn't clear in the rules). So you need the Tories (or Labour, ha ha) to get 346 seats before you even start to make a profit, but you make a loss everywhere else. Yes, you've limited your downside, but you've also reduced your upside and much increased the risk of a loss.
No, it's total majority in seats over the opposition parties.
I see UK turnout at under 60% is now 7/1 at Ladbrokes.
Those who followed my tip at the weekend could have got it at 12/1.
Interesting why do you think it'd be low?
I think turnout will be up and possibly over 70%
People are fed up of politics and have better things to do two weeks before Christmas. There’s also the darkness, cold and weather. Also, the ratings for both Boris and Corbyn are poor, as for the Government.
I’m detecting very little enthusiasm for this election so am bearish on turnout.
camel said: "45-50 looked utterly impossible to me."
You can sell Sporting Index`s Lib Dem 50-up market at 3.5. Looks a banker to me.
I don`t spread bet myself - it scares me. I had IG Index and SP Index accounts years ago. One year I did so badly that IG sent me a massive side of smoked salmon for Xmas as thanks for being a "valued client".
If you think that sell of the 50-up market is 'a banker', then you're wise not to dabble on the spreads! Yes, it would probably make you a profit of 3.5 x your per-seat stake, but if there's a LibDem resurgence, it might potentially lead to another side-of-smoked-salmon-sized loss.
Just because we've wallowed around in hung parliaments or small majorities for what seems like ages doesn't mean the next election will be the same:
ANY Majority @ 22 looks to be a buy (Worth paying 1 pt over Tory maj to get Labour Maj chucked in however unlikely that seems right now) Con 400 Ups @ 3 is also. That probably won't win but the implied volatility of the Election is on your side here.
The advantage of Maj over buying CON at 329 is you get a hard stop at CON 326 - if the Tories shit the bed you've got very limited losses.
Hmm, I don't think I'd go for the Any Majority bet. That's effectively a 324-up market (assuming they interpret a majority in that way, which isn't clear in the rules). So you need the Tories (or Labour, ha ha) to get 346 seats before you even start to make a profit, but you make a loss everywhere else. Yes, you've limited your downside, but you've also reduced your upside and much increased the risk of a loss.
No, it's total majority in seats over the opposition parties.
Just because we've wallowed around in hung parliaments or small majorities for what seems like ages doesn't mean the next election will be the same:
ANY Majority @ 22 looks to be a buy (Worth paying 1 pt over Tory maj to get Labour Maj chucked in however unlikely that seems right now) Con 400 Ups @ 3 is also. That probably won't win but the implied volatility of the Election is on your side here.
The advantage of Maj over buying CON at 329 is you get a hard stop at CON 326 - if the Tories shit the bed you've got very limited losses.
Hmm, I don't think I'd go for the Any Majority bet. That's effectively a 324-up market (assuming they interpret a majority in that way, which isn't clear in the rules). So you need the Tories (or Labour, ha ha) to get 346 seats before you even start to make a profit, but you make a loss everywhere else. Yes, you've limited your downside, but you've also reduced your upside and much increased the risk of a loss.
No, it's total majority in seats over the opposition parties.
Con 346 = 304 Oppo = Con Majority 42.
Ah yes, sorry my mistake.
Do they include Sinn Fein as an opposition party? It's not completely clear from their rules.
Surely SF is included in "The field" from the top spiel ?
Markets refer to the UK General Election. For information purposes the total number of seats available = 650, although no Northern Ireland seats count towards any of these markets, except as part of 'The Field', referring to the remainder of the total 650 seats not won by The Conservatives. Note: Nominated Speaker of the House will NOT count as per the Party they stand for at the Election.
We need to get out of the habit of using 'Leavers' to describe both Johnson and Corbyn. It's as if we'd all bought into 'Leave means Leave', brainwashed into thinking that really only ERG types know what Brexit is. Corbyn's desired Brexit a) won't ever be available, and b) would be put to a public vote in the extraordinarily unlikely event that it came to be available.To portray Corbyn as one "Leaver" up against another is, to put to mildly, misleading.
Surely SF is included in "The field" from the top spiel ?
Markets refer to the UK General Election. For information purposes the total number of seats available = 650, although no Northern Ireland seats count towards any of these markets, except as part of 'The Field', referring to the remainder of the total 650 seats not won by The Conservatives. Note: Nominated Speaker of the House will NOT count as per the Party they stand for at the Election.
That's probably right but it seems a bit odd to count them for the purposes of a majority, since they don't provide any opposition MPs.
Still, if you do your assessment on the basis that they do count, as a buyer it works in your favour if SPIN settle on the basis that they don't.
The Scottish results could be very different to the rest of Britain..........as usual.
I think we will see big unionist tactical voting meaning Scott Tories keep most of their seats. And almost all of the Scott Tories will have first time incumbency support
First time incumbency support like the SNP figures they defeated had?
The BBC is bringing back Arthur - albeit a remix version, which won't be as good as the original.
I will miss Dimbleby. Mind you tho, I still miss Peter Snow. I know soliciting acts of violence is a bad thing, but can somebody arrange to drop a large safe on Jeremy Vine so he doesn't arse around with wildly inappropriate animations and 3d graphics please?
Just because we've wallowed around in hung parliaments or small majorities for what seems like ages doesn't mean the next election will be the same:
ANY Majority @ 22 looks to be a buy (Worth paying 1 pt over Tory maj to get Labour Maj chucked in however unlikely that seems right now) Con 400 Ups @ 3 is also. That probably won't win but the implied volatility of the Election is on your side here.
The advantage of Maj over buying CON at 329 is you get a hard stop at CON 326 - if the Tories shit the bed you've got very limited losses.
On those as part of my opening salvo. Any maj @ 15 and 400 up @ 1.
Agree that both still good now.
My sense is country ready to go with Boris and his Brexit and his general Bullshit.
Or through the growth increase we can get once freed from the constraints of the sclerotic and slowly growing European Union.
Whilst slowly growing might be a statement of fact, "sclerotic" as if it has a negative effect on our economy is a nonsense.
Why is it a nonsense? Euroslerosis has been a known issue for decades now. Economists have discussed Eurosclerosis since the 1970s and it is still an issue today. The term sclerosis has been adopted based on the medical term to reflect Europes inflexible market conditions leading to slugglish economic performance. This was a major issue in prior decades and has shown up again in Europe in recent years.
It is an article of faith among many that the UK faces a downside and no upside from leaving the sclerotic European Union but if an independent United Kingdom can be more flexible and more agile at adapting to the modern market then we could benefit and grow more.
Anglosclerosis next, then.
You think we'll be inflexible once we're out? Its possible and if the Corbynites win quite probable but that doesn't seem likely to me at the moment.
The UK is already one of the most flexible and business friendly economies in the world. The World Bank's Doing Business survey puts us at #9 globally, one of 7 EU economies in the top 20 (so much for the EU being a sclerotic inflexible backwater). Leaving the EU's single market will create significant additional barriers for business, and it scares me to think what environmental protections or rights at work we will be jettisoning to compensate.
Or through the growth increase we can get once freed from the constraints of the sclerotic and slowly growing European Union.
Whilst slowly growing might be a statement of fact, "sclerotic" as if it has a negative effect on our economy is a nonsense.
Why is it a nonsense? Euroslerosis has been a known issue for decades now. Economists have discussed Eurosclerosis since the 1970s and it is still an issue today. The term sclerosis has been adopted based on the medical term to reflect Europes inflexible market conditions leading to slugglish economic performance. This was a major issue in prior decades and has shown up again in Europe in recent years.
It is an article of faith among many that the UK faces a downside and no upside from leaving the sclerotic European Union but if an independent United Kingdom can be more flexible and more agile at adapting to the modern market then we could benefit and grow more.
That rather depends on whether the measures needed to create all this “flexibility” and “agility” are politically acceptable to the voters the Tories need to get - and maintain - a majority.
Surely SF is included in "The field" from the top spiel ?
Markets refer to the UK General Election. For information purposes the total number of seats available = 650, although no Northern Ireland seats count towards any of these markets, except as part of 'The Field', referring to the remainder of the total 650 seats not won by The Conservatives. Note: Nominated Speaker of the House will NOT count as per the Party they stand for at the Election.
That's probably right but it seems a bit odd to count them for the purposes of a majority, since they don't provide any opposition MPs.
Still, if you do your assessment on the basis that they do count, as a buyer it works in your favour if SPIN settle on the basis that they don't.
Well that would be a nice bonus but I'm expecting this result to be settled "in line" with whatever 'Majority' is reported on the day.
It's a contract one enters into also so it can't be "palped". Personally I think a fair price for ANY Maj is 35-37 or thereabouts.
We need to get out of the habit of using 'Leavers' to describe both Johnson and Corbyn. It's as if we'd all bought into 'Leave means Leave', brainwashed into thinking that really only ERG types know what Brexit is. Corbyn's desired Brexit a) won't ever be available, and b) would be put to a public vote in the extraordinarily unlikely event that it came to be available.To portray Corbyn as one "Leaver" up against another is, to put to mildly, misleading.
If Corbyn isn't a leaver, then what is he? You'd be hard pressed to describe him as a remainer.
Just because we've wallowed around in hung parliaments or small majorities for what seems like ages doesn't mean the next election will be the same:
ANY Majority @ 22 looks to be a buy (Worth paying 1 pt over Tory maj to get Labour Maj chucked in however unlikely that seems right now) Con 400 Ups @ 3 is also. That probably won't win but the implied volatility of the Election is on your side here.
The advantage of Maj over buying CON at 329 is you get a hard stop at CON 326 - if the Tories shit the bed you've got very limited losses.
On those as part of my opening salvo. Any maj @ 15 and 400 up @ 1.
Agree that both still good now.
My sense is country ready to go with Boris and his Brexit and his general Bullshit.
Or through the growth increase we can get once freed from the constraints of the sclerotic and slowly growing European Union.
Whilst slowly growing might be a statement of fact, "sclerotic" as if it has a negative effect on our economy is a nonsense.
Why is it a nonsense? Euroslerosis has been a known issue for decades now. Economists have discussed Eurosclerosis since the 1970s and it is still an issue today. The term sclerosis has been adopted based on the medical term to reflect Europes inflexible market conditions leading to slugglish economic performance. This was a major issue in prior decades and has shown up again in Europe in recent years.
It is an article of faith among many that the UK faces a downside and no upside from leaving the sclerotic European Union but if an independent United Kingdom can be more flexible and more agile at adapting to the modern market then we could benefit and grow more.
That rather depends on whether the measures needed to create all this “flexibility” and “agility” are politically acceptable to the voters the Tories need to get - and maintain - a majority.
More to the point, no-one ever seems to be able to give a single example of where the EU currently prevents us from exercising this 'flexibility' and 'agility'.
We need to get out of the habit of using 'Leavers' to describe both Johnson and Corbyn. It's as if we'd all bought into 'Leave means Leave', brainwashed into thinking that really only ERG types know what Brexit is. Corbyn's desired Brexit a) won't ever be available, and b) would be put to a public vote in the extraordinarily unlikely event that it came to be available.To portray Corbyn as one "Leaver" up against another is, to put to mildly, misleading.
If Corbyn isn't a leaver, then what is he? You'd be hard pressed to describe him as a remainer.
He's a leaver that has clearly been bullied by McDonnell, Momentum and about 180 of his backbenchers into adopting a net remain position he's clearly uncomfortable with.
Or through the growth increase we can get once freed from the constraints of the sclerotic and slowly growing European Union.
Whilst slowly growing might be a statement of fact, "sclerotic" as if it has a negative effect on our economy is a nonsense.
Why is it a nonsense? Euroslerosis has been a known issue for decades now. Economists have discussed Eurosclerosis since the 1970s and it is still an issue today. The term sclerosis has been adopted based on the medical term to reflect Europes inflexible market conditions leading to slugglish economic performance. This was a major issue in prior decades and has shown up again in Europe in recent years.
It is an article of faith among many that the UK faces a downside and no upside from leaving the sclerotic European Union but if an independent United Kingdom can be more flexible and more agile at adapting to the modern market then we could benefit and grow more.
Anglosclerosis next, then.
You think we'll be inflexible once we're out? Its possible and if the Corbynites win quite probable but that doesn't seem likely to me at the moment.
I think your Eurosclerosis is largely a myth, that Brexit is an enormous and expensive distraction from any constructive policy formation, and that we’ll very likely be less competitive at the margin.
We need to get out of the habit of using 'Leavers' to describe both Johnson and Corbyn. It's as if we'd all bought into 'Leave means Leave', brainwashed into thinking that really only ERG types know what Brexit is. Corbyn's desired Brexit a) won't ever be available, and b) would be put to a public vote in the extraordinarily unlikely event that it came to be available.To portray Corbyn as one "Leaver" up against another is, to put to mildly, misleading.
If Corbyn isn't a leaver, then what is he? You'd be hard pressed to describe him as a remainer.
One would assume that during 1973-5 Corbyn, like his sectional leader, Tony Benn, campaigned against continued membership of the EU as a result of deeply held principles. Jeremy Corbyn is not a man known for changing his mind of matters of principle.
The BBC is bringing back Arthur - albeit a remix version, which won't be as good as the original.
I will miss Dimbleby. Mind you tho, I still miss Peter Snow. I know soliciting acts of violence is a bad thing, but can somebody arrange to drop a large safe on Jeremy Vine so he doesn't arse around with wildly inappropriate animations and 3d graphics please?
Although, it is worth having him on the show. If Boris gets a majority and can implement Brexit within days/weeks, then Jeremy is going to give the first indication of the great Remainer meltdown, live on air.
Not in northern and Welsh labour seats I assume ,as they will take non conservative voting labour supporters depressing the labour vote further
In fact Farage made it clear he is coming after labour in the northern seats
It is potentially complicated. Farage needs to get his BXP story straight. He is 'threatening' Johnson with a full campaign if Johnson does not agree his terms. This implies that he thinks the BXP will do more net damage to the Cons at the polls than to Labour.
Or through the growth increase we can get once freed from the constraints of the sclerotic and slowly growing European Union.
Whilst slowly growing might be a statement of fact, "sclerotic" as if it has a negative effect on our economy is a nonsense.
Why is it a nonsense? Euroslerosis has been a known issue for decades now. Economists have discussed Eurosclerosis since the 1970s and it is still an issue today. The term sclerosis has been adopted based on the medical term to reflect Europes inflexible market conditions leading to slugglish economic performance. This was a major issue in prior decades and has shown up again in Europe in recent years.
It is an article of faith among many that the UK faces a downside and no upside from leaving the sclerotic European Union but if an independent United Kingdom can be more flexible and more agile at adapting to the modern market then we could benefit and grow more.
Anglosclerosis next, then.
You think we'll be inflexible once we're out? Its possible and if the Corbynites win quite probable but that doesn't seem likely to me at the moment.
I think your Eurosclerosis is largely a myth, that Brexit is an enormous and expensive distraction from any constructive policy formation, and that we’ll very likely be less competitive at the margin.
Brexit is the new opiate of the people. A distraction from things that are far more important, and undemocratic anomalies are studiously ignored by those who bleat about the importance of "respecting" a highly vague and possibly dubious referendum held in 2016.
My overall sense of the betting markets is that they're too gunshy on the Tories chances in terms of seat numbers whilst at the same time being wildly, wildly optimistic in some of the safer Labour northern seats.
The size of the hole where you can win both say Lab Hold Barnsley Central at 2-7 and on the spreads with Tory Maj is humungous. There's always a chance Nigel catches fire but we all have to take some risk in life !
Er, could the Tories maybe think about perhaps, er, starting to campaign? Not that the other parties have made much of an impact, but if it were me, I'd want to at least have one big event setting out the major themes of the campaign so as to try to frame the next 6 weeks from my perspective as much as possible...
Or through the growth increase we can get once freed from the constraints of the sclerotic and slowly growing European Union.
Whilst slowly growing might be a statement of fact, "sclerotic" as if it has a negative effect on our economy is a nonsense.
Why is it a nonsense? Euroslerosis has been a known issue for decades now. Economists have discussed Eurosclerosis since the 1970s and it is still an issue today. The term sclerosis has been adopted based on the medical term to reflect Europes inflexible market conditions leading to slugglish economic performance. This was a major issue in prior decades and has shown up again in Europe in recent years.
It is an article of faith among many that the UK faces a downside and no upside from leaving the sclerotic European Union but if an independent United Kingdom can be more flexible and more agile at adapting to the modern market then we could benefit and grow more.
Anglosclerosis next, then.
You think we'll be inflexible once we're out? Its possible and if the Corbynites win quite probable but that doesn't seem likely to me at the moment.
I think your Eurosclerosis is largely a myth, that Brexit is an enormous and expensive distraction from any constructive policy formation, and that we’ll very likely be less competitive at the margin.
Brexit is the new opiate of the people. A distraction from things that are far more important, and undemocratic anomalies are studiously ignored by those who bleat about the importance of "respecting" a highly vague and possibly dubious referendum held in 2016.
The European Union has been that opiate. Within the EU everything blameworthy gets passed - oh the EU made us do that, oh the EU won't let us do that.
Out of the EU the politicians answer to us the voters. Either they do what we want them to or we kick them out and they have nowhere to hide.
Er, could the Tories maybe think about perhaps, er, starting to campaign? Not that the other parties have made much of an impact, but if it were me, I'd want to at least have one big event setting out the major themes of the campaign so as to try to frame the next 6 weeks from my perspective as much as possible...
They've (I was out) "tried" to canvas me in Bassetlaw. I live in precisely the sort of ward they'll need to win to do well in.
Er, could the Tories maybe think about perhaps, er, starting to campaign? Not that the other parties have made much of an impact, but if it were me, I'd want to at least have one big event setting out the major themes of the campaign so as to try to frame the next 6 weeks from my perspective as much as possible...
Remember Boris get a lectern outside Number 10 and a trip to the palace tomorrow.
We need to get out of the habit of using 'Leavers' to describe both Johnson and Corbyn. It's as if we'd all bought into 'Leave means Leave', brainwashed into thinking that really only ERG types know what Brexit is. Corbyn's desired Brexit a) won't ever be available, and b) would be put to a public vote in the extraordinarily unlikely event that it came to be available.To portray Corbyn as one "Leaver" up against another is, to put to mildly, misleading.
If Corbyn isn't a leaver, then what is he? You'd be hard pressed to describe him as a remainer.
He is just a contrarian. Brexit is a challenge for him, because he can't quite decide which position makes him look more "cool" to oppose in the sixth form common room that his limited intellect permanently anchors him in.
Yes, I thought so. You can put a big unit on and not lose sleep. And if it pays I'll be in the sort of emotionally fragile state which only a gigantic spread betting profit can possibly mitigate.
Or through the growth increase we can get once freed from the constraints of the sclerotic and slowly growing European Union.
Whilst slowly growing might be a statement of fact, "sclerotic" as if it has a negative effect on our economy is a nonsense.
Why is it a nonsense? Euroslerosis has been a known issue for decades now. Economists have discussed Eurosclerosis since the 1970s and it is still an issue today. The term sclerosis has been adopted based on the medical term to reflect Europes inflexible market conditions leading to slugglish economic performance. This was a major issue in prior decades and has shown up again in Europe in recent years.
It is an article of faith among many that the UK faces a downside and no upside from leaving the sclerotic European Union but if an independent United Kingdom can be more flexible and more agile at adapting to the modern market then we could benefit and grow more.
Anglosclerosis next, then.
You think we'll be inflexible once we're out? Its possible and if the Corbynites win quite probable but that doesn't seem likely to me at the moment.
I think your Eurosclerosis is largely a myth, that Brexit is an enormous and expensive distraction from any constructive policy formation, and that we’ll very likely be less competitive at the margin.
Obviously many of us believe you are entirely wrong on all those points.
Or through the growth increase we can get once freed from the constraints of the sclerotic and slowly growing European Union.
Whilst slowly growing might be a statement of fact, "sclerotic" as if it has a negative effect on our economy is a nonsense.
Why is it a nonsense? Euroslerosis has been a known issue for decades now. Economists have discussed Eurosclerosis since the 1970s and it is still an issue today. The term sclerosis has been adopted based on the medical term to reflect Europes inflexible market conditions leading to slugglish economic performance. This was a major issue in prior decades and has shown up again in Europe in recent years.
It is an article of faith among many that the UK faces a downside and no upside from leaving the sclerotic European Union but if an independent United Kingdom can be more flexible and more agile at adapting to the modern market then we could benefit and grow more.
Anglosclerosis next, then.
You think we'll be inflexible once we're out? Its possible and if the Corbynites win quite probable but that doesn't seem likely to me at the moment.
I think your Eurosclerosis is largely a myth, that Brexit is an enormous and expensive distraction from any constructive policy formation, and that we’ll very likely be less competitive at the margin.
Brexit is the new opiate of the people. A distraction from things that are far more important, and undemocratic anomalies are studiously ignored by those who bleat about the importance of "respecting" a highly vague and possibly dubious referendum held in 2016.
The European Union has been that opiate. Within the EU everything blameworthy gets passed - oh the EU made us do that, oh the EU won't let us do that.
Out of the EU the politicians answer to us the voters. Either they do what we want them to or we kick them out and they have nowhere to hide.
Keep taking that opium. I think you may be taking some other mind bending drugs also if you think there is anything that is positive that will come out of Brexit. I think most sensible people now think it is about damage limitation. I am sure even Boris thinks that, though with him it will be more about damage limitation to Boris Johnson.
Comments
Con 321-329
Lab 209-217
LD 39-44
SNP 48-51
SpreadEx have Con 2 seats lower and Lab 2 higher, with the SNP one lower.
Boris Johnson, from the moment he became PM, began splurging cash on this promise and that. He's headline hunting, not seeking to govern. Daft sod.
And yet, the alternative is even worse!
The ideal result is a Conservative victory and the PM to lose his seat.
Yes, at this stage I`m predicting 30-32
https://order-order.com/2019/11/04/john-bercow-no-longer-mp/
Yes indeed. Though it sticks in the craw that Bercow will make a fortune on the speech circuit.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2019/election
The BBC is bringing back Arthur - albeit a remix version, which won't be as good as the original.
If they withdraw candidates in the South & Scotland where the Tories have leads of under 10,000 then you would say he's definitely onside with Boris. Otherwise we cannot be sure who he is helping and who he is hindering.
This is a keeper for election night.
I think we will see big unionist tactical voting meaning Scott Tories keep most of their seats. And almost all of the Scott Tories will have first time incumbency support
If there is the deflationary "hit to the economy" which you assert, which results in unemployment and underutilized capacity then the opportunity cost of increased spending to offset it is zero.
ANY Majority @ 22 looks to be a buy (Worth paying 1 pt over Tory maj to get Labour Maj chucked in however unlikely that seems right now)
Con 400 Ups @ 3 is also. That probably won't win but the implied volatility of the Election is on your side here.
The advantage of Maj over buying CON at 329 is you get a hard stop at CON 326 - if the Tories shit the bed you've got very limited losses.
Number 34 'most winnable' seat for LibDems is Burnley, a constituency where they amassed 15% of the vote in 2017, and coterminus with the Burnley LAD which was 66.6% Brexity in 2016.
I could look in more detail but given the above, do I need to?
I agree, thirty is top end. Moreover there's still betting value in this area.
The chicks seem to like him.
In fact Farage made it clear he is coming after labour in the northern seats
It is an article of faith among many that the UK faces a downside and no upside from leaving the sclerotic European Union but if an independent United Kingdom can be more flexible and more agile at adapting to the modern market then we could benefit and grow more.
You can sell Sporting Index`s Lib Dem 50-up market at 3.5. Looks a banker to me.
I don`t spread bet myself - it scares me. I had IG Index and SP Index accounts years ago. One year I did so badly that IG sent me a massive side of smoked salmon for Xmas as thanks for being a "valued client".
Those who followed my tip at the weekend could have got it at 12/1.
I think turnout will be up and possibly over 70%
I`ll google it.
400 Tory seats would mean a majority of 150. That means at a buy of 22 seats you're getting 5.8 - 1.
In addition you're getting some stake back if Labour win a majority.
& You also win if the Tories get less than 400 seats.
Con 346 = 304 Oppo = Con Majority 42.
I’m detecting very little enthusiasm for this election so am bearish on turnout.
I don’t make bets I don’t understand.
Do they include Sinn Fein as an opposition party? It's not completely clear from their rules.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSZOvJQaeCA
Surely SF is included in "The field" from the top spiel ?
Markets refer to the UK General Election.
For information purposes the total number of seats available = 650, although no Northern Ireland seats count towards any of these markets, except as part of 'The Field', referring to the remainder of the total 650 seats not won by The Conservatives.
Note: Nominated Speaker of the House will NOT count as per the Party they stand for at the Election.
Corbyn's desired Brexit a) won't ever be available, and b) would be put to a public vote in the extraordinarily unlikely event that it came to be available.To portray Corbyn as one "Leaver" up against another is, to put to mildly, misleading.
Still, if you do your assessment on the basis that they do count, as a buyer it works in your favour if SPIN settle on the basis that they don't.
Agree that both still good now.
My sense is country ready to go with Boris and his Brexit and his general Bullshit.
It's a contract one enters into also so it can't be "palped". Personally I think a fair price for ANY Maj is 35-37 or thereabouts.
I think your Eurosclerosis is largely a myth, that Brexit is an enormous and expensive distraction from any constructive policy formation, and that we’ll very likely be less competitive at the margin.
Jeremy Corbyn is not a man known for changing his mind of matters of principle.
The size of the hole where you can win both say Lab Hold Barnsley Central at 2-7 and on the spreads with Tory Maj is humungous.
There's always a chance Nigel catches fire but we all have to take some risk in life !
Wholly for the good of the environment. No hidden other agenda whatsoever.
Out of the EU the politicians answer to us the voters. Either they do what we want them to or we kick them out and they have nowhere to hide.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2019/11/britain-and-europe-are-destined-be-rivals-after-brexit/601288/