Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Punters rate Bernie as an 84% chance in Nevada but level peggi
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Punters rate Bernie as an 84% chance in Nevada but level pegging with Biden in S Carolina
These are the latest charts from Betdata.io on the next two Democratic primaries in WH2020. Essentially they show how punters who are risking their cash are rating these two races.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
And it isn't just readers of the Daily Mail who are incensed, clearly the problem extends to Ireland too: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/floods-eu-laws-not-to-blame-insists-european-commission-1.2485660
Once again, the EU issues a clear line, leaves the implementation to national Governments and agencies, ducks all responsibility when it comes to specifics -'Prevent dredging - moi?' and allows its fanboys as seen on the threads here to mock those crazy 'anti-EU types' who are actually making perfectly sensible cause and effect arguments. And then has the nerve to say that the EU has been unfairly maligned over the years!
If Boris has a shred of sense, he will DREDGE as soon as can be arranged, and he will tell people quite rightly that it is adherence to EU regulations that has restricted this activity up to now. It demonstrates just about everything he stands for.
It should be noted you have to go back to 1992 to find the last candidate nominated to take on an incumbent president who was under 60
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1229718424785444864?s=20
I reckon that'd be quite an attractive ticket for the general too.
In which case WTO+ terms looks inevitable
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51549662
But the net result is that dredging of waterways by the EA has become almost impossible, and there are now more floods every winter and spring.
It shouldn’t be a difficult decision for government to use emergency legislation to restart the dredging, while blaming the EU directives for the problem.
Mr. HYUFD, that's bloody ridiculous of Barnier and the EU.
I hope the EU know what risks they’re running. The Euro might not survive another nasty recession.
If they both continue to stand they’ll get nowhere, but right now Buttigeig is ahead in the polling and early results, so he has no incentive to stand down and back Klobuchar.
I have been doing a bit of digging into this. The number of people doing gig economy type work has pretty much doubled over the last 3 years alone. Gig workers earn something like £7.50 an hour on average, below the minimum wage. The move to casual labour on such a scale (now nearly 10% of the workforce) has undoubtedly driven down average incomes by a significant amount. It has also, of course, held down unemployment.
There are a range of issues here, few of them good. Gig workers don't get work place pensions, sick pay, maternity pay, holiday pay etc. The loss of these rights means that they live very much hand to mouth with minimal savings and are much more dependent than average on state benefits.
Businesses don't, as a whole, invest in training gig workers (Uber is a bit of an exception but that seems connected with their attempt to get their London licence back). It is therefore a downward pressure on productivity as well at a time when that is one of our largest concerns. Training, in so far as it is done at all, is contracted out to the State, colleges etc who pick up the tab.
Given their income levels (and the lack of recovery in the absence of PAYE) gig workers will pay much less tax than those in FT employment increasing the burden on those who are paying taxes.
None of this strikes me as a good deal for UK plc. I think we need to take a series of positive steps to put the costs back on those who are benefiting from the casual labour and off the taxpayer. EU Employment law had the concept of the worker who was less than an employee but has certain rights. I think we need to look to extend this so that gig workers engaged over a certain qualifying period qualify for sick pay, holiday pay, etc. We also need to require employers to pay something equivalent to Employers NI so that employees are on a level playing field. I would also increase the tax reliefs for training beyond 100% to incentivise firms to engage in it.
We want a high wage, high productivity economy. This is a strong trend in the wrong direction.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/event/27538433/market?marketId=1.161392765
Are we expecting bets on Nevada to also take weeks to pay out, if they don’t end in a void market?
You get the impression that some in the EU haven’t come to terms with the new legal status quo. There is no “the best deal we have is the current one” option any more. And the Conservative majority means that no deal will almost certainly happen if the Government decides so. On a slightly better prepared basis than it might have previously.
Maybe some in the EU have decided that a trade deal won’t happen and are giving early warning to member states to come to their own accommodations with the U.K.
It'll put off a lot of floating voters in the UK. Be interesting to see how pro-EU politicians react.
The reply was that we weren't leaving ESA at all, in fact it was confirmed at a Ministerial meeting very recently that that was the case. Our share of the ESA was increasing as was our contribution and things were going from strength to strength. This was confirmed by the industrial contributor as well.
Tbh this had passed me by but it is welcome. It is also a very different approach to that indicated by some of these noises out of Brussels in recent days. Much more pragmatic, much more constructive. Hopefully we will see more of this.
The U.K. productivity stats have been killed by large-scale unskilled and semi-skilled immigration over the past decade.
Why would Nevada be any better ?
A high wage, high skilled and high productivity economy needs to restrict unskilled immigration, invest in training and accept high levels of automation replacing retail jobs.
Sanders being overrated has been masked by the fact that Biden has collapsed and there was no other close challenger thus Sanders still came first in popular vote.
But lets not pretend Sanders is doing well and if a clear challenge does emerge then Sanders could be history quite quickly.
Must be all those fancy robots.
Will be interesting one way or another.
There are a few countries in the EU which certainly won’t be.
Difficult to say.
Due to Nevada using a similarly chaotic system of vote counting.
California will also take months.
On the other hand I think Sanders is in a somewhat weaker position than Sanders.
The U.K. mitigation will be to announce large free zones around ports and key manufacturing facilities, so as not to hold up parts in transit.
Nothing’s going to happen with the actual negotiations until the end of June though, the EU still think that the deadline will be extended.
(It's quite hard to fathom the Japanese sense-of-humour, but I think that would amuse them - probably more the idea than actually doing so of course)
Line picked at random: "...a united Ireland within a decade or so is a real - and growing - possibility."
They didn't mention that on your Bushmills tour I bet.
https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/less-than-third-want-a-united-ireland-reveals-study-of-voters-38966196.html?fbclid=IwAR0eysvXRgsA9NJvAIN-AGC1B5ceRk95kbwg_TVQ26QPlwobSGwvHKUcTIg
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51549662
Some of the pro EU supporters and mps need to lobby the EU to tone down their hardline stance
If not Boris will walk away and with the support of the majority
That poll is like one which asks an only child who is a four year old boy if boys should be given preferential treatment in his family when his mother is pregnant with quintuplets who are all female.
Both the UK and the EU are aiming for win-lose deals, for political purposes, rather than win-win. The EU arrangement might work if the UK had co-decision making capability and votes as part of a broader European "common market only" approach (what we voted for originally) but the EU isn't interested in flexibility. The UK is too interested in being seen to defeat the EU in turn.
So the result is that we'll get lose-lose (ie. no deal).
https://www.oxfordeconomics.com/recent-releases/8747673d-3b26-439b-9693-0e250df6dbba
The UK is asking, quite reasonably, to get no more and no less than other countries. To be an independent country setting its laws but with free trade comparable to agreements other independent countries have.
No mention anywhere in this report of median earnings by EU immigrants, which is surely the most relevant statistic. The word “median” doesn’t appear in the 111-page full report.
Oh, and everything that is wrong in any EU country. And any backward step in confronting the global forces of authoritarianism.
https://twitter.com/BelTel/status/1229745162034782208?s=20
https://twitter.com/BelTel/status/1229666041552424960?s=20
Your figure claims "average" (which will be mean average) while Sandpit was talking about overall numbers (so median).
If 1 barrister can outweigh in the average a handful of baristas then there can both be more baristas in absolute terms while the average can go up due to the barrister.
Furthermore if free movement ends we should still get the highly skilled barristers etc even if we get fewer baristas.
No one thinks there will be unification tomorrow. But there is a clear path towards it. The demographics, together with several other factors (Brexit, changes in the RoI), all contribute.
You make yourself look more idiotic than usual if you post a poll taken last week.
The EU do need to keep opinion on their side or see the EU enter into chaos as each country fights against tariffs re their products coming to the UK
It’s quite something to be an immigrant yourself to another country and display a baseless rabid hostility to immigration.
Premier League footballers will continue to come here even if we have fewer unskilled migrants. Its not like if we drop a few unskilled migrants then Virgil Van Dijk (on £180k per week so £9.36m per annum) is going to suddenly leave the country is it?
That is yet to work through the system so we get to rationality.
- overstated Sanders by 2-3 points
- understated Buttigieg by about 4 points
- overstated Biden by about 3 points
- got Warren, Klobuchar about right
The New Hampshire polls:
- overstated Sanders by 2-3 points
- understated Klobuchar by about 7 points
- understated Buttigieg by about 3 points
- overstated Warren by 2-3 points
- overstated Biden by 3-4 points
In the case of NH, I think the big issue was a late Klobuchar surge that pulled votes from Buttigieg and Warren. (The latter I think is understated but important: Klobuchar is increasingly seen as the most electable female candidate.)
Caucuses are fundamentally hard to poll, because there is realignment went people have turned up to vote. If two moderates turn up, with one on 13% and the other on 17%, it's entirely possible for the first to end up with nothing, and the latter to end up with 30%.
That being said, things are different in each precinct. So it's entirely possible that these moves cancel each other out across the State or Congressional District.
Caucuses rely on organisation. Do you have your volunteers in the precinct pulling undecided voters into your group? Sanders definitely has that. Buttigieg has that, albeit to a slightly lesser degree. Warren might have that. Steyer certainly doesn't have that. And I'm not convinced either Biden or Klobuchar have that.
For that reason, I think that the most likely result is a clear Sanders win, with Buttigieg picking up a decent second (but still probably 7 to 10 points behind). Warren and Klobuchar will pick up delegates, albeit not in every CD. Biden and Steyer will end up delegate-less.
If we allowed only the higher-rate taxpayers to move to the U.K., but not the minimum wage workers, big issue sellers and benefits claimants, instead training UK citizens to upskill, would the U.K. GDP per capita be higher or lower than it is now?
This is where I get confused. We don't want skilled migrants, because we want British companies to train people up.
But then we definitely don't want unskilled migrants. Yet, if we've trained all the Brits up, then they're probably not going to want to work as baristas or house cleaners or nannies or care workers.
You see, this is why I like "the market". Rather than the government saying "we want x thousand people with these skills, and y thousand with those", we simply say "migrants to the UK pay £x,000/year for compulsory health insurance".
This means that a skilled EU worker will need to be sufficiently skilled to effectively overcome the additional tax. And the unskilled will be discouraged, but not banned. Effectively, Brits are automatically £x,000 cheaper to employ. You'll choose them in preference. But if the Labour market is really tight, then at those times you can import people - which is preferable to moving production off-shore. It's naturally self balancing.
And the value of "x" can be changed. If we find we're struggling to attract people, it can be moved down. And if we find that there is pressure on services, it can be moved up.
IF just 1.4% of income taxpayers as a whole pay the 45% rate of tax and IF you wish to maximise income tax then aggregate is the worst possible metric to use. Instead a system to maximise the proportion of high tax payers would be the right motive. 98.6% of potential migrants are not contributing via that, if that is your incentive.
How many Premier League footballers are European? How many European top flight footballers are English? Via football alone we import high class high skilled highly renumerated people that should collectively be paying billions of pounds of taxes alone. The number of low skilled migrants that arrive to pad out the numbers won't be bringing in the taxes just because they come from the same nations as those who are paying fortunes in tax.
I imagine most of the rational Conservatives have already worked out that as far as the EU is concerned, it's a case of heads we win, tails we also win.
If a deal is done, it will be trumpeted by the Johnson faithful as a triumph for their leader and we will once again be invited to put rational discourse and scrutiny aside and "unite behind the Government".
If no deal is done (and of course Johnson has already ruled out any form of extension no matter how practical such an extension might be) and we face WTO+ trading terms with all that flows, the pro-Johnson brigade will line up to blame the perfidious Europeans knowing that is a guaranteed vote winner.
There is of course the possibility that the economic reality of WTO+ and its impact on business may cause our euphoria to crack round the edges.
Without the UK the EU will never be a front rank military power, never have top level financial services, and never have the advantage of security and continent wide hegemony that they have always dreamed of.
They will want us back. The problem is, they don’t realise how difficult that’s going to be. They still seem to think that if they’re difficult enough we will change our minds. It is hard to imagine they could be more wrong short of actually appointing Jean Claude Juncker and Martin Selmayr as joint ambassadors to London.
There is nothing irrational about being an anti-immgration immigrant. Once you're safely here.