The thing is, big dom is actually right. Looking at our covid response, clearly is nowhere near enough people in our civil service and wider goverence who have high quality skills in data science, ml and ai.
But its ok we have got rid of the boogie man and we can just go back to our old ways....that gave us PHE that couldn't even organize 20k covid tests a day.
So why do we keep appointing only Oxbridge humanities ex spads who are friends with the leaders of the big parties? Identifying the problem is easy and there isnt much disagreement that the civil service leadership is too narrow, but Cummings and Johnson have just narrowed it further by appointing their mates.
How can this seriously be seen as him being right?
That’s the whole problem. Identifying a problem and coming up with a workable solution are two very different things.
The first only requires the ability to look at what’s happening and say what *should* be happening. Any fool can do that. Heck, many of them do.
But working out *how* to do it without causing other, far more serious problems along the way is very difficult indeed.
So, speaking as a history graduate with a much better degree than Cummings, he was right to say we need more civil servants with expertise in STEM. But that is altogether different from saying we need ‘misfits and weirdos.’ Science graduates, in my experience, are no more misfits and weirdos than the rest of us. Misfits and weirdos are generally, y’know, people who can’t adapt to large organisations or concentrate on the ordinary, boring skills of day to day management. That is why, indeed, they are called ‘misfits.’
Education is the classic example when it comes to Cummings. What did we need? Reform. Agreed. LEAs were a decaying disaster and a hotbed of corruption, exams were increasingly mechanistic, and funding was confused and uneven.
What did we get? Chaos. No experts were consulted as Cummings didn’t like them, and so most of what he put forward was based in profound ignorance of what could be done to address these issues. In fact, following his reforms civil servants have far more say over the education of children than they ever did, and parents far less. Heck, even OFSTED is led by a civil servant, and not a very good one.
And another thing we should remember is it’s only a few months ago that the head of the civil service was himself sacked to protect Cummings (I’ve always wondered if that was linked to the ‘truth twisters’ tweet) to be replaced by another civil servant with a weak track record.
You obviously agreed with Cummings about bypassing LEAs, given you say they were "a decaying disaster and a hotbed of corruption", as you put it. But isn't the inevitable consequence of getting rid of LEAs a centralisation of (educational) power resting with unaccountable civil servants, which you also then bemoan? Unless you give all the power to (unaccountable) academy chains that aren't answerable to Whitehall, or anybody else.
Would you consider the possibility that reforming/professionalising LEAs might have resulted in a more accountable (to the voters), democratic system? My LEA, for what it's worth, was always rather good - they weren't all useless.
AIUI,to investigate and perchance improve such things one needs a few experienced people plus a couple of iconoclasts who will challenge apparent vested interests. The experienced need to be able to explain to such people. If it's difficult to justify, it probably shouldn't continue..
You really don't need, in Michael Caine's phrase 'to blow the bloody doors off'.
Only a matter of time till the flag shaggers are claiming that migrant fish are desperate to relocate to British waters.
They will be looking for peace.
But the way they find it will be difficult to comprehend, because we all know the peace of cod passeth all understanding.
The anointed sovereign of sighs and groans, liege of all loiterers and malcontents, dread prince of plackets, king of cod peaces, sole imperator and great general of trotting paritors
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
If you wanted a soft Brexit then it is Remainers fault that they failed. It isn't Brexiteers fault they succeeded it is their credit that they succeeded against the odds.
If you're a Serbia fan then you don't say it was the Scottish keepers fault you were knocked out. The Scottish keeper wanted to save the penalty. It's the Serbian penalty kicker who missed who is at fault, not the opposition who got what they wanted.
I'll skip the analogy, since all that marriage and golf club stuff is so 2016.
kle is right that the Remainers messed up, but the fact is that the Brexiters (or at least those in power) had the responsibility of delivering a Brexit that met the various promises and commitments made during the campaign, from "maintain current benefits" through "oven ready deal". If we end with a damaging Brexit, it is clearly the fault of those leavers with influence - not least because we were told by them all along that there wouldn't be any damage; any suggestion of such was "project fear".
Let's face it, there is an abundance of incompetence, arrogance, ignorance and plain stupidity to go around but the failure of the Commons to support May's deal was a serious mistake when the remainer majority in that Parliament could have left the Brexiteer loons howling in the wilderness (which frankly suits several of them anyway) and moved on. But they got greedy with dreams of a second referendum or simple cancellation. It was by no means the only mistake, there have been hundreds, but it was a big one.
SKS actually bears a lot of responsibility for this. He didn't act in the national interest. He didn't even act in his own party's interest: had he persuaded Corbyn to give May the votes he may well have split the Tories in 2 leading to an extended period of Labour dominance. It was a poor call by him.
What if they didn’t want to vote for it because they believed it to be wrong?
Then they should not have allowed themselves to be elected on a platform committed to implementing Brexit as the Labour party MPs were in that disgrace of a Parliament. And they should have been more pragmatic about the alternatives, such as where we are right now. I am pretty sure that Boris blundering about with an 80 strong majority was not what they had in mind as an ideal outcome.
It was only "a disgrace of a Parliament" because it didn't give Leavers the results they desired.
Now you have your 80 strong majority, you have no excuses, so get on with whatever it is you want to get on with.
That's completely the wrong way around. In 2015 they lied and said that they would implement Brexit. It cost many of them (not just in the Labour party in fairness) their seats. They deserved nothing less.
We know Boris is an empty vessel, other than his ambition. So he gets led by those he delegates his strategic thinking to and follows them accordingly.
Cummings for all his faults understood regional and northern Britain*, and all their concerns, which is why he was so successful in so many referendums and campaigns.
Replacing him with Carrie Symonds and Allegra Stratton, both born in and products of south-west London and attuned accordingly, does not fill me with much hope.
It might be the case that the only thing worse than Boris being in hock to Cummings is Boris being in hock to someone else.
Be careful what you wish for.
*regional and northern England, unless Dom possesses some Scotch expertise that he has been modestly hiding under a bushel up till now?
Yes, that's a fair point - not much understanding of Scotland - although in terms of being isolated and overlooked by Westminster I'd argue there are strong similarities with just different political consequences.
It would be very interesting to see what happens if Mr Gove and Mr C are sent to sort out Scotland when the next indyref is called.
Looks like Trump Jr might have a crack at the 2022 NY governor's race
Trump said : New York Marxist Cuomo has been very mean to me and my family over the last year. New York deserves better. Maybe Jr. will run in 2022, he has my full support. #maga2022
Can he do so from the nick? Or even if he's on bail?
We know Boris is an empty vessel, other than his ambition. So he gets led by those he delegates his strategic thinking to and follows them accordingly.
Cummings for all his faults understood regional and northern Britain*, and all their concerns, which is why he was so successful in so many referendums and campaigns.
Replacing him with Carrie Symonds and Allegra Stratton, both born in and products of south-west London and attuned accordingly, does not fill me with much hope.
It might be the case that the only thing worse than Boris being in hock to Cummings is Boris being in hock to someone else.
Be careful what you wish for.
*regional and northern England, unless Dom possesses some Scotch expertise that he has been modestly hiding under a bushel up till now?
Yes, that's a fair point - not much understanding of Scotland - although in terms of being isolated and overlooked by Westminster I'd argue there are strong similarities with just different political consequences.
True.
I do wonder what Cummings actually feels about the overlooked and voiceless. The one thing I'd say he has in common with Johnson is that his sincere motivations and principles are somewhat obscured, to the point of me wondering if there are any.
The overlooked and voiceless are a route to enable him, his relatives and his cronies to fill their pockets at the expense of the tax payer. Job done. Bye.
£654,000 is sitting on BF waiting to picked up at 1.07 for Biden to be next president.
Who is prepared to lay this at such quantity?
It's only costing the layer(s) a potential £45K but even so.
The layers must either think it is a value lay (ie greater than 7% chance that Trump will remain President) or it is an emotional insurance lay (some comfort if Trump does win). Or just possible that someone is manipulating the market to support the Trump narrative at relatively low cost.
I`m not convinced by any of those explanations. You would be insane to be offering 1.07 on a Biden win. Why manipulate a UK market? Emotional insurance: not in that quantity surely.
Could it be bookies offsetting liabilities? Or, could there be a health concern over Biden. (If Biden were to die before inauguration, he would still be the winner on the BF market though.)
It's a puzzle so vexing that it kept me awake part of the nite.
We're talking about pretty big numbers here. Even at £45k, you'd have to think these are not mug punters. The odds make no kind of sense because on the President Market they are actually bigger than some of the individual States. Given that Trump has to win a string of them, they should be lower.
Bookies don't offset liabilities by making bad bets. In any case, there are more efficient ways of doing it and if Shadsy is to be believed Ladbrokes, in common with most of the industry, had their money on a Biden win. Trump was the loser, literally, for them.
Ill-health or worse would not alter the settlement of the market, so if some punters are thinking a Biden withdrawal would alter things they haven't read the rules. Faithless electors likewise would be no help to Trump backers.
It really doesn't make any sense. Unfortunately, when I don't understand things I always get suspicious that someone somewhere knows something I don't. The fact I can't guess what it is does nothing to allay those suspicions.
Let me just quote a near analgous situation though. When Trump spoke at length to Piers Morgan shortly before Nov 3rd his concluding remark was apparently 'I am going to win'. This was said with the air of a man who knew the polls were wrong. He was right, but not right enough. Something went wrong. He has acted ever since like a man who cannot believe his best laid plans have gone awry. I think he definitely knew something we didn't. I think he knows something now, although again it may not be enough to turn the very cnsiderable tide running against him.
I don't know what it is, but although 1.07 is to all appearances way too big, I'm not betting the farm on it.
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
So no deal Brexit is the fault of former Remainers?
That is a similar argument to the one that implies the young woman got what was coming to her because she wore a short skirt.
I don’t think that’s what @kle4 is saying. I’m not quite sure what he means by a ‘soft Brexit’ that was apparently there for the taking, as anything other than May’s deal simply wasn’t. But I agree (and agreed at the time), that May’s deal was greatly preferable to the ongoing shitshow.
Supporters of the government certainly didn’t, and it’s utterly dishonest of them to pretend or imply that somehow the full responsibility for what they voted for - both Brexit and this government - isn’t theirs.
There are two questions, which it's important not to mix up- whether by accident or design,
First- could those opposed to a hard Brexit have stopped it in the 2017-19 Parliament? Perhaps they could, but it would have required TM the then PM to get her plan through with opposition votes against a large chunk of her own party. Maybe she could have got away with that, but it's not clear why the ERG wouldn't have deposed her faster than you could say "vassal state".
Second- if hard-to-no-deal Brexit happens, who gets the credit / blame for what happens next? Easy. The people who argued, campaigned, cajoled, backstabbed and used all the political arts to get to this situation. The people in charge when it happens. Claiming that "we wanted to do this but it's their fault for not stopping us" is absurd, as is "we didn't really want to do this, but we were forced into it by the people we outwitted".
Hard Brexiteers- you won. Get over it.
First the ERG tried to oust May remember before the first Meaningful Vote. They lost.
Second you're right. But Hard Brexiteers don't think Hard Brexit is going to be a disaster, they don't think it's going to be a fault.
If Hard Brexit works well enough as Hard Brexiteers expected and it becomes a new reality and we stay out of the Single Market forever as a result and the Leavers are happy but Remainers lose everything they wanted to win then whose fault is it the Remainers lost? That's a different question.
What a weird thing to say. If Hard Brexit results in a good outcome for Britain then why would "Remainers" complain? That's good for us. If such a thing comes to pass, then we clearly were very wrong.
Because that's politics.
Thatcherism resulted in a good result for the country. Did that stop socialists from complaining?
That is a view - but many saw her as downright evil. I have heard several label her as 'the Anti-Christ'.There was a reason why 'Ding Dong the Witch is dead' soared in the chart following news of her demise.
Precisely. Politics.
If the greatest PM since Churchill can be considered evil then I'm not holding much faith that Remainers are suddenly all going to admit that Brexit was a good idea, even if it turns out better than they expected.
But that is your view. Doubtless there are still some in Germany who hold similar views re-Adolf Hitler as Chancellor.
Looks like Trump Jr might have a crack at the 2022 NY governor's race
Trump said : New York Marxist Cuomo has been very mean to me and my family over the last year. New York deserves better. Maybe Jr. will run in 2022, he has my full support. #maga2022
Two months ago, the former Transport Secretary Chris Grayling was hired to advise the port's parent company Hutchison Ports Europe, which is based in London. The register of MPs' financial interests shows he's being paid £100,000 for "around seven hours" of work per week.
What company would look at Grayling's track record and think you know what we need, his expertise?
Redwood is becoming more and more obsessed with fish.
Smoke and mirrors. It is the one thing the UK can win, so of course UK Brexiteer politicians ramping up its importance and stop talking about level playing fields.
(The Tory party also gets a win, there will be further negotiations just post the 2024 election, but this would be a win for party not country.)
Two months ago, the former Transport Secretary Chris Grayling was hired to advise the port's parent company Hutchison Ports Europe, which is based in London. The register of MPs' financial interests shows he's being paid £100,000 for "around seven hours" of work per week.
What company would look at Grayling's track record and think you know what we need, his expertise?
You have to wonder at the thinking in Hutchison Ports Europe.
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
So no deal Brexit is the fault of former Remainers?
That is a similar argument to the one that implies the young woman got what was coming to her because she wore a short skirt.
I don’t think that’s what @kle4 is saying. I’m not quite sure what he means by a ‘soft Brexit’ that was apparently there for the taking, as anything other than May’s deal simply wasn’t. But I agree (and agreed at the time), that May’s deal was greatly preferable to the ongoing shitshow.
Supporters of the government certainly didn’t, and it’s utterly dishonest of them to pretend or imply that somehow the full responsibility for what they voted for - both Brexit and this government - isn’t theirs.
There are two questions, which it's important not to mix up- whether by accident or design,
First- could those opposed to a hard Brexit have stopped it in the 2017-19 Parliament? Perhaps they could, but it would have required TM the then PM to get her plan through with opposition votes against a large chunk of her own party. Maybe she could have got away with that, but it's not clear why the ERG wouldn't have deposed her faster than you could say "vassal state".
Second- if hard-to-no-deal Brexit happens, who gets the credit / blame for what happens next? Easy. The people who argued, campaigned, cajoled, backstabbed and used all the political arts to get to this situation. The people in charge when it happens. Claiming that "we wanted to do this but it's their fault for not stopping us" is absurd, as is "we didn't really want to do this, but we were forced into it by the people we outwitted".
Hard Brexiteers- you won. Get over it.
First the ERG tried to oust May remember before the first Meaningful Vote. They lost.
Second you're right. But Hard Brexiteers don't think Hard Brexit is going to be a disaster, they don't think it's going to be a fault.
If Hard Brexit works well enough as Hard Brexiteers expected and it becomes a new reality and we stay out of the Single Market forever as a result and the Leavers are happy but Remainers lose everything they wanted to win then whose fault is it the Remainers lost? That's a different question.
What a weird thing to say. If Hard Brexit results in a good outcome for Britain then why would "Remainers" complain? That's good for us. If such a thing comes to pass, then we clearly were very wrong.
Because that's politics.
Thatcherism resulted in a good result for the country. Did that stop socialists from complaining?
That is a view - but many saw her as downright evil. I have heard several label her as 'the Anti-Christ'.There was a reason why 'Ding Dong the Witch is dead' soared in the chart following news of her demise.
Precisely. Politics.
If the greatest PM since Churchill can be considered evil then I'm not holding much faith that Remainers are suddenly all going to admit that Brexit was a good idea, even if it turns out better than they expected.
But that is your view. Doubtless there are still some in Germany who hold similar views re-Adolf Hitler as Chancellor.
Yes there are people who believe all sorts of nonsense. Thatcher was evil, Hitler was good, communism works, socialism should be adopted, being a country outside of the EU will be devastating - all ridiculous but people stick with that nonsense.
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
So no deal Brexit is the fault of former Remainers?
That is a similar argument to the one that implies the young woman got what was coming to her because she wore a short skirt.
I don’t think that’s what @kle4 is saying. I’m not quite sure what he means by a ‘soft Brexit’ that was apparently there for the taking, as anything other than May’s deal simply wasn’t. But I agree (and agreed at the time), that May’s deal was greatly preferable to the ongoing shitshow.
Supporters of the government certainly didn’t, and it’s utterly dishonest of them to pretend or imply that somehow the full responsibility for what they voted for - both Brexit and this government - isn’t theirs.
There are two questions, which it's important not to mix up- whether by accident or design,
First- could those opposed to a hard Brexit have stopped it in the 2017-19 Parliament? Perhaps they could, but it would have required TM the then PM to get her plan through with opposition votes against a large chunk of her own party. Maybe she could have got away with that, but it's not clear why the ERG wouldn't have deposed her faster than you could say "vassal state".
Second- if hard-to-no-deal Brexit happens, who gets the credit / blame for what happens next? Easy. The people who argued, campaigned, cajoled, backstabbed and used all the political arts to get to this situation. The people in charge when it happens. Claiming that "we wanted to do this but it's their fault for not stopping us" is absurd, as is "we didn't really want to do this, but we were forced into it by the people we outwitted".
Hard Brexiteers- you won. Get over it.
First the ERG tried to oust May remember before the first Meaningful Vote. They lost.
Second you're right. But Hard Brexiteers don't think Hard Brexit is going to be a disaster, they don't think it's going to be a fault.
If Hard Brexit works well enough as Hard Brexiteers expected and it becomes a new reality and we stay out of the Single Market forever as a result and the Leavers are happy but Remainers lose everything they wanted to win then whose fault is it the Remainers lost? That's a different question.
What a weird thing to say. If Hard Brexit results in a good outcome for Britain then why would "Remainers" complain? That's good for us. If such a thing comes to pass, then we clearly were very wrong.
Because that's politics.
Thatcherism resulted in a good result for the country. Did that stop socialists from complaining?
That is a view - but many saw her as downright evil. I have heard several label her as 'the Anti-Christ'.There was a reason why 'Ding Dong the Witch is dead' soared in the chart following news of her demise.
Precisely. Politics.
If the greatest PM since Churchill can be considered evil then I'm not holding much faith that Remainers are suddenly all going to admit that Brexit was a good idea, even if it turns out better than they expected.
But that is your view. Doubtless there are still some in Germany who hold similar views re-Adolf Hitler as Chancellor.
Yes there are people who believe all sorts of nonsense. Thatcher was evil, Hitler was good, communism works, socialism should be adopted, being a country outside of the EU will be devastating - all ridiculous but people stick with that nonsense.
Two months ago, the former Transport Secretary Chris Grayling was hired to advise the port's parent company Hutchison Ports Europe, which is based in London. The register of MPs' financial interests shows he's being paid £100,000 for "around seven hours" of work per week.
What company would look at Grayling's track record and think you know what we need, his expertise?
They are not paying for Grayling. They are paying for the current politicians in charge, who in turn will get paid when they leave office. If they stopped paying an ex-politician because they were incompetent it would be a dangerous slope, how would current and future politicians know they will get paid off on retirement too?
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
So no deal Brexit is the fault of former Remainers?
That is a similar argument to the one that implies the young woman got what was coming to her because she wore a short skirt.
I don’t think that’s what @kle4 is saying. I’m not quite sure what he means by a ‘soft Brexit’ that was apparently there for the taking, as anything other than May’s deal simply wasn’t. But I agree (and agreed at the time), that May’s deal was greatly preferable to the ongoing shitshow.
Supporters of the government certainly didn’t, and it’s utterly dishonest of them to pretend or imply that somehow the full responsibility for what they voted for - both Brexit and this government - isn’t theirs.
There are two questions, which it's important not to mix up- whether by accident or design,
First- could those opposed to a hard Brexit have stopped it in the 2017-19 Parliament? Perhaps they could, but it would have required TM the then PM to get her plan through with opposition votes against a large chunk of her own party. Maybe she could have got away with that, but it's not clear why the ERG wouldn't have deposed her faster than you could say "vassal state".
Second- if hard-to-no-deal Brexit happens, who gets the credit / blame for what happens next? Easy. The people who argued, campaigned, cajoled, backstabbed and used all the political arts to get to this situation. The people in charge when it happens. Claiming that "we wanted to do this but it's their fault for not stopping us" is absurd, as is "we didn't really want to do this, but we were forced into it by the people we outwitted".
Hard Brexiteers- you won. Get over it.
First the ERG tried to oust May remember before the first Meaningful Vote. They lost.
Second you're right. But Hard Brexiteers don't think Hard Brexit is going to be a disaster, they don't think it's going to be a fault.
If Hard Brexit works well enough as Hard Brexiteers expected and it becomes a new reality and we stay out of the Single Market forever as a result and the Leavers are happy but Remainers lose everything they wanted to win then whose fault is it the Remainers lost? That's a different question.
What a weird thing to say. If Hard Brexit results in a good outcome for Britain then why would "Remainers" complain? That's good for us. If such a thing comes to pass, then we clearly were very wrong.
Because that's politics.
Thatcherism resulted in a good result for the country. Did that stop socialists from complaining?
That is a view - but many saw her as downright evil. I have heard several label her as 'the Anti-Christ'.There was a reason why 'Ding Dong the Witch is dead' soared in the chart following news of her demise.
Precisely. Politics.
If the greatest PM since Churchill can be considered evil then I'm not holding much faith that Remainers are suddenly all going to admit that Brexit was a good idea, even if it turns out better than they expected.
But that is your view. Doubtless there are still some in Germany who hold similar views re-Adolf Hitler as Chancellor.
Yes there are people who believe all sorts of nonsense. Thatcher was evil, Hitler was good, communism works, socialism should be adopted, being a country outside of the EU will be devastating - all ridiculous but people stick with that nonsense.
£654,000 is sitting on BF waiting to picked up at 1.07 for Biden to be next president.
Who is prepared to lay this at such quantity?
It's only costing the layer(s) a potential £45K but even so.
The layers must either think it is a value lay (ie greater than 7% chance that Trump will remain President) or it is an emotional insurance lay (some comfort if Trump does win). Or just possible that someone is manipulating the market to support the Trump narrative at relatively low cost.
I`m not convinced by any of those explanations. You would be insane to be offering 1.07 on a Biden win. Why manipulate a UK market? Emotional insurance: not in that quantity surely.
Could it be bookies offsetting liabilities? Or, could there be a health concern over Biden. (If Biden were to die before inauguration, he would still be the winner on the BF market though.)
It's a puzzle so vexing that it kept me awake part of the nite.
We're talking about pretty big numbers here. Even at £45k, you'd have to think these are not mug punters. The odds make no kind of sense because on the President Market they are actually bigger than some of the individual States. Given that Trump has to win a string of them, they should be lower.
Bookies don't offset liabilities by making bad bets. In any case, there are more efficient ways of doing it and if Shadsy is to be believed Ladbrokes, in common with most of the industry, had their money on a Biden win. Trump was the loser, literally, for them.
Ill-health or worse would not alter the settlement of the market, so if some punters are thinking a Biden withdrawal would alter things they haven't read the rules. Faithless electors likewise would be no help to Trump backers.
It really doesn't make any sense. Unfortunately, when I don't understand things I always get suspicious that someone somewhere knows something I don't. The fact I can't guess what it is does nothing to allay those suspicions.
Let me just quote a near analgous situation though. When Trump spoke at length to Piers Morgan shortly before Nov 3rd his concluding remark was apparently 'I am going to win'. This was said with the air of a man who knew the polls were wrong. He was right, but not right enough. Something went wrong. He has acted ever since like a man who cannot believe his best laid plans have gone awry. I think he definitely knew something we didn't. I think he knows something now, although again it may not be enough to turn the very cnsiderable tide running against him.
I don't know what it is, but although 1.07 is to all appearances way too big, I'm not betting the farm on it.
What he has is a bunch of enablers surrounding him. Several of whom believe he was sent by God to hasten the end times as foretold in Scripture. His outsize ego buys into this, at least in part. So. The Almighty will intervene. As He must. Somehow. The alternative is a collapse of one's entire psychic narrative and belief system. Many tens of millions of Americans buy into this too. Given that, it is a surprise there is so little money there.
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
So no deal Brexit is the fault of former Remainers?
That is a similar argument to the one that implies the young woman got what was coming to her because she wore a short skirt.
I don’t think that’s what @kle4 is saying. I’m not quite sure what he means by a ‘soft Brexit’ that was apparently there for the taking, as anything other than May’s deal simply wasn’t. But I agree (and agreed at the time), that May’s deal was greatly preferable to the ongoing shitshow.
Supporters of the government certainly didn’t, and it’s utterly dishonest of them to pretend or imply that somehow the full responsibility for what they voted for - both Brexit and this government - isn’t theirs.
There are two questions, which it's important not to mix up- whether by accident or design,
First- could those opposed to a hard Brexit have stopped it in the 2017-19 Parliament? Perhaps they could, but it would have required TM the then PM to get her plan through with opposition votes against a large chunk of her own party. Maybe she could have got away with that, but it's not clear why the ERG wouldn't have deposed her faster than you could say "vassal state".
Second- if hard-to-no-deal Brexit happens, who gets the credit / blame for what happens next? Easy. The people who argued, campaigned, cajoled, backstabbed and used all the political arts to get to this situation. The people in charge when it happens. Claiming that "we wanted to do this but it's their fault for not stopping us" is absurd, as is "we didn't really want to do this, but we were forced into it by the people we outwitted".
Hard Brexiteers- you won. Get over it.
First the ERG tried to oust May remember before the first Meaningful Vote. They lost.
Second you're right. But Hard Brexiteers don't think Hard Brexit is going to be a disaster, they don't think it's going to be a fault.
If Hard Brexit works well enough as Hard Brexiteers expected and it becomes a new reality and we stay out of the Single Market forever as a result and the Leavers are happy but Remainers lose everything they wanted to win then whose fault is it the Remainers lost? That's a different question.
What a weird thing to say. If Hard Brexit results in a good outcome for Britain then why would "Remainers" complain? That's good for us. If such a thing comes to pass, then we clearly were very wrong.
Because that's politics.
Thatcherism resulted in a good result for the country. Did that stop socialists from complaining?
That is a view - but many saw her as downright evil. I have heard several label her as 'the Anti-Christ'.There was a reason why 'Ding Dong the Witch is dead' soared in the chart following news of her demise.
Precisely. Politics.
If the greatest PM since Churchill can be considered evil then I'm not holding much faith that Remainers are suddenly all going to admit that Brexit was a good idea, even if it turns out better than they expected.
But that is your view. Doubtless there are still some in Germany who hold similar views re-Adolf Hitler as Chancellor.
Yes there are people who believe all sorts of nonsense. Thatcher was evil, Hitler was good, communism works, socialism should be adopted, being a country outside of the EU will be devastating - all ridiculous but people stick with that nonsense.
It is amazing, isn't. Some people still believe that a post-EU trade deal will be the easiest in the world, Thatcher brought everyone together, the NHS isn't socialist, modern America is the world's most meritocratic country, and many other things like that.
We know Boris is an empty vessel, other than his ambition. So he gets led by those he delegates his strategic thinking to and follows them accordingly.
Cummings for all his faults understood regional and northern Britain*, and all their concerns, which is why he was so successful in so many referendums and campaigns.
Replacing him with Carrie Symonds and Allegra Stratton, both born in and products of south-west London and attuned accordingly, does not fill me with much hope.
It might be the case that the only thing worse than Boris being in hock to Cummings is Boris being in hock to someone else.
Be careful what you wish for.
*regional and northern England, unless Dom possesses some Scotch expertise that he has been modestly hiding under a bushel up till now?
He knows how to handle Michael Gove.
What has been interesting in the fallout of the Cummings departure is the extent to which Gove has become a very powerful figure in this government. On the face of it, Cummings departure might be thought to weaken him. But it may equally be that Boris now comes to rely upon him even more....
Two months ago, the former Transport Secretary Chris Grayling was hired to advise the port's parent company Hutchison Ports Europe, which is based in London. The register of MPs' financial interests shows he's being paid £100,000 for "around seven hours" of work per week.
What company would look at Grayling's track record and think you know what we need, his expertise?
You would have thought they'd have offered him a million to only do one hour a week.
£654,000 is sitting on BF waiting to picked up at 1.07 for Biden to be next president.
Who is prepared to lay this at such quantity?
It's only costing the layer(s) a potential £45K but even so.
The layers must either think it is a value lay (ie greater than 7% chance that Trump will remain President) or it is an emotional insurance lay (some comfort if Trump does win). Or just possible that someone is manipulating the market to support the Trump narrative at relatively low cost.
I`m not convinced by any of those explanations. You would be insane to be offering 1.07 on a Biden win. Why manipulate a UK market? Emotional insurance: not in that quantity surely.
Could it be bookies offsetting liabilities? Or, could there be a health concern over Biden. (If Biden were to die before inauguration, he would still be the winner on the BF market though.)
It's a puzzle so vexing that it kept me awake part of the nite.
We're talking about pretty big numbers here. Even at £45k, you'd have to think these are not mug punters. The odds make no kind of sense because on the President Market they are actually bigger than some of the individual States. Given that Trump has to win a string of them, they should be lower.
Bookies don't offset liabilities by making bad bets. In any case, there are more efficient ways of doing it and if Shadsy is to be believed Ladbrokes, in common with most of the industry, had their money on a Biden win. Trump was the loser, literally, for them.
Ill-health or worse would not alter the settlement of the market, so if some punters are thinking a Biden withdrawal would alter things they haven't read the rules. Faithless electors likewise would be no help to Trump backers.
It really doesn't make any sense. Unfortunately, when I don't understand things I always get suspicious that someone somewhere knows something I don't. The fact I can't guess what it is does nothing to allay those suspicions.
Let me just quote a near analgous situation though. When Trump spoke at length to Piers Morgan shortly before Nov 3rd his concluding remark was apparently 'I am going to win'. This was said with the air of a man who knew the polls were wrong. He was right, but not right enough. Something went wrong. He has acted ever since like a man who cannot believe his best laid plans have gone awry. I think he definitely knew something we didn't. I think he knows something now, although again it may not be enough to turn the very cnsiderable tide running against him.
I don't know what it is, but although 1.07 is to all appearances way too big, I'm not betting the farm on it.
This is complicated, so bear with me
The secret to markets is that there is a herding effect. The price you see is the benchmark, and if you feel yourself to be more inclined to think that one outcome is more likely than the consensus outcome you back that outcome. That's how it works for most punters. The price is "trusted" even if you think it's wrong.
To dig into this concept, it's helpful to think of basic odds scenarios. A fair 6-sided dice has a 1/6 chance of showing a 6 on the next roll. It's easy to analyse the dice, and even large combinations of dice rolls will have a precise mathematically derived price above or below which you should back or lay. If I roll 10,000 dice, and offer you 10/1 that there will be >2,000 6s, you can run the figures and be certain about the wisdom or backing or laying.
Politics isn't like that. So when punters try to pick value, they need a baseline. And that baseline is the price. From that baseline, they need to compare their own sense of how likely they think an outcome is compared to how they think other people see that scenario. So if you feel Trump has a slight chance, but you think everyone else thinks Trump has no chance, you back Trump. You trust that the price represents everyone else's aggregate opinion, and you bet on "your" side of that average. At no point will any punter run the numbers like with dice rolls. How do you even start? Precedents are scare to non-existent. So if, objectively, there were a 0.001 chance, you wouldn't know. We bet on heuristics and perceptions of public opinion. And we know public opinion is susceptible to herding and all kinds of cognitive biases.
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
So no deal Brexit is the fault of former Remainers?
That is a similar argument to the one that implies the young woman got what was coming to her because she wore a short skirt.
I don’t think that’s what @kle4 is saying. I’m not quite sure what he means by a ‘soft Brexit’ that was apparently there for the taking, as anything other than May’s deal simply wasn’t. But I agree (and agreed at the time), that May’s deal was greatly preferable to the ongoing shitshow.
Supporters of the government certainly didn’t, and it’s utterly dishonest of them to pretend or imply that somehow the full responsibility for what they voted for - both Brexit and this government - isn’t theirs.
There are two questions, which it's important not to mix up- whether by accident or design,
First- could those opposed to a hard Brexit have stopped it in the 2017-19 Parliament? Perhaps they could, but it would have required TM the then PM to get her plan through with opposition votes against a large chunk of her own party. Maybe she could have got away with that, but it's not clear why the ERG wouldn't have deposed her faster than you could say "vassal state".
Second- if hard-to-no-deal Brexit happens, who gets the credit / blame for what happens next? Easy. The people who argued, campaigned, cajoled, backstabbed and used all the political arts to get to this situation. The people in charge when it happens. Claiming that "we wanted to do this but it's their fault for not stopping us" is absurd, as is "we didn't really want to do this, but we were forced into it by the people we outwitted".
Hard Brexiteers- you won. Get over it.
First the ERG tried to oust May remember before the first Meaningful Vote. They lost.
Second you're right. But Hard Brexiteers don't think Hard Brexit is going to be a disaster, they don't think it's going to be a fault.
If Hard Brexit works well enough as Hard Brexiteers expected and it becomes a new reality and we stay out of the Single Market forever as a result and the Leavers are happy but Remainers lose everything they wanted to win then whose fault is it the Remainers lost? That's a different question.
What a weird thing to say. If Hard Brexit results in a good outcome for Britain then why would "Remainers" complain? That's good for us. If such a thing comes to pass, then we clearly were very wrong.
Because that's politics.
Thatcherism resulted in a good result for the country. Did that stop socialists from complaining?
That is a view - but many saw her as downright evil. I have heard several label her as 'the Anti-Christ'.There was a reason why 'Ding Dong the Witch is dead' soared in the chart following news of her demise.
Precisely. Politics.
If the greatest PM since Churchill can be considered evil then I'm not holding much faith that Remainers are suddenly all going to admit that Brexit was a good idea, even if it turns out better than they expected.
But that is your view. Doubtless there are still some in Germany who hold similar views re-Adolf Hitler as Chancellor.
Yes there are people who believe all sorts of nonsense. Thatcher was evil, Hitler was good, communism works, socialism should be adopted, being a country outside of the EU will be devastating - all ridiculous but people stick with that nonsense.
🙄 Do you have any self awareness?
Don't be too down on PT... he's got a brain and he isn't afraid to stick up for unfashionable points of view, and those are admirable qualities. That said, no. No self awareness whatsoever.
I am not quite sure that is what Trump had in mind when he said he wanted to make America #1 again. And yet in many states they are still allowing crowds into sporting events.
"Hospitalizations for Covid-19 also set a record on Thursday, climbing to 67,096, according to the Covid Tracking Project. It was the third straight day of record numbers, and the figure has doubled in just five weeks."
£654,000 is sitting on BF waiting to picked up at 1.07 for Biden to be next president.
Who is prepared to lay this at such quantity?
It's only costing the layer(s) a potential £45K but even so.
The layers must either think it is a value lay (ie greater than 7% chance that Trump will remain President) or it is an emotional insurance lay (some comfort if Trump does win). Or just possible that someone is manipulating the market to support the Trump narrative at relatively low cost.
I`m not convinced by any of those explanations. You would be insane to be offering 1.07 on a Biden win. Why manipulate a UK market? Emotional insurance: not in that quantity surely.
Could it be bookies offsetting liabilities? Or, could there be a health concern over Biden. (If Biden were to die before inauguration, he would still be the winner on the BF market though.)
It's a puzzle so vexing that it kept me awake part of the nite.
We're talking about pretty big numbers here. Even at £45k, you'd have to think these are not mug punters. The odds make no kind of sense because on the President Market they are actually bigger than some of the individual States. Given that Trump has to win a string of them, they should be lower.
Bookies don't offset liabilities by making bad bets. In any case, there are more efficient ways of doing it and if Shadsy is to be believed Ladbrokes, in common with most of the industry, had their money on a Biden win. Trump was the loser, literally, for them.
Ill-health or worse would not alter the settlement of the market, so if some punters are thinking a Biden withdrawal would alter things they haven't read the rules. Faithless electors likewise would be no help to Trump backers.
It really doesn't make any sense. Unfortunately, when I don't understand things I always get suspicious that someone somewhere knows something I don't. The fact I can't guess what it is does nothing to allay those suspicions.
Let me just quote a near analgous situation though. When Trump spoke at length to Piers Morgan shortly before Nov 3rd his concluding remark was apparently 'I am going to win'. This was said with the air of a man who knew the polls were wrong. He was right, but not right enough. Something went wrong. He has acted ever since like a man who cannot believe his best laid plans have gone awry. I think he definitely knew something we didn't. I think he knows something now, although again it may not be enough to turn the very cnsiderable tide running against him.
I don't know what it is, but although 1.07 is to all appearances way too big, I'm not betting the farm on it.
Doubtless there are some who think that having the Supreme Court on his side may give Trump the ultimate get out of jail card.
Remember also that this may be the aggregation of a lot of small bets - people who credit Trump with enough ability to win through in the end that they are willing to risk a few £ (other currencies are available) knowing they will win handsomely if their hero does manage to emerge victorious.
Most likely, however, this is simply money left on the table by Trump backers who either don’t know how to lay their bets or can’t be bothered now that the majority of their money is lost. They may not even realise their bet is unmatched - not everyone follows their bets as closely as they should.
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
So no deal Brexit is the fault of former Remainers?
That is a similar argument to the one that implies the young woman got what was coming to her because she wore a short skirt.
I don’t think that’s what @kle4 is saying. I’m not quite sure what he means by a ‘soft Brexit’ that was apparently there for the taking, as anything other than May’s deal simply wasn’t. But I agree (and agreed at the time), that May’s deal was greatly preferable to the ongoing shitshow.
Supporters of the government certainly didn’t, and it’s utterly dishonest of them to pretend or imply that somehow the full responsibility for what they voted for - both Brexit and this government - isn’t theirs.
There are two questions, which it's important not to mix up- whether by accident or design,
First- could those opposed to a hard Brexit have stopped it in the 2017-19 Parliament? Perhaps they could, but it would have required TM the then PM to get her plan through with opposition votes against a large chunk of her own party. Maybe she could have got away with that, but it's not clear why the ERG wouldn't have deposed her faster than you could say "vassal state".
Second- if hard-to-no-deal Brexit happens, who gets the credit / blame for what happens next? Easy. The people who argued, campaigned, cajoled, backstabbed and used all the political arts to get to this situation. The people in charge when it happens. Claiming that "we wanted to do this but it's their fault for not stopping us" is absurd, as is "we didn't really want to do this, but we were forced into it by the people we outwitted".
Hard Brexiteers- you won. Get over it.
First the ERG tried to oust May remember before the first Meaningful Vote. They lost.
Second you're right. But Hard Brexiteers don't think Hard Brexit is going to be a disaster, they don't think it's going to be a fault.
If Hard Brexit works well enough as Hard Brexiteers expected and it becomes a new reality and we stay out of the Single Market forever as a result and the Leavers are happy but Remainers lose everything they wanted to win then whose fault is it the Remainers lost? That's a different question.
What a weird thing to say. If Hard Brexit results in a good outcome for Britain then why would "Remainers" complain? That's good for us. If such a thing comes to pass, then we clearly were very wrong.
Because that's politics.
Thatcherism resulted in a good result for the country. Did that stop socialists from complaining?
That is a view - but many saw her as downright evil. I have heard several label her as 'the Anti-Christ'.There was a reason why 'Ding Dong the Witch is dead' soared in the chart following news of her demise.
Precisely. Politics.
If the greatest PM since Churchill can be considered evil then I'm not holding much faith that Remainers are suddenly all going to admit that Brexit was a good idea, even if it turns out better than they expected.
But that is your view. Doubtless there are still some in Germany who hold similar views re-Adolf Hitler as Chancellor.
Yes there are people who believe all sorts of nonsense. Thatcher was evil, Hitler was good, communism works, socialism should be adopted, being a country outside of the EU will be devastating - all ridiculous but people stick with that nonsense.
But Thatcher might well have won the Adolf Hitler Memorial Prize!
We know Boris is an empty vessel, other than his ambition. So he gets led by those he delegates his strategic thinking to and follows them accordingly.
Cummings for all his faults understood regional and northern Britain*, and all their concerns, which is why he was so successful in so many referendums and campaigns.
Replacing him with Carrie Symonds and Allegra Stratton, both born in and products of south-west London and attuned accordingly, does not fill me with much hope.
It might be the case that the only thing worse than Boris being in hock to Cummings is Boris being in hock to someone else.
Be careful what you wish for.
*regional and northern England, unless Dom possesses some Scotch expertise that he has been modestly hiding under a bushel up till now?
Yes, that's a fair point - not much understanding of Scotland - although in terms of being isolated and overlooked by Westminster I'd argue there are strong similarities with just different political consequences.
It would be very interesting to see what happens if Mr Gove and Mr C are sent to sort out Scotland when the next indyref is called.
Bonfires and tar and feathers involved for sure
I'm actually quite serious. Mr G is Scots-born and IIRC educated, at least at school, and Mr C is probably as close to a Geordie as the Islington lot know or care, and therefore practically Scotch as far as they are concerned. It would also get them out of Mr J and Mrs-to-be J's way. If they lose, shame about Jockland, but Mr Gove is permanently neutralised, and the Tories' rule in rUK is that much more stable (majority and all that). If they win, Mr J takes the credit.
But it would be daring to send two of the most prominent Brexiters (neither elected to a Scottish constituency, either) to a Brexit-hating nation.
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
So no deal Brexit is the fault of former Remainers?
That is a similar argument to the one that implies the young woman got what was coming to her because she wore a short skirt.
I don’t think that’s what @kle4 is saying. I’m not quite sure what he means by a ‘soft Brexit’ that was apparently there for the taking, as anything other than May’s deal simply wasn’t. But I agree (and agreed at the time), that May’s deal was greatly preferable to the ongoing shitshow.
Supporters of the government certainly didn’t, and it’s utterly dishonest of them to pretend or imply that somehow the full responsibility for what they voted for - both Brexit and this government - isn’t theirs.
There are two questions, which it's important not to mix up- whether by accident or design,
First- could those opposed to a hard Brexit have stopped it in the 2017-19 Parliament? Perhaps they could, but it would have required TM the then PM to get her plan through with opposition votes against a large chunk of her own party. Maybe she could have got away with that, but it's not clear why the ERG wouldn't have deposed her faster than you could say "vassal state".
Second- if hard-to-no-deal Brexit happens, who gets the credit / blame for what happens next? Easy. The people who argued, campaigned, cajoled, backstabbed and used all the political arts to get to this situation. The people in charge when it happens. Claiming that "we wanted to do this but it's their fault for not stopping us" is absurd, as is "we didn't really want to do this, but we were forced into it by the people we outwitted".
Hard Brexiteers- you won. Get over it.
First the ERG tried to oust May remember before the first Meaningful Vote. They lost.
Second you're right. But Hard Brexiteers don't think Hard Brexit is going to be a disaster, they don't think it's going to be a fault.
If Hard Brexit works well enough as Hard Brexiteers expected and it becomes a new reality and we stay out of the Single Market forever as a result and the Leavers are happy but Remainers lose everything they wanted to win then whose fault is it the Remainers lost? That's a different question.
What a weird thing to say. If Hard Brexit results in a good outcome for Britain then why would "Remainers" complain? That's good for us. If such a thing comes to pass, then we clearly were very wrong.
Because that's politics.
Thatcherism resulted in a good result for the country. Did that stop socialists from complaining?
That is a view - but many saw her as downright evil. I have heard several label her as 'the Anti-Christ'.There was a reason why 'Ding Dong the Witch is dead' soared in the chart following news of her demise.
Precisely. Politics.
If the greatest PM since Churchill can be considered evil then I'm not holding much faith that Remainers are suddenly all going to admit that Brexit was a good idea, even if it turns out better than they expected.
But that is your view. Doubtless there are still some in Germany who hold similar views re-Adolf Hitler as Chancellor.
Yes there are people who believe all sorts of nonsense. Thatcher was evil, Hitler was good, communism works, socialism should be adopted, being a country outside of the EU will be devastating - all ridiculous but people stick with that nonsense.
But Thatcher might well have won the Adolf Hitler Memorial Prize!
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
So no deal Brexit is the fault of former Remainers?
That is a similar argument to the one that implies the young woman got what was coming to her because she wore a short skirt.
I don’t think that’s what @kle4 is saying. I’m not quite sure what he means by a ‘soft Brexit’ that was apparently there for the taking, as anything other than May’s deal simply wasn’t. But I agree (and agreed at the time), that May’s deal was greatly preferable to the ongoing shitshow.
Supporters of the government certainly didn’t, and it’s utterly dishonest of them to pretend or imply that somehow the full responsibility for what they voted for - both Brexit and this government - isn’t theirs.
There are two questions, which it's important not to mix up- whether by accident or design,
First- could those opposed to a hard Brexit have stopped it in the 2017-19 Parliament? Perhaps they could, but it would have required TM the then PM to get her plan through with opposition votes against a large chunk of her own party. Maybe she could have got away with that, but it's not clear why the ERG wouldn't have deposed her faster than you could say "vassal state".
Second- if hard-to-no-deal Brexit happens, who gets the credit / blame for what happens next? Easy. The people who argued, campaigned, cajoled, backstabbed and used all the political arts to get to this situation. The people in charge when it happens. Claiming that "we wanted to do this but it's their fault for not stopping us" is absurd, as is "we didn't really want to do this, but we were forced into it by the people we outwitted".
Hard Brexiteers- you won. Get over it.
First the ERG tried to oust May remember before the first Meaningful Vote. They lost.
Second you're right. But Hard Brexiteers don't think Hard Brexit is going to be a disaster, they don't think it's going to be a fault.
If Hard Brexit works well enough as Hard Brexiteers expected and it becomes a new reality and we stay out of the Single Market forever as a result and the Leavers are happy but Remainers lose everything they wanted to win then whose fault is it the Remainers lost? That's a different question.
What a weird thing to say. If Hard Brexit results in a good outcome for Britain then why would "Remainers" complain? That's good for us. If such a thing comes to pass, then we clearly were very wrong.
Because that's politics.
Thatcherism resulted in a good result for the country. Did that stop socialists from complaining?
That is a view - but many saw her as downright evil. I have heard several label her as 'the Anti-Christ'.There was a reason why 'Ding Dong the Witch is dead' soared in the chart following news of her demise.
Precisely. Politics.
If the greatest PM since Churchill can be considered evil then I'm not holding much faith that Remainers are suddenly all going to admit that Brexit was a good idea, even if it turns out better than they expected.
But that is your view. Doubtless there are still some in Germany who hold similar views re-Adolf Hitler as Chancellor.
Yes there are people who believe all sorts of nonsense. Thatcher was evil, Hitler was good, communism works, socialism should be adopted, being a country outside of the EU will be devastating - all ridiculous but people stick with that nonsense.
But Thatcher might well have won the Adolf Hitler Memorial Prize!
Jesus, who started you off on Hitler again?
Have Justin and Ken Livingstone ever been seen in the same room together?
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
So no deal Brexit is the fault of former Remainers?
That is a similar argument to the one that implies the young woman got what was coming to her because she wore a short skirt.
I don’t think that’s what @kle4 is saying. I’m not quite sure what he means by a ‘soft Brexit’ that was apparently there for the taking, as anything other than May’s deal simply wasn’t. But I agree (and agreed at the time), that May’s deal was greatly preferable to the ongoing shitshow.
Supporters of the government certainly didn’t, and it’s utterly dishonest of them to pretend or imply that somehow the full responsibility for what they voted for - both Brexit and this government - isn’t theirs.
There are two questions, which it's important not to mix up- whether by accident or design,
First- could those opposed to a hard Brexit have stopped it in the 2017-19 Parliament? Perhaps they could, but it would have required TM the then PM to get her plan through with opposition votes against a large chunk of her own party. Maybe she could have got away with that, but it's not clear why the ERG wouldn't have deposed her faster than you could say "vassal state".
Second- if hard-to-no-deal Brexit happens, who gets the credit / blame for what happens next? Easy. The people who argued, campaigned, cajoled, backstabbed and used all the political arts to get to this situation. The people in charge when it happens. Claiming that "we wanted to do this but it's their fault for not stopping us" is absurd, as is "we didn't really want to do this, but we were forced into it by the people we outwitted".
Hard Brexiteers- you won. Get over it.
First the ERG tried to oust May remember before the first Meaningful Vote. They lost.
Second you're right. But Hard Brexiteers don't think Hard Brexit is going to be a disaster, they don't think it's going to be a fault.
If Hard Brexit works well enough as Hard Brexiteers expected and it becomes a new reality and we stay out of the Single Market forever as a result and the Leavers are happy but Remainers lose everything they wanted to win then whose fault is it the Remainers lost? That's a different question.
What a weird thing to say. If Hard Brexit results in a good outcome for Britain then why would "Remainers" complain? That's good for us. If such a thing comes to pass, then we clearly were very wrong.
Because that's politics.
Thatcherism resulted in a good result for the country. Did that stop socialists from complaining?
That is a view - but many saw her as downright evil. I have heard several label her as 'the Anti-Christ'.There was a reason why 'Ding Dong the Witch is dead' soared in the chart following news of her demise.
Precisely. Politics.
If the greatest PM since Churchill can be considered evil then I'm not holding much faith that Remainers are suddenly all going to admit that Brexit was a good idea, even if it turns out better than they expected.
But that is your view. Doubtless there are still some in Germany who hold similar views re-Adolf Hitler as Chancellor.
Yes there are people who believe all sorts of nonsense. Thatcher was evil, Hitler was good, communism works, socialism should be adopted, being a country outside of the EU will be devastating - all ridiculous but people stick with that nonsense.
I know you were being ironic, however you failed with your fifth irony. Irony number 5 will, in time, be seen to be one of your more accurate forecasts.
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
So no deal Brexit is the fault of former Remainers?
That is a similar argument to the one that implies the young woman got what was coming to her because she wore a short skirt.
I don’t think that’s what @kle4 is saying. I’m not quite sure what he means by a ‘soft Brexit’ that was apparently there for the taking, as anything other than May’s deal simply wasn’t. But I agree (and agreed at the time), that May’s deal was greatly preferable to the ongoing shitshow.
Supporters of the government certainly didn’t, and it’s utterly dishonest of them to pretend or imply that somehow the full responsibility for what they voted for - both Brexit and this government - isn’t theirs.
There are two questions, which it's important not to mix up- whether by accident or design,
First- could those opposed to a hard Brexit have stopped it in the 2017-19 Parliament? Perhaps they could, but it would have required TM the then PM to get her plan through with opposition votes against a large chunk of her own party. Maybe she could have got away with that, but it's not clear why the ERG wouldn't have deposed her faster than you could say "vassal state".
Second- if hard-to-no-deal Brexit happens, who gets the credit / blame for what happens next? Easy. The people who argued, campaigned, cajoled, backstabbed and used all the political arts to get to this situation. The people in charge when it happens. Claiming that "we wanted to do this but it's their fault for not stopping us" is absurd, as is "we didn't really want to do this, but we were forced into it by the people we outwitted".
Hard Brexiteers- you won. Get over it.
First the ERG tried to oust May remember before the first Meaningful Vote. They lost.
Second you're right. But Hard Brexiteers don't think Hard Brexit is going to be a disaster, they don't think it's going to be a fault.
If Hard Brexit works well enough as Hard Brexiteers expected and it becomes a new reality and we stay out of the Single Market forever as a result and the Leavers are happy but Remainers lose everything they wanted to win then whose fault is it the Remainers lost? That's a different question.
What a weird thing to say. If Hard Brexit results in a good outcome for Britain then why would "Remainers" complain? That's good for us. If such a thing comes to pass, then we clearly were very wrong.
Because that's politics.
Thatcherism resulted in a good result for the country. Did that stop socialists from complaining?
That is a view - but many saw her as downright evil. I have heard several label her as 'the Anti-Christ'.There was a reason why 'Ding Dong the Witch is dead' soared in the chart following news of her demise.
Precisely. Politics.
If the greatest PM since Churchill can be considered evil then I'm not holding much faith that Remainers are suddenly all going to admit that Brexit was a good idea, even if it turns out better than they expected.
But that is your view. Doubtless there are still some in Germany who hold similar views re-Adolf Hitler as Chancellor.
Yes there are people who believe all sorts of nonsense. Thatcher was evil, Hitler was good, communism works, socialism should be adopted, being a country outside of the EU will be devastating - all ridiculous but people stick with that nonsense.
But Thatcher might well have won the Adolf Hitler Memorial Prize!
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
So no deal Brexit is the fault of former Remainers?
That is a similar argument to the one that implies the young woman got what was coming to her because she wore a short skirt.
I don’t think that’s what @kle4 is saying. I’m not quite sure what he means by a ‘soft Brexit’ that was apparently there for the taking, as anything other than May’s deal simply wasn’t. But I agree (and agreed at the time), that May’s deal was greatly preferable to the ongoing shitshow.
Supporters of the government certainly didn’t, and it’s utterly dishonest of them to pretend or imply that somehow the full responsibility for what they voted for - both Brexit and this government - isn’t theirs.
There are two questions, which it's important not to mix up- whether by accident or design,
First- could those opposed to a hard Brexit have stopped it in the 2017-19 Parliament? Perhaps they could, but it would have required TM the then PM to get her plan through with opposition votes against a large chunk of her own party. Maybe she could have got away with that, but it's not clear why the ERG wouldn't have deposed her faster than you could say "vassal state".
Second- if hard-to-no-deal Brexit happens, who gets the credit / blame for what happens next? Easy. The people who argued, campaigned, cajoled, backstabbed and used all the political arts to get to this situation. The people in charge when it happens. Claiming that "we wanted to do this but it's their fault for not stopping us" is absurd, as is "we didn't really want to do this, but we were forced into it by the people we outwitted".
Hard Brexiteers- you won. Get over it.
First the ERG tried to oust May remember before the first Meaningful Vote. They lost.
Second you're right. But Hard Brexiteers don't think Hard Brexit is going to be a disaster, they don't think it's going to be a fault.
If Hard Brexit works well enough as Hard Brexiteers expected and it becomes a new reality and we stay out of the Single Market forever as a result and the Leavers are happy but Remainers lose everything they wanted to win then whose fault is it the Remainers lost? That's a different question.
What a weird thing to say. If Hard Brexit results in a good outcome for Britain then why would "Remainers" complain? That's good for us. If such a thing comes to pass, then we clearly were very wrong.
Because that's politics.
Thatcherism resulted in a good result for the country. Did that stop socialists from complaining?
That is a view - but many saw her as downright evil. I have heard several label her as 'the Anti-Christ'.There was a reason why 'Ding Dong the Witch is dead' soared in the chart following news of her demise.
Precisely. Politics.
If the greatest PM since Churchill can be considered evil then I'm not holding much faith that Remainers are suddenly all going to admit that Brexit was a good idea, even if it turns out better than they expected.
But that is your view. Doubtless there are still some in Germany who hold similar views re-Adolf Hitler as Chancellor.
Yes there are people who believe all sorts of nonsense. Thatcher was evil, Hitler was good, communism works, socialism should be adopted, being a country outside of the EU will be devastating - all ridiculous but people stick with that nonsense.
But Thatcher might well have won the Adolf Hitler Memorial Prize!
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
So no deal Brexit is the fault of former Remainers?
That is a similar argument to the one that implies the young woman got what was coming to her because she wore a short skirt.
I don’t think that’s what @kle4 is saying. I’m not quite sure what he means by a ‘soft Brexit’ that was apparently there for the taking, as anything other than May’s deal simply wasn’t. But I agree (and agreed at the time), that May’s deal was greatly preferable to the ongoing shitshow.
Supporters of the government certainly didn’t, and it’s utterly dishonest of them to pretend or imply that somehow the full responsibility for what they voted for - both Brexit and this government - isn’t theirs.
There are two questions, which it's important not to mix up- whether by accident or design,
First- could those opposed to a hard Brexit have stopped it in the 2017-19 Parliament? Perhaps they could, but it would have required TM the then PM to get her plan through with opposition votes against a large chunk of her own party. Maybe she could have got away with that, but it's not clear why the ERG wouldn't have deposed her faster than you could say "vassal state".
Second- if hard-to-no-deal Brexit happens, who gets the credit / blame for what happens next? Easy. The people who argued, campaigned, cajoled, backstabbed and used all the political arts to get to this situation. The people in charge when it happens. Claiming that "we wanted to do this but it's their fault for not stopping us" is absurd, as is "we didn't really want to do this, but we were forced into it by the people we outwitted".
Hard Brexiteers- you won. Get over it.
First the ERG tried to oust May remember before the first Meaningful Vote. They lost.
Second you're right. But Hard Brexiteers don't think Hard Brexit is going to be a disaster, they don't think it's going to be a fault.
If Hard Brexit works well enough as Hard Brexiteers expected and it becomes a new reality and we stay out of the Single Market forever as a result and the Leavers are happy but Remainers lose everything they wanted to win then whose fault is it the Remainers lost? That's a different question.
What a weird thing to say. If Hard Brexit results in a good outcome for Britain then why would "Remainers" complain? That's good for us. If such a thing comes to pass, then we clearly were very wrong.
Because that's politics.
Thatcherism resulted in a good result for the country. Did that stop socialists from complaining?
That is a view - but many saw her as downright evil. I have heard several label her as 'the Anti-Christ'.There was a reason why 'Ding Dong the Witch is dead' soared in the chart following news of her demise.
Precisely. Politics.
If the greatest PM since Churchill can be considered evil then I'm not holding much faith that Remainers are suddenly all going to admit that Brexit was a good idea, even if it turns out better than they expected.
But that is your view. Doubtless there are still some in Germany who hold similar views re-Adolf Hitler as Chancellor.
Yes there are people who believe all sorts of nonsense. Thatcher was evil, Hitler was good, communism works, socialism should be adopted, being a country outside of the EU will be devastating - all ridiculous but people stick with that nonsense.
But Thatcher might well have won the Adolf Hitler Memorial Prize!
I see we are still at the "Remainers could have rescued us from our own stupidity but failed. The bastards" stage of Brexiteers self awareness journey...
That's not the case, and it would have been better to remain after all, but the softer remainers tactically messed up in their excitement last summer. They went for the big prize of reversal rather than mitigation and it blew up in their face.
It doesn't make it their fault, but it was a massive misstep which has negative consequences and may well prove a pivotal historical moment. The Brexiteers were worried parliament has seizing control from the government. Then...nothing.
So no deal Brexit is the fault of former Remainers?
That is a similar argument to the one that implies the young woman got what was coming to her because she wore a short skirt.
I don’t think that’s what @kle4 is saying. I’m not quite sure what he means by a ‘soft Brexit’ that was apparently there for the taking, as anything other than May’s deal simply wasn’t. But I agree (and agreed at the time), that May’s deal was greatly preferable to the ongoing shitshow.
Supporters of the government certainly didn’t, and it’s utterly dishonest of them to pretend or imply that somehow the full responsibility for what they voted for - both Brexit and this government - isn’t theirs.
There are two questions, which it's important not to mix up- whether by accident or design,
First- could those opposed to a hard Brexit have stopped it in the 2017-19 Parliament? Perhaps they could, but it would have required TM the then PM to get her plan through with opposition votes against a large chunk of her own party. Maybe she could have got away with that, but it's not clear why the ERG wouldn't have deposed her faster than you could say "vassal state".
Second- if hard-to-no-deal Brexit happens, who gets the credit / blame for what happens next? Easy. The people who argued, campaigned, cajoled, backstabbed and used all the political arts to get to this situation. The people in charge when it happens. Claiming that "we wanted to do this but it's their fault for not stopping us" is absurd, as is "we didn't really want to do this, but we were forced into it by the people we outwitted".
Hard Brexiteers- you won. Get over it.
First the ERG tried to oust May remember before the first Meaningful Vote. They lost.
Second you're right. But Hard Brexiteers don't think Hard Brexit is going to be a disaster, they don't think it's going to be a fault.
If Hard Brexit works well enough as Hard Brexiteers expected and it becomes a new reality and we stay out of the Single Market forever as a result and the Leavers are happy but Remainers lose everything they wanted to win then whose fault is it the Remainers lost? That's a different question.
What a weird thing to say. If Hard Brexit results in a good outcome for Britain then why would "Remainers" complain? That's good for us. If such a thing comes to pass, then we clearly were very wrong.
Because that's politics.
Thatcherism resulted in a good result for the country. Did that stop socialists from complaining?
That is a view - but many saw her as downright evil. I have heard several label her as 'the Anti-Christ'.There was a reason why 'Ding Dong the Witch is dead' soared in the chart following news of her demise.
Precisely. Politics.
If the greatest PM since Churchill can be considered evil then I'm not holding much faith that Remainers are suddenly all going to admit that Brexit was a good idea, even if it turns out better than they expected.
But that is your view. Doubtless there are still some in Germany who hold similar views re-Adolf Hitler as Chancellor.
Yes there are people who believe all sorts of nonsense. Thatcher was evil, Hitler was good, communism works, socialism should be adopted, being a country outside of the EU will be devastating - all ridiculous but people stick with that nonsense.
But Thatcher might well have won the Adolf Hitler Memorial Prize!
According to Johns Hopkins University, the world had its worst day of the pandemic on Friday. It noted that the deaths of 11,617 more people dead were announced and more than 666,000 new cases recorded in 24 hours.
still no sign of SeanT’s predicted millions of British deaths, though.
"MOST Scots believe any changes to Holyrood’s powers after Brexit has been completed should only come into effect if voters in Scotland agree to them, according to a new poll.
The survey found 66% of Scots think the changes proposed by Boris Johnson’s controversial Internal Market Bill over the Scottish Parliament’s remit must be agreed in a plebiscite if they are to come into effect."
UK to ban sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2030 - FT
Britain had originally planned to ban the sale of new petrol and diesel-powered cars from 2040, as part of efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and in February Johnson brought this forward to 2035.
Citing unidentified industry and government figures, the FT said Johnson now intended to move the date forward again to 2030 in a speech on environmental policy he is expected to give next week.
£654,000 is sitting on BF waiting to picked up at 1.07 for Biden to be next president.
Who is prepared to lay this at such quantity?
It's only costing the layer(s) a potential £45K but even so.
The layers must either think it is a value lay (ie greater than 7% chance that Trump will remain President) or it is an emotional insurance lay (some comfort if Trump does win). Or just possible that someone is manipulating the market to support the Trump narrative at relatively low cost.
I`m not convinced by any of those explanations. You would be insane to be offering 1.07 on a Biden win. Why manipulate a UK market? Emotional insurance: not in that quantity surely.
Could it be bookies offsetting liabilities? Or, could there be a health concern over Biden. (If Biden were to die before inauguration, he would still be the winner on the BF market though.)
It's a puzzle so vexing that it kept me awake part of the nite.
We're talking about pretty big numbers here. Even at £45k, you'd have to think these are not mug punters. The odds make no kind of sense because on the President Market they are actually bigger than some of the individual States. Given that Trump has to win a string of them, they should be lower.
Bookies don't offset liabilities by making bad bets. In any case, there are more efficient ways of doing it and if Shadsy is to be believed Ladbrokes, in common with most of the industry, had their money on a Biden win. Trump was the loser, literally, for them.
Ill-health or worse would not alter the settlement of the market, so if some punters are thinking a Biden withdrawal would alter things they haven't read the rules. Faithless electors likewise would be no help to Trump backers.
It really doesn't make any sense. Unfortunately, when I don't understand things I always get suspicious that someone somewhere knows something I don't. The fact I can't guess what it is does nothing to allay those suspicions.
Let me just quote a near analgous situation though. When Trump spoke at length to Piers Morgan shortly before Nov 3rd his concluding remark was apparently 'I am going to win'. This was said with the air of a man who knew the polls were wrong. He was right, but not right enough. Something went wrong. He has acted ever since like a man who cannot believe his best laid plans have gone awry. I think he definitely knew something we didn't. I think he knows something now, although again it may not be enough to turn the very cnsiderable tide running against him.
I don't know what it is, but although 1.07 is to all appearances way too big, I'm not betting the farm on it.
Doubtless there are some who think that having the Supreme Court on his side may give Trump the ultimate get out of jail card.
Remember also that this may be the aggregation of a lot of small bets - people who credit Trump with enough ability to win through in the end that they are willing to risk a few £ (other currencies are available) knowing they will win handsomely if their hero does manage to emerge victorious.
Most likely, however, this is simply money left on the table by Trump backers who either don’t know how to lay their bets or can’t be bothered now that the majority of their money is lost. They may not even realise their bet is unmatched - not everyone follows their bets as closely as they should.
Another factor is that clued-up small punters, the type on pb, will look across the markets for best prices. The two ECV band markets have come in to 1.09 from the 1.1 and 1.11 on page one of this thread.
£654,000 is sitting on BF waiting to picked up at 1.07 for Biden to be next president.
Who is prepared to lay this at such quantity?
It's only costing the layer(s) a potential £45K but even so.
The layers must either think it is a value lay (ie greater than 7% chance that Trump will remain President) or it is an emotional insurance lay (some comfort if Trump does win). Or just possible that someone is manipulating the market to support the Trump narrative at relatively low cost.
I`m not convinced by any of those explanations. You would be insane to be offering 1.07 on a Biden win. Why manipulate a UK market? Emotional insurance: not in that quantity surely.
Could it be bookies offsetting liabilities? Or, could there be a health concern over Biden. (If Biden were to die before inauguration, he would still be the winner on the BF market though.)
It's a puzzle so vexing that it kept me awake part of the nite.
We're talking about pretty big numbers here. Even at £45k, you'd have to think these are not mug punters. The odds make no kind of sense because on the President Market they are actually bigger than some of the individual States. Given that Trump has to win a string of them, they should be lower.
Bookies don't offset liabilities by making bad bets. In any case, there are more efficient ways of doing it and if Shadsy is to be believed Ladbrokes, in common with most of the industry, had their money on a Biden win. Trump was the loser, literally, for them.
Ill-health or worse would not alter the settlement of the market, so if some punters are thinking a Biden withdrawal would alter things they haven't read the rules. Faithless electors likewise would be no help to Trump backers.
It really doesn't make any sense. Unfortunately, when I don't understand things I always get suspicious that someone somewhere knows something I don't. The fact I can't guess what it is does nothing to allay those suspicions.
Let me just quote a near analgous situation though. When Trump spoke at length to Piers Morgan shortly before Nov 3rd his concluding remark was apparently 'I am going to win'. This was said with the air of a man who knew the polls were wrong. He was right, but not right enough. Something went wrong. He has acted ever since like a man who cannot believe his best laid plans have gone awry. I think he definitely knew something we didn't. I think he knows something now, although again it may not be enough to turn the very cnsiderable tide running against him.
I don't know what it is, but although 1.07 is to all appearances way too big, I'm not betting the farm on it.
Doubtless there are some who think that having the Supreme Court on his side may give Trump the ultimate get out of jail card.
Remember also that this may be the aggregation of a lot of small bets - people who credit Trump with enough ability to win through in the end that they are willing to risk a few £ (other currencies are available) knowing they will win handsomely if their hero does manage to emerge victorious.
Most likely, however, this is simply money left on the table by Trump backers who either don’t know how to lay their bets or can’t be bothered now that the majority of their money is lost. They may not even realise their bet is unmatched - not everyone follows their bets as closely as they should.
It is all very odd. I suspect we will never know who or why there were layers at these prices when the result is known.
UK to ban sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2030 - FT
Britain had originally planned to ban the sale of new petrol and diesel-powered cars from 2040, as part of efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and in February Johnson brought this forward to 2035.
Citing unidentified industry and government figures, the FT said Johnson now intended to move the date forward again to 2030 in a speech on environmental policy he is expected to give next week.
If that doesn't include hybrids then I expect the market will have killed off those sales by 2030 largely anyway. Already more than a quarter of all sales are either electric etc or hybrid anyway and it is fast increasing annually. By 2030 I doubt there'd be many such sales left even without a ban.
UK to ban sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2030 - FT
Britain had originally planned to ban the sale of new petrol and diesel-powered cars from 2040, as part of efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and in February Johnson brought this forward to 2035.
Citing unidentified industry and government figures, the FT said Johnson now intended to move the date forward again to 2030 in a speech on environmental policy he is expected to give next week.
If that doesn't include hybrids then I expect the market will have killed off those sales by 2030 largely anyway. Already more than a quarter of all sales are either electric etc or hybrid anyway and it is fast increasing annually. By 2030 I doubt there'd be many such sales left even without a ban.
I seemed to remember the 2035 announcement was no hybrids, only fully electric, but I might be wrong.
UK to ban sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2030 - FT
Britain had originally planned to ban the sale of new petrol and diesel-powered cars from 2040, as part of efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and in February Johnson brought this forward to 2035.
Citing unidentified industry and government figures, the FT said Johnson now intended to move the date forward again to 2030 in a speech on environmental policy he is expected to give next week.
So prestige German car makers won't be riding to the rescue of no- deal Brexit after all, unless they have a comprehensive range of fully e-vehicles available.
I am so glad I am just two years into the purchase of a new £45,000 Mercedes Benz C300 cabriolet. Looking forward to heartily laughing at the residual value, when I come to change that car.
Better starting cranking up the electricity generation if we are going to have most people driving around in electric cars within the next 15 years....and of course building out the charging infrastructure.
Better starting cranking up the electricity generation if we are going to have most people driving around in electric cars within the next 15 years....and of course building out the charging infrastructure.
I'm not unfamiliar with the notion. You see it on the racetrack sometimes. I'm fond of quoting the 1996 Gold Cup when One Man was sent off 11/8 favorite despite overwhelming evidence that he didn't get the distance. I watched from the centre of the track as he stopped as if shot at the bottom of the hill, two furlongs from the finish.
I'm not sure that is the explanation here, but I can't think what the answer is.
The Supreme may be loaded in the President's favor but the case has to actually get to them first, and even they have to see some evidence. On all known facts to date, I would confidently predict 9-0 to Biden, even in the unlikely event it got that far.
UK to ban sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2030 - FT
Britain had originally planned to ban the sale of new petrol and diesel-powered cars from 2040, as part of efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and in February Johnson brought this forward to 2035.
Citing unidentified industry and government figures, the FT said Johnson now intended to move the date forward again to 2030 in a speech on environmental policy he is expected to give next week.
If that doesn't include hybrids then I expect the market will have killed off those sales by 2030 largely anyway. Already more than a quarter of all sales are either electric etc or hybrid anyway and it is fast increasing annually. By 2030 I doubt there'd be many such sales left even without a ban.
This is a classic case of substitution activity. What a lot of people need to know right now is the terms and conditions of trade for cars on 1st January 2020. To be certain about 2030 when you have no idea about 7 weeks time is delusional.
The Supreme may be loaded in the President's favor but the case has to actually get to them first, and even they have to see some evidence. On all known facts to date, I would confidently predict 9-0 to Biden, even in the unlikely event it got that far.
Trump can win the ballot seperation cases in Pennsylvania. Doesn't change anything.
UK to ban sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2030 - FT
Britain had originally planned to ban the sale of new petrol and diesel-powered cars from 2040, as part of efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and in February Johnson brought this forward to 2035.
Citing unidentified industry and government figures, the FT said Johnson now intended to move the date forward again to 2030 in a speech on environmental policy he is expected to give next week.
I do hope he’s planning to make big investment in domestic power generation and distribution as well. We’re going to need it, given transport uses four times as much power as our entire grid currently produces.
UK to ban sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2030 - FT
Britain had originally planned to ban the sale of new petrol and diesel-powered cars from 2040, as part of efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and in February Johnson brought this forward to 2035.
Citing unidentified industry and government figures, the FT said Johnson now intended to move the date forward again to 2030 in a speech on environmental policy he is expected to give next week.
If that doesn't include hybrids then I expect the market will have killed off those sales by 2030 largely anyway. Already more than a quarter of all sales are either electric etc or hybrid anyway and it is fast increasing annually. By 2030 I doubt there'd be many such sales left even without a ban.
This is a classic case of substitution activity. What a lot of people need to know right now is the terms and conditions of trade for cars on 1st January 2020. To be certain about 2030 when you have no idea about 7 weeks time is delusional.
Boris is clearly making the mistake of believing that Eco issues are the top of people's priority list. Sure lots of people mention their concern for the environment, but when it comes to brass tax, the vast majority of the public, especially red wall voters, aren't XR lot that see everything through the lens of we must totally change our whole economy, regardless of potential economist impact, to save the planet, and anything slower than yesterday is a war crime.
I doubt Boris will gain a single extra vote for making a big play out of moving forward this deadline another 5 years.
UK to ban sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2030 - FT
Britain had originally planned to ban the sale of new petrol and diesel-powered cars from 2040, as part of efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and in February Johnson brought this forward to 2035.
Citing unidentified industry and government figures, the FT said Johnson now intended to move the date forward again to 2030 in a speech on environmental policy he is expected to give next week.
If that doesn't include hybrids then I expect the market will have killed off those sales by 2030 largely anyway. Already more than a quarter of all sales are either electric etc or hybrid anyway and it is fast increasing annually. By 2030 I doubt there'd be many such sales left even without a ban.
This is a classic case of substitution activity. What a lot of people need to know right now is the terms and conditions of trade for cars on 1st January 2020. To be certain about 2030 when you have no idea about 7 weeks time is delusional.
I’m pretty sure we already know what it was like on 1st Jan 2020.
Better starting cranking up the electricity generation if we are going to have most people driving around in electric cars within the next 15 years....and of course building out the charging infrastructure.
UK to ban sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2030 - FT
Britain had originally planned to ban the sale of new petrol and diesel-powered cars from 2040, as part of efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and in February Johnson brought this forward to 2035.
Citing unidentified industry and government figures, the FT said Johnson now intended to move the date forward again to 2030 in a speech on environmental policy he is expected to give next week.
I do hope he’s planning to make big investment in domestic power generation and distribution as well. We’re going to need it, given transport uses four times as much power as our entire grid currently produces.
Tidal lagoons might be a smart place to start...
Fortunately for Johnson he will be earning squillions on the California after-dinner circuit when the lights go out over here.
E- vehcles is laudible, if the idea has been thought through by 2030.
Btw, I don't agree this is a 'lot of small bets'. If you watch the numbers stacked up on the bet and lay side (beats watching grass grow but only just) you will see formidable sums sitting there without change for some minutes, and then you will see a big shift on one side or maybe both. This isn't a reflection of slow updating; Betfair updates pretty swiftly and in any case you can update it yourself to see what is being put down and how quickly. What it suggests is that money is being put down in large slabs.
This suggests serious punters to me. A further suggestion is that you don't see the same behaviour on the relatively small state markets. They behave much more normally.
I think there are some serious punters involved in this, but what their game is i have no idea.
UK to ban sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2030 - FT
Britain had originally planned to ban the sale of new petrol and diesel-powered cars from 2040, as part of efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and in February Johnson brought this forward to 2035.
Citing unidentified industry and government figures, the FT said Johnson now intended to move the date forward again to 2030 in a speech on environmental policy he is expected to give next week.
I do hope he’s planning to make big investment in domestic power generation and distribution as well. We’re going to need it, given transport uses four times as much power as our entire grid currently produces.
Tidal lagoons might be a smart place to start...
Fortunately for Johnson he will be earning squillions on the California after-dinner circuit when the lights go out over here.
E- vehcles is laudible, if the idea has been thought through by 2030.
Given how slow the process of getting any large infrastructure projects agreed in this country, let alone actually built, getting tidal lagoons built by 2030 ain't happening.
UK to ban sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2030 - FT
Britain had originally planned to ban the sale of new petrol and diesel-powered cars from 2040, as part of efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and in February Johnson brought this forward to 2035.
Citing unidentified industry and government figures, the FT said Johnson now intended to move the date forward again to 2030 in a speech on environmental policy he is expected to give next week.
I do hope he’s planning to make big investment in domestic power generation and distribution as well. We’re going to need it, given transport uses four times as much power as our entire grid currently produces.
Tidal lagoons might be a smart place to start...
Fortunately for Johnson he will be earning squillions on the California after-dinner circuit when the lights go out over here.
E- vehcles is laudible, if the idea had been thought through.
In fairness, he has generally liked and supported big infrastructure projects even if they’re not universally popular (HS2) or indeed batshit crazy (Boris Island).
And that is what we do need. Electric vehicles powered by domestic energy, which we could have, would be excellent. No more imports of millions of barrels of oil. No more pollution from transport in our cities.
But it will take massive investment and we need to start right now on generation and distribution. Ten years isn’t long to get this right.
The Supreme may be loaded in the President's favor but the case has to actually get to them first, and even they have to see some evidence. On all known facts to date, I would confidently predict 9-0 to Biden, even in the unlikely event it got that far.
Trump can win the ballot seperation cases in Pennsylvania. Doesn't change anything.
Of course. The ballots are not included in the count to date, I think, and in any case are nowhere near numerous enough to change the result.
UK to ban sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2030 - FT
Britain had originally planned to ban the sale of new petrol and diesel-powered cars from 2040, as part of efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and in February Johnson brought this forward to 2035.
Citing unidentified industry and government figures, the FT said Johnson now intended to move the date forward again to 2030 in a speech on environmental policy he is expected to give next week.
I do hope he’s planning to make big investment in domestic power generation and distribution as well. We’re going to need it, given transport uses four times as much power as our entire grid currently produces.
Tidal lagoons might be a smart place to start...
Fortunately for Johnson he will be earning squillions on the California after-dinner circuit when the lights go out over here.
E- vehcles is laudible, if the idea had been thought through.
In fairness, he has generally liked and supported big infrastructure projects even if they’re not universally popular (HS2) or indeed batshit crazy (Boris Island).
And that is what we do need. Electric vehicles powered by domestic energy, which we could have, would be excellent. No more imports of millions of barrels of oil. No more pollution from transport in our cities.
But it will take massive investment and we need to start right now on generation and distribution. Ten years isn’t long to get this right.
Don't forget the bridge / tunnel / bridge-tunnel from Scotland to Ireland...
UK to ban sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2030 - FT
Britain had originally planned to ban the sale of new petrol and diesel-powered cars from 2040, as part of efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and in February Johnson brought this forward to 2035.
Citing unidentified industry and government figures, the FT said Johnson now intended to move the date forward again to 2030 in a speech on environmental policy he is expected to give next week.
I do hope he’s planning to make big investment in domestic power generation and distribution as well. We’re going to need it, given transport uses four times as much power as our entire grid currently produces.
Tidal lagoons might be a smart place to start...
Fortunately for Johnson he will be earning squillions on the California after-dinner circuit when the lights go out over here.
E- vehcles is laudible, if the idea had been thought through.
In fairness, he has generally liked and supported big infrastructure projects even if they’re not universally popular (HS2) or indeed batshit crazy (Boris Island).
And that is what we do need. Electric vehicles powered by domestic energy, which we could have, would be excellent. No more imports of millions of barrels of oil. No more pollution from transport in our cities.
But it will take massive investment and we need to start right now on generation and distribution. Ten years isn’t long to get this right.
Don't forget the bridge / tunnel / bridge-tunnel from Scotland to Ireland...
Yes, or the garden bridge.
Notable though that HS2 apart none of them have actually got beyond ideas.
UK to ban sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2030 - FT
Britain had originally planned to ban the sale of new petrol and diesel-powered cars from 2040, as part of efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and in February Johnson brought this forward to 2035.
Citing unidentified industry and government figures, the FT said Johnson now intended to move the date forward again to 2030 in a speech on environmental policy he is expected to give next week.
If that doesn't include hybrids then I expect the market will have killed off those sales by 2030 largely anyway. Already more than a quarter of all sales are either electric etc or hybrid anyway and it is fast increasing annually. By 2030 I doubt there'd be many such sales left even without a ban.
This is a classic case of substitution activity. What a lot of people need to know right now is the terms and conditions of trade for cars on 1st January 2020. To be certain about 2030 when you have no idea about 7 weeks time is delusional.
I’m pretty sure we already know what it was like on 1st Jan 2020.
I'm sure we knew at the time, but I'm not certain I can remember now... It's all been a bit too much like the Mitchell and Webb "Remain Indoors" sketches for most of the year.
I have a feeling all this stuff from Boris is going to be like Trump's big plans on infrastructure. Lots of talking, very little action, when actually if we are going to face a global downturn from COVID, this is the time when economically you really should get building.
Btw, I don't agree this is a 'lot of small bets'. If you watch the numbers stacked up on the bet and lay side (beats watching grass grow but only just) you will see formidable sums sitting there without change for some minutes, and then you will see a big shift on one side or maybe both. This isn't a reflection of slow updating; Betfair updates pretty swiftly and in any case you can update it yourself to see what is being put down and how quickly. What it suggests is that money is being put down in large slabs.
This suggests serious punters to me. A further suggestion is that you don't see the same behaviour on the relatively small state markets. They behave much more normally.
I think there are some serious punters involved in this, but what their game is i have no idea.
Are they the ones that thought Andrea Leadsom would be PM?
UK to ban sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2030 - FT
Britain had originally planned to ban the sale of new petrol and diesel-powered cars from 2040, as part of efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and in February Johnson brought this forward to 2035.
Citing unidentified industry and government figures, the FT said Johnson now intended to move the date forward again to 2030 in a speech on environmental policy he is expected to give next week.
If that doesn't include hybrids then I expect the market will have killed off those sales by 2030 largely anyway. Already more than a quarter of all sales are either electric etc or hybrid anyway and it is fast increasing annually. By 2030 I doubt there'd be many such sales left even without a ban.
This is a classic case of substitution activity. What a lot of people need to know right now is the terms and conditions of trade for cars on 1st January 2020. To be certain about 2030 when you have no idea about 7 weeks time is delusional.
Do you mean 2021? Grandson Two has just bought (or his father has for him) his first car. Petrol, eight years old, 50k on the clock, one careful lady owner etc. (that's probably true; the lad's father is good on such matters) How much is the equivalent 8 year old car going to be worth in 2030? I know the restriction is only going to apply to new cars. One of the reasons he's bought it is because he feels he wants a manual car. However, how many cars will there be with gears in 20 years time?
The Supreme may be loaded in the President's favor but the case has to actually get to them first, and even they have to see some evidence. On all known facts to date, I would confidently predict 9-0 to Biden, even in the unlikely event it got that far.
I agree. But how you and I think isn’t necessarily how these punters are thinking.
UK to ban sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2030 - FT
Britain had originally planned to ban the sale of new petrol and diesel-powered cars from 2040, as part of efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and in February Johnson brought this forward to 2035.
Citing unidentified industry and government figures, the FT said Johnson now intended to move the date forward again to 2030 in a speech on environmental policy he is expected to give next week.
I do hope he’s planning to make big investment in domestic power generation and distribution as well. We’re going to need it, given transport uses four times as much power as our entire grid currently produces.
Tidal lagoons might be a smart place to start...
Fortunately for Johnson he will be earning squillions on the California after-dinner circuit when the lights go out over here.
E- vehcles is laudible, if the idea has been thought through by 2030.
Just tow a diesel generator behind you everywhere you go. Simples!
UK to ban sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2030 - FT
Britain had originally planned to ban the sale of new petrol and diesel-powered cars from 2040, as part of efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and in February Johnson brought this forward to 2035.
Citing unidentified industry and government figures, the FT said Johnson now intended to move the date forward again to 2030 in a speech on environmental policy he is expected to give next week.
I do hope he’s planning to make big investment in domestic power generation and distribution as well. We’re going to need it, given transport uses four times as much power as our entire grid currently produces.
Tidal lagoons might be a smart place to start...
Fortunately for Johnson he will be earning squillions on the California after-dinner circuit when the lights go out over here.
E- vehcles is laudible, if the idea had been thought through.
In fairness, he has generally liked and supported big infrastructure projects even if they’re not universally popular (HS2) or indeed batshit crazy (Boris Island).
And that is what we do need. Electric vehicles powered by domestic energy, which we could have, would be excellent. No more imports of millions of barrels of oil. No more pollution from transport in our cities.
But it will take massive investment and we need to start right now on generation and distribution. Ten years isn’t long to get this right.
Don't forget the bridge / tunnel / bridge-tunnel from Scotland to Ireland...
Yes, or the garden bridge.
Notable though that HS2 apart none of them have actually got beyond ideas.
I am not optimistic. His track record isn't good and in this country any large infrastructure projects can soon get bogged down with the NIMBY, newt bothers lobby, historic societies and all sorts of others people who just object to building some stuff. And that's before the piss poor project management, overruns, finding some ancient roman wall, etc etc etc.
To push these things through you need to be on the ball and absolutely driven that you are doing the right thing. Instead we still haven't got the airport capacity expansion done, after how many years of talking?
UK to ban sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2030 - FT
Britain had originally planned to ban the sale of new petrol and diesel-powered cars from 2040, as part of efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and in February Johnson brought this forward to 2035.
Citing unidentified industry and government figures, the FT said Johnson now intended to move the date forward again to 2030 in a speech on environmental policy he is expected to give next week.
If that doesn't include hybrids then I expect the market will have killed off those sales by 2030 largely anyway. Already more than a quarter of all sales are either electric etc or hybrid anyway and it is fast increasing annually. By 2030 I doubt there'd be many such sales left even without a ban.
This is a classic case of substitution activity. What a lot of people need to know right now is the terms and conditions of trade for cars on 1st January 2020. To be certain about 2030 when you have no idea about 7 weeks time is delusional.
Boris is clearly making the mistake of believing that Eco issues are the top of people's priority list. Sure lots of people mention their concern for the environment, but when it comes to brass tax, the vast majority of the public, especially red wall voters, aren't XR lot that see everything through the lens of we must totally change our whole economy, regardless of potential economist impact, to save the planet, and anything slower than yesterday is a war crime.
I doubt Boris will gain a single extra vote for making a big play out of moving forward this deadline another 5 years.
UK to ban sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2030 - FT
Britain had originally planned to ban the sale of new petrol and diesel-powered cars from 2040, as part of efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and in February Johnson brought this forward to 2035.
Citing unidentified industry and government figures, the FT said Johnson now intended to move the date forward again to 2030 in a speech on environmental policy he is expected to give next week.
I do hope he’s planning to make big investment in domestic power generation and distribution as well. We’re going to need it, given transport uses four times as much power as our entire grid currently produces.
Tidal lagoons might be a smart place to start...
Fortunately for Johnson he will be earning squillions on the California after-dinner circuit when the lights go out over here.
E- vehcles is laudible, if the idea had been thought through.
In fairness, he has generally liked and supported big infrastructure projects even if they’re not universally popular (HS2) or indeed batshit crazy (Boris Island).
And that is what we do need. Electric vehicles powered by domestic energy, which we could have, would be excellent. No more imports of millions of barrels of oil. No more pollution from transport in our cities.
But it will take massive investment and we need to start right now on generation and distribution. Ten years isn’t long to get this right.
His party conference speech had a major section on domestic energy generation.
The Supreme may be loaded in the President's favor but the case has to actually get to them first, and even they have to see some evidence. On all known facts to date, I would confidently predict 9-0 to Biden, even in the unlikely event it got that far.
I agree. But how you and I think isn’t necessarily how these punters are thinking.
We're desperately seeking an answer here, Ian, along with all other serious punters. We're struggling.
What you are effectively saying here is that these punters are stupid. In my experience, serious punters are not stupid. The stupid ones are by definition no longer serious, having mostly been separated from their money long ago.
Btw, I don't agree this is a 'lot of small bets'. If you watch the numbers stacked up on the bet and lay side (beats watching grass grow but only just) you will see formidable sums sitting there without change for some minutes, and then you will see a big shift on one side or maybe both. This isn't a reflection of slow updating; Betfair updates pretty swiftly and in any case you can update it yourself to see what is being put down and how quickly. What it suggests is that money is being put down in large slabs.
This suggests serious punters to me. A further suggestion is that you don't see the same behaviour on the relatively small state markets. They behave much more normally.
I think there are some serious punters involved in this, but what their game is i have no idea.
Are they the ones that thought Andrea Leadsom would be PM?
Correct me if I am wrong but the Leadsome mystery turned out, I think, to be a bot left on and forgotten about. It would presumably run by a punter or agency used to betting in such large stakes that the error went unnoticed.
That could be a factor here, but unlikely on the kind of scale we are talking about.
UK to ban sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2030 - FT
Britain had originally planned to ban the sale of new petrol and diesel-powered cars from 2040, as part of efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and in February Johnson brought this forward to 2035.
Citing unidentified industry and government figures, the FT said Johnson now intended to move the date forward again to 2030 in a speech on environmental policy he is expected to give next week.
If that doesn't include hybrids then I expect the market will have killed off those sales by 2030 largely anyway. Already more than a quarter of all sales are either electric etc or hybrid anyway and it is fast increasing annually. By 2030 I doubt there'd be many such sales left even without a ban.
This is a classic case of substitution activity. What a lot of people need to know right now is the terms and conditions of trade for cars on 1st January 2020. To be certain about 2030 when you have no idea about 7 weeks time is delusional.
Boris is clearly making the mistake of believing that Eco issues are the top of people's priority list. Sure lots of people mention their concern for the environment, but when it comes to brass tax, the vast majority of the public, especially red wall voters, aren't XR lot that see everything through the lens of we must totally change our whole economy, regardless of potential economist impact, to save the planet, and anything slower than yesterday is a war crime.
I doubt Boris will gain a single extra vote for making a big play out of moving forward this deadline another 5 years.
No, he won't directly win any votes.
However, if done properly the huge level of investment needed to achieve this could be directed at the poorer parts of the nation, often around the coast where power is plentiful, to create plenty of job opportunities in businesses that could genuinely grow to be world leading.
The Supreme may be loaded in the President's favor but the case has to actually get to them first, and even they have to see some evidence. On all known facts to date, I would confidently predict 9-0 to Biden, even in the unlikely event it got that far.
I agree. But how you and I think isn’t necessarily how these punters are thinking.
We're desperately seeking an answer here, Ian, along with all other serious punters. We're struggling.
What you are effectively saying here is that these punters are stupid. In my experience, serious punters are not stupid. The stupid ones are by definition no longer serious, having mostly been separated from their money long ago.
This is a huge betting event, I guess it's brought in a lot of new punters, who haven't yet undergone the normal natural selection process.
UK to ban sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2030 - FT
Britain had originally planned to ban the sale of new petrol and diesel-powered cars from 2040, as part of efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and in February Johnson brought this forward to 2035.
Citing unidentified industry and government figures, the FT said Johnson now intended to move the date forward again to 2030 in a speech on environmental policy he is expected to give next week.
I do hope he’s planning to make big investment in domestic power generation and distribution as well. We’re going to need it, given transport uses four times as much power as our entire grid currently produces.
Tidal lagoons might be a smart place to start...
can we use them for fish too to stop them swimming to where foreigners can catch them?
We have abandoned the elderly to a fate worse than death The very people our response to Covid is supposed to help are the ones suffering the most. Tomex McGrath
£654,000 is sitting on BF waiting to picked up at 1.07 for Biden to be next president.
Who is prepared to lay this at such quantity?
It's only costing the layer(s) a potential £45K but even so.
The layers must either think it is a value lay (ie greater than 7% chance that Trump will remain President) or it is an emotional insurance lay (some comfort if Trump does win). Or just possible that someone is manipulating the market to support the Trump narrative at relatively low cost.
I`m not convinced by any of those explanations. You would be insane to be offering 1.07 on a Biden win. Why manipulate a UK market? Emotional insurance: not in that quantity surely.
Could it be bookies offsetting liabilities? Or, could there be a health concern over Biden. (If Biden were to die before inauguration, he would still be the winner on the BF market though.)
It's a puzzle so vexing that it kept me awake part of the nite.
We're talking about pretty big numbers here. Even at £45k, you'd have to think these are not mug punters. The odds make no kind of sense because on the President Market they are actually bigger than some of the individual States. Given that Trump has to win a string of them, they should be lower.
Bookies don't offset liabilities by making bad bets. In any case, there are more efficient ways of doing it and if Shadsy is to be believed Ladbrokes, in common with most of the industry, had their money on a Biden win. Trump was the loser, literally, for them.
Ill-health or worse would not alter the settlement of the market, so if some punters are thinking a Biden withdrawal would alter things they haven't read the rules. Faithless electors likewise would be no help to Trump backers.
It really doesn't make any sense. Unfortunately, when I don't understand things I always get suspicious that someone somewhere knows something I don't. The fact I can't guess what it is does nothing to allay those suspicions.
Let me just quote a near analgous situation though. When Trump spoke at length to Piers Morgan shortly before Nov 3rd his concluding remark was apparently 'I am going to win'. This was said with the air of a man who knew the polls were wrong. He was right, but not right enough. Something went wrong. He has acted ever since like a man who cannot believe his best laid plans have gone awry. I think he definitely knew something we didn't. I think he knows something now, although again it may not be enough to turn the very cnsiderable tide running against him.
I don't know what it is, but although 1.07 is to all appearances way too big, I'm not betting the farm on it.
This is complicated, so bear with me
The secret to markets is that there is a herding effect. The price you see is the benchmark, and if you feel yourself to be more inclined to think that one outcome is more likely than the consensus outcome you back that outcome. That's how it works for most punters. The price is "trusted" even if you think it's wrong.
To dig into this concept, it's helpful to think of basic odds scenarios. A fair 6-sided dice has a 1/6 chance of showing a 6 on the next roll. It's easy to analyse the dice, and even large combinations of dice rolls will have a precise mathematically derived price above or below which you should back or lay. If I roll 10,000 dice, and offer you 10/1 that there will be >2,000 6s, you can run the figures and be certain about the wisdom or backing or laying.
Politics isn't like that. So when punters try to pick value, they need a baseline. And that baseline is the price. From that baseline, they need to compare their own sense of how likely they think an outcome is compared to how they think other people see that scenario. So if you feel Trump has a slight chance, but you think everyone else thinks Trump has no chance, you back Trump. You trust that the price represents everyone else's aggregate opinion, and you bet on "your" side of that average. At no point will any punter run the numbers like with dice rolls. How do you even start? Precedents are scare to non-existent. So if, objectively, there were a 0.001 chance, you wouldn't know. We bet on heuristics and perceptions of public opinion. And we know public opinion is susceptible to herding and all kinds of cognitive biases.
UK to ban sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2030 - FT
Britain had originally planned to ban the sale of new petrol and diesel-powered cars from 2040, as part of efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and in February Johnson brought this forward to 2035.
Citing unidentified industry and government figures, the FT said Johnson now intended to move the date forward again to 2030 in a speech on environmental policy he is expected to give next week.
If that doesn't include hybrids then I expect the market will have killed off those sales by 2030 largely anyway. Already more than a quarter of all sales are either electric etc or hybrid anyway and it is fast increasing annually. By 2030 I doubt there'd be many such sales left even without a ban.
This is a classic case of substitution activity. What a lot of people need to know right now is the terms and conditions of trade for cars on 1st January 2020. To be certain about 2030 when you have no idea about 7 weeks time is delusional.
Boris is clearly making the mistake of believing that Eco issues are the top of people's priority list. Sure lots of people mention their concern for the environment, but when it comes to brass tax, the vast majority of the public, especially red wall voters, aren't XR lot that see everything through the lens of we must totally change our whole economy, regardless of potential economist impact, to save the planet, and anything slower than yesterday is a war crime.
I doubt Boris will gain a single extra vote for making a big play out of moving forward this deadline another 5 years.
No, he won't directly win any votes.
However, if done properly the huge level of investment needed to achieve this could be directed at the poorer parts of the nation, often around the coast where power is plentiful, to create plenty of job opportunities in businesses that could genuinely grow to be world leading.
Not importing all that oil would also do wonders for the balance of payments, even allowing for the import of batteries.
Comments
You really don't need, in Michael Caine's phrase 'to blow the bloody doors off'.
Job done. Bye.
We're talking about pretty big numbers here. Even at £45k, you'd have to think these are not mug punters. The odds make no kind of sense because on the President Market they are actually bigger than some of the individual States. Given that Trump has to win a string of them, they should be lower.
Bookies don't offset liabilities by making bad bets. In any case, there are more efficient ways of doing it and if Shadsy is to be believed Ladbrokes, in common with most of the industry, had their money on a Biden win. Trump was the loser, literally, for them.
Ill-health or worse would not alter the settlement of the market, so if some punters are thinking a Biden withdrawal would alter things they haven't read the rules. Faithless electors likewise would be no help to Trump backers.
It really doesn't make any sense. Unfortunately, when I don't understand things I always get suspicious that someone somewhere knows something I don't. The fact I can't guess what it is does nothing to allay those suspicions.
Let me just quote a near analgous situation though. When Trump spoke at length to Piers Morgan shortly before Nov 3rd his concluding remark was apparently 'I am going to win'. This was said with the air of a man who knew the polls were wrong. He was right, but not right enough. Something went wrong. He has acted ever since like a man who cannot believe his best laid plans have gone awry. I think he definitely knew something we didn't. I think he knows something now, although again it may not be enough to turn the very cnsiderable tide running against him.
I don't know what it is, but although 1.07 is to all appearances way too big, I'm not betting the farm on it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54908129
What company would look at Grayling's track record and think you know what we need, his expertise?
https://twitter.com/beardedjourno/status/1327610715889430529?s=20
https://twitter.com/beardedjourno/status/1327605708439908353?s=20
(The Tory party also gets a win, there will be further negotiations just post the 2024 election, but this would be a win for party not country.)
Self determination for fish!
So. The Almighty will intervene. As He must. Somehow. The alternative is a collapse of one's entire psychic narrative and belief system.
Many tens of millions of Americans buy into this too.
Given that, it is a surprise there is so little money there.
There's now't queer as folk, indeed.
The secret to markets is that there is a herding effect. The price you see is the benchmark, and if you feel yourself to be more inclined to think that one outcome is more likely than the consensus outcome you back that outcome. That's how it works for most punters. The price is "trusted" even if you think it's wrong.
To dig into this concept, it's helpful to think of basic odds scenarios. A fair 6-sided dice has a 1/6 chance of showing a 6 on the next roll. It's easy to analyse the dice, and even large combinations of dice rolls will have a precise mathematically derived price above or below which you should back or lay. If I roll 10,000 dice, and offer you 10/1 that there will be >2,000 6s, you can run the figures and be certain about the wisdom or backing or laying.
Politics isn't like that. So when punters try to pick value, they need a baseline. And that baseline is the price.
From that baseline, they need to compare their own sense of how likely they think an outcome is compared to how they think other people see that scenario. So if you feel Trump has a slight chance, but you think everyone else thinks Trump has no chance, you back Trump. You trust that the price represents everyone else's aggregate opinion, and you bet on "your" side of that average. At no point will any punter run the numbers like with dice rolls. How do you even start? Precedents are scare to non-existent. So if, objectively, there were a 0.001 chance, you wouldn't know. We bet on heuristics and perceptions of public opinion. And we know public opinion is susceptible to herding and all kinds of cognitive biases.
https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1327618461980299265
That said, no. No self awareness whatsoever.
"Hospitalizations for Covid-19 also set a record on Thursday, climbing to 67,096, according to the Covid Tracking Project. It was the third straight day of record numbers, and the figure has doubled in just five weeks."
Remember also that this may be the aggregation of a lot of small bets - people who credit Trump with enough ability to win through in the end that they are willing to risk a few £ (other currencies are available) knowing they will win handsomely if their hero does manage to emerge victorious.
Most likely, however, this is simply money left on the table by Trump backers who either don’t know how to lay their bets or can’t be bothered now that the majority of their money is lost. They may not even realise their bet is unmatched - not everyone follows their bets as closely as they should.
But it would be daring to send two of the most prominent Brexiters (neither elected to a Scottish constituency, either) to a Brexit-hating nation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58nGH2M112A
still no sign of SeanT’s predicted millions of British deaths, though.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/18871248.internal-market-bill-majority-back-referendum-westminster-power-grab/
"MOST Scots believe any changes to Holyrood’s powers after Brexit has been completed should only come into effect if voters in Scotland agree to them, according to a new poll.
The survey found 66% of Scots think the changes proposed by Boris Johnson’s controversial Internal Market Bill over the Scottish Parliament’s remit must be agreed in a plebiscite if they are to come into effect."
Britain had originally planned to ban the sale of new petrol and diesel-powered cars from 2040, as part of efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and in February Johnson brought this forward to 2035.
Citing unidentified industry and government figures, the FT said Johnson now intended to move the date forward again to 2030 in a speech on environmental policy he is expected to give next week.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/britain-autos/uk-to-ban-sale-of-new-petrol-and-diesel-cars-from-2030-ft-idUSL1N2I007X
And the superspreaders lost the election too.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/scottish-tory-candidate-apologises-canaries-23008017
I like the way he wants restrctions to be lifted to improve the Edinburgh economy, pubs, etc. but then goes and spends his dosh elsewhere.
I am so glad I am just two years into the purchase of a new £45,000 Mercedes Benz C300 cabriolet. Looking forward to heartily laughing at the residual value, when I come to change that car.
Thanks for your thoughtful comment, Roy.
I'm not unfamiliar with the notion. You see it on the racetrack sometimes. I'm fond of quoting the 1996 Gold Cup when One Man was sent off 11/8 favorite despite overwhelming evidence that he didn't get the distance. I watched from the centre of the track as he stopped as if shot at the bottom of the hill, two furlongs from the finish.
I'm not sure that is the explanation here, but I can't think what the answer is.
You have your republic, madam, if you can keep it.
The Supreme may be loaded in the President's favor but the case has to actually get to them first, and even they have to see some evidence. On all known facts to date, I would confidently predict 9-0 to Biden, even in the unlikely event it got that far.
Tidal lagoons might be a smart place to start...
Van Damme it.
I doubt Boris will gain a single extra vote for making a big play out of moving forward this deadline another 5 years.
E- vehcles is laudible, if the idea has been thought through by 2030.
Btw, I don't agree this is a 'lot of small bets'. If you watch the numbers stacked up on the bet and lay side (beats watching grass grow but only just) you will see formidable sums sitting there without change for some minutes, and then you will see a big shift on one side or maybe both. This isn't a reflection of slow updating; Betfair updates pretty swiftly and in any case you can update it yourself to see what is being put down and how quickly. What it suggests is that money is being put down in large slabs.
This suggests serious punters to me. A further suggestion is that you don't see the same behaviour on the relatively small state markets. They behave much more normally.
I think there are some serious punters involved in this, but what their game is i have no idea.
And that is what we do need. Electric vehicles powered by domestic energy, which we could have, would be excellent. No more imports of millions of barrels of oil. No more pollution from transport in our cities.
But it will take massive investment and we need to start right now on generation and distribution. Ten years isn’t long to get this right.
What is the point?
Notable though that HS2 apart none of them have actually got beyond ideas.
Grandson Two has just bought (or his father has for him) his first car. Petrol, eight years old, 50k on the clock, one careful lady owner etc. (that's probably true; the lad's father is good on such matters) How much is the equivalent 8 year old car going to be worth in 2030? I know the restriction is only going to apply to new cars.
One of the reasons he's bought it is because he feels he wants a manual car. However, how many cars will there be with gears in 20 years time?
https://twitter.com/autosport/status/1327628179197087747
To push these things through you need to be on the ball and absolutely driven that you are doing the right thing. Instead we still haven't got the airport capacity expansion done, after how many years of talking?
Joined up government.
💨🔌
What you are effectively saying here is that these punters are stupid. In my experience, serious punters are not stupid. The stupid ones are by definition no longer serious, having mostly been separated from their money long ago.
That could be a factor here, but unlikely on the kind of scale we are talking about.
However, if done properly the huge level of investment needed to achieve this could be directed at the poorer parts of the nation, often around the coast where power is plentiful, to create plenty of job opportunities in businesses that could genuinely grow to be world leading.
The very people our response to Covid is supposed to help are the ones suffering the most.
Tomex McGrath
https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/11/13/we-have-abandoned-the-elderly-to-a-fate-worse-than-death/