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?
I'm actually wondering if this leccy car business is an attempt to derail (if that is the right word) concerns about the UK car industry, its links with the German manufacturers, etc., by proclaiming that they are the Wrong Kind of Furrin Car? A bit like the introduction of the Dreadnought in the middle of the battleship rivalry of 1890-1914.
Need to show you are setting the agenda? Want some perceived virtue or detoxification? Announce a ludicrous green target which won't be exposed as lunacy until you are out of office.
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.
Bringing this artificial deadline forward 5 years won't change any of that, other than to make it highly unlikely that the required projects are done properly and / or completed when the massive increase capacity is required.
And in the meantime, he won't win a single extra vote for doing so. Its short term attempt at trying to boost his popularity, but won't even achieve that.
£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 would have thought the baseline was the % chance they made it themselves, even in politics, and the kind of person who looks at the price first, then decides would do that in all betting.
Need to show you are setting the agenda? Want some perceived virtue or detoxification? Announce a ludicrous green target which won't be exposed as lunacy until you are out of office.
Need to show you are setting the agenda? Want some perceived virtue or detoxification? Announce a ludicrous green target which won't be exposed as lunacy until you are out of office.
Need to show you are setting the agenda? Want some perceived virtue or detoxification? Announce a ludicrous green target which won't be exposed as lunacy until you are out of office.
Loft laggers and vegan shoe makers of the world unite....
"Tried living in the real world instead of a shell, but I was bored before I even began" a forerunner of Common People in describing MPs relationship with everyday life
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.
Bringing this artificial deadline forward 5 years won't change any of that, other than to make it highly unlikely that the required projects are done properly and / or completed when the massive increase capacity is required.
And in the meantime, he won't win a single extra vote for doing so. Its short term attempt at trying to boost his popularity, but won't even achieve that.
Disagreed. The market is already being transformed at breakneck speed anyway. This announcement doesn't apply to hybrid, already more than a quarter of the cars sold won't be affected by this announcement anyway and the proportion of hybrid or electric vehicles in the market has been growing exponentially in recent years.
Far from being an implausible claim this is simply recognising where the market is and is going anyway.
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.
It is a great idea, but inside 9 years seems a tall order, particularly when it has taken us four and a half years and counting to furnish ourselves with something as simple a Brexit trade deal.
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?
Theresa May earned got paid £400k in six months, for the second half of last year.
Need to show you are setting the agenda? Want some perceived virtue or detoxification? Announce a ludicrous green target which won't be exposed as lunacy until you are out of office.
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.
Bringing this artificial deadline forward 5 years won't change any of that, other than to make it highly unlikely that the required projects are done properly and / or completed when the massive increase capacity is required.
And in the meantime, he won't win a single extra vote for doing so. Its short term attempt at trying to boost his popularity, but won't even achieve that.
Disagreed. The market is already being transformed at breakneck speed anyway. This announcement doesn't apply to hybrid, already more than a quarter of the cars sold won't be affected by this announcement anyway and the proportion of hybrid or electric vehicles in the market has been growing exponentially in recent years.
Far from being an implausible claim this is simply recognising where the market is and is going anyway.
The last time this deadline was brought forward it did apply to hybrids.
A ban on selling new petrol, diesel or hybrid cars in the UK will be brought forward from 2040 to 2035 at the latest, under government plans.
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.
Au contraire. When Britishvolt arrives in Bridgend we will be in clover!
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?
Theresa May earned got paid £400k in six months, for the second half of last year.
Presumably, though, that was largely for giving speeches to rooms full of people at 25k/time. (Which is how Blair makes his money, although he charges north of 100k.)
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.
Far too much of governing is done on the basis of will it win votes rather than will it be effective. The UK, as with most Western economies, is going to have replace large swathes of its economy with new industries over the next decade - green tech should absolutely be at the front of that effort, popular or not.
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.
Far too much of governing is done on the basis of will it win votes rather than will it be effective. The UK, as with most Western economies, is going to have replace large swathes of its economy with new industries over the next decade - green tech should absolutely be at the front of that effort, popular or not.
But the point is, that it is neither a good policy nor a vote winner. We aren't going to have expanded capacity online and built the nationwide charging infrastructure in 9 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.
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.
You assume you will be able to sell it. Depending on how the law is written it could also ban sales of second hand petrol cars as well. I am sure that many eco friendly voters would support that.
If the goal is to remove petrol and diesel cars then it makes absolutely no sense to allow second hand sales of them as those cars will hang around for decades because people will maintain and repair them.
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
Did he really put it like that? For some reason I grown men (and women) talking about how mean others are to them rather pathetic.
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.
When people make moves which probably will not see them politically rewarded I tend to assume they genuinely think it is the right thing to do. It would be hard to think Boris thinks about anything genuinely, but given you're probably right most people would not care that much about bringing it forward, and the XR crowd will never be satisfied, perhaps he really does.
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.
£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.
you lost me at complicated, sorry.
It's worth trying to understand.
It's a perspective on betting that doesn't rely on fundamental analysis but treats it as a well informed market with a price determined by the balance of buyers and sellers.
The analysis one then does is not on the fundamentals - the market has done that - but on whether you think you are more optimistic or pessimistic on the outcome than the market as a whole.
I think I'm more optimistic that Biden will win than the market as a whole. Many in this market think or fear that Trump has a master plan that will be successful or has a good chance of so being. I don't.
£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.
you lost me at complicated, sorry.
It's worth trying to understand.
It's a perspective on betting that doesn't rely on fundamental analysis but treats it as a well informed market with a price determined by the balance of buyers and sellers.
The analysis one then does is not on the fundamentals - the market has done that - but on whether you think you are more optimistic or pessimistic on the outcome than the market as a whole.
I think I'm more optimistic that Biden will win than the market as a whole. Many in this market think or fear that Trump has a master plan that will be successful or has a good chance of so being. I don't.
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.
Bringing this artificial deadline forward 5 years won't change any of that, other than to make it highly unlikely that the required projects are done properly and / or completed when the massive increase capacity is required.
And in the meantime, he won't win a single extra vote for doing so. Its short term attempt at trying to boost his popularity, but won't even achieve that.
Disagreed. The market is already being transformed at breakneck speed anyway. This announcement doesn't apply to hybrid, already more than a quarter of the cars sold won't be affected by this announcement anyway and the proportion of hybrid or electric vehicles in the market has been growing exponentially in recent years.
Far from being an implausible claim this is simply recognising where the market is and is going anyway.
The last time this deadline was brought forward it did apply to hybrids.
A ban on selling new petrol, diesel or hybrid cars in the UK will be brought forward from 2040 to 2035 at the latest, under government plans.
Do you have a source to say this new announcement won't?
Yes the link you shared at the start of this discussion.
"The FT said the new timetable was not expected to apply to some hybrid cars which use a mixture of electric and fossil fuel propulsion and could still be sold until 2035."
£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.
Comments
And in the meantime, he won't win a single extra vote for doing so. Its short term attempt at trying to boost his popularity, but won't even achieve that.
https://twitter.com/Ed_Miliband/status/1327211506656800769?s=20
Far from being an implausible claim this is simply recognising where the market is and is going anyway.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1236438/theresa-may-brexit-boris-johnson-david-cameron-tony-blair-prime-minister
A ban on selling new petrol, diesel or hybrid cars in the UK will be brought forward from 2040 to 2035 at the latest, under government plans.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-51366123
Do you have a source to say this new announcement won't?
If the goal is to remove petrol and diesel cars then it makes absolutely no sense to allow second hand sales of them as those cars will hang around for decades because people will maintain and repair them.
NEW THREAD
It's a perspective on betting that doesn't rely on fundamental analysis but treats it as a well informed market with a price determined by the balance of buyers and sellers.
The analysis one then does is not on the fundamentals - the market has done that - but on whether you think you are more optimistic or pessimistic on the outcome than the market as a whole.
I think I'm more optimistic that Biden will win than the market as a whole. Many in this market think or fear that Trump has a master plan that will be successful or has a good chance of so being. I don't.
"The FT said the new timetable was not expected to apply to some hybrid cars which use a mixture of electric and fossil fuel propulsion and could still be sold until 2035."