politicalbetting
Home› General

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Sign In Register

Categories

Should Betfair continue to allow punters to bet on Trump or should the market be settled now? – poli

SystemSystem Posts: 12,128
edited November 2020 in General
imageShould Betfair continue to allow punters to bet on Trump or should the market be settled now? – politicalbetting.com

The Betfair 2020 next president market at 1500 Nov 19

Read the full story here

«134

Comments

  • ClippPClippP Posts: 1,889
    edited November 2020
    First. And continuing the discussion about Betfair from the previous thread, I see that the Chairman of the Gambling Commission is a certain Bill Moyes, a dentist. He lists his interests as

    Banking, funding the building of hospitals
    Director-General of the British Retail Consortium
    Executive Chairman of Monitor, the Independent Regulator of NHS Foundation Trusts.
    Other board appointments including the Priory Hospital Group, the Legal Services Board and the Office of Fair Trading.

    Does this inspire confidence?
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 2,507
    Second? Having a power cut here. Candles on. Reminds me of the 70s.
  • po8crgpo8crg Posts: 27
    edited November 2020
    Third.

    I think that Betfair are very happily looking at their vig and really won't want to shut down the market until they absolutely have to.

    My guess is that they will wait for the swing states to formally certify their results.
  • MightyAlexMightyAlex Posts: 1,641
    I see the last £200mill matched as a MAGA tax. I took what I could at ~1.1. Seemed it would otherwise end up in the Trump's grift fund.
  • pingping Posts: 3,805
    edited November 2020
    Betfair/flutter appear to have significantly restructured their operations in recent years. I don’t think they have any shadsy-equivalent “experts” generating/settling the politics markets.

    The job of settling the market is too important for the teaboys and not important enough for the board.

    A ridiculous situation
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,639
    O/T but germane to Mr Johnson's charm offensive in Scotland -

    https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/scottish-views-boris-johnsons-handling-pandemic-hit-new-low

    "Just 19% of the Scottish public now feel that Boris Johnson is handling the pandemic well, while 62% feel he is handling it badly. In sharp contrast, 74% say Nicola Sturgeon is handling it well and just 13% that she is handling it badly. (Fieldwork took place prior to Boris Johnson’s recent comments about Scottish Devolution, in which he was widely reported to have described it as “a disaster”.)"

    Poll commissioned by the vile separatist BBC Scotland.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,209
    Carnyx said:

    O/T but germane to Mr Johnson's charm offensive in Scotland -

    https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/scottish-views-boris-johnsons-handling-pandemic-hit-new-low

    "Just 19% of the Scottish public now feel that Boris Johnson is handling the pandemic well, while 62% feel he is handling it badly. In sharp contrast, 74% say Nicola Sturgeon is handling it well and just 13% that she is handling it badly. (Fieldwork took place prior to Boris Johnson’s recent comments about Scottish Devolution, in which he was widely reported to have described it as “a disaster”.)"

    Poll commissioned by the vile separatist BBC Scotland.

    Surprised they published after not getting the result they wanted
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,873
    Scott_xP said:

    https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1329460673848483843

    Really? This is the hill they want to die on? Jeremy '30 years on the backbenches' Corbyn? Worst result since 1935 guy is the man who cannot be allowed to face even minor consequences for his political lifetime of willful (if principled) lack of party loyalty?
    paulyork64 said:

    Second? Having a power cut here. Candles on. Reminds me of the 70s.

    Been having those several times in the last month round my way. I never experienced the 70s, but as a millenial I cannot cope without the internet!
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,639
    malcolmg said:

    Carnyx said:

    O/T but germane to Mr Johnson's charm offensive in Scotland -

    https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/scottish-views-boris-johnsons-handling-pandemic-hit-new-low

    "Just 19% of the Scottish public now feel that Boris Johnson is handling the pandemic well, while 62% feel he is handling it badly. In sharp contrast, 74% say Nicola Sturgeon is handling it well and just 13% that she is handling it badly. (Fieldwork took place prior to Boris Johnson’s recent comments about Scottish Devolution, in which he was widely reported to have described it as “a disaster”.)"

    Poll commissioned by the vile separatist BBC Scotland.

    Surprised they published after not getting the result they wanted
    Hello, Malky. Makes good clickbait for their site from their point of view, I suppose ...

    It's not just Mr J - the UK Gmt doesn't do much better than him vis a v is the Scottish one.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,873
    Cyclefree said:

    Scott_xP said:

    https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1329460673848483843

    I hope he tells them to get stuffed and that if they want to be the sort of donors who use their money to buy advantage, they can join the Tory party.
    Well, being realistic of course they think their donations buys them advantage, that's what all big doners do and they don't magically become altruistic just because it comes from a Trade Union. It probably does buy advantage, as the big ones to the Tories unfortunately do. But you're not supposed to be so blatant when trying to purchase advantage, as it allows Starmer to stick to his guns and take the moral high ground in the face of those who want to buy his influence. I suspect it just makes middle ground voters more inclined to like him.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,599
    ping said:

    Betfair/flutter appear to have significantly restructured their operations in recent years. I don’t think they have any shadsy-equivalent “experts” generating/settling the politics markets.

    The job of settling the market is too important for the teaboys and not important enough for the board.

    A ridiculous situation

    The settlement of the main presidential market will likely need approval from their most senior lawyer if not someone at board level - it wont be down to the teaboy! A mistake could cost them tens of millions of pounds.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,314
    rural_voter said:

    kinabalu said:

    Peter_the_Punter said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Betdaq has settled its POTUS market.

    Yesterday I paid a rare visit to the Betfair Community Forum and checked out what people were saying about the open Presidential Markets.

    As you may imagine, the posts were almost uniformly critical. One of the more considered and restrained comments reflected on how Betfair had really got itself into a tangle by not sticking to its own rules. Having paid out on numerous State markets it is lingering over others and the main events for no discernible reason. If they are not paying out now, it's hard to see when they will or why they should do so at all.

    They need an 'event' to get them off the hook. Obviously if Trump conceded he would give them a face-saving formula, even though concession was never part of the rules. The same would apply to certification.

    The fact is they are making the rules up as they go along. They are playing a risky game. If I placed a losing bet on Trump now, I think I'd be entitled to ask for my money back later on the grounds they shouldn't have accepted a bet on an event that is over.

    It's almost worth £50 just for the pleasure of reporting the matter to the Gambling Commission.
    Yep. They have settled 44 states on the call but have not do so for the ones which have put Biden over the top and made him WINNER under the most obvious interpretation of their rules. They should have settled the outright market on the call of PA. Either that or they should have waited for a cert for all the states. Upshot is they are now stuck in a logic free no man's land and need an event to close it out. My best guess is they will now not settle until states worth 270+ have been certified for Biden. Lots of extra commission earned but a poor show imo.
    I gather that the Gambling Commission is useless but if needed bettors should be protected by consumer law. This is quite far-reaching in the way it's on the side of the consumer (It needs to be, dealing with some businesses.)

    Smarkets behaved in the opposite way, i.e. deemed that Trump had conceded and settled my bet to my disadvantage. What?? BBC R4 News said that he hadn't yet conceded. Other broadcasters say the same.
    Good luck trying to persuade a court that Betfair should have paid out before the result was certified. By the time your lawyer has sent them a letter, and their lawyer has replied, they’ll have settled the market - and you’ll be out a hundred or two for your letter.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,513
    kle4 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1329460673848483843

    Really? This is the hill they want to die on? Jeremy '30 years on the backbenches' Corbyn? Worst result since 1935 guy is the man who cannot be allowed to face even minor consequences for his political lifetime of willful (if principled) lack of party loyalty?
    paulyork64 said:

    Second? Having a power cut here. Candles on. Reminds me of the 70s.

    Been having those several times in the last month round my way. I never experienced the 70s, but as a millenial I cannot cope without the internet!
    Mobile phone & large external rechargeable battery is good for 24 hours at least. Strongly recommend having one of the latter; they’re not expensive, and when you really need them, they’re invaluable.
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,793
    I sympathise with Betfair here - people have to realise they are not bookies they are middlemen . They cannot settle until a event is definitley known (I dont know the rules on this but it seems like it is who is sworn in so will not settle until Jan?)
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 49,586
    UK cases by specimen date

    image
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,344
    The retiring President is about to have a Press Conference, IIRC. Read somewhere it was to be at noon, EST.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 49,586
    UK cases by specimen date and scaled to 100K population

    image
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 49,586
    UK local R

    image
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,314
    ping said:

    Betfair/flutter appear to have significantly restructured their operations in recent years. I don’t think they have any shadsy-equivalent “experts” generating/settling the politics markets.

    The job of settling the market is too important for the teaboys and not important enough for the board.

    A ridiculous situation

    Given the value of the main market, it’s almost certainly at the director of operations level, if not the full board.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 49,586
    UK case summary

    image
    image
    image
    image
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 49,586
    UK hospitals

    image
    image
    image
    image
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 49,586
    UK deaths

    image
    image
    image
  • MattWMattW Posts: 22,703
    edited November 2020
    First.

    Not.

    (Too much Borat.)
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 49,586
    UK R

    From case data

    image
    image

    From hospital admissions

    image
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,513
    ‘Traitors to the president’: Conservatives fear public preparation for Biden term
    https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/18/conservatives-biden-presidential-transition-437945

    ‘Traitors’ ?

    Just what kind of allegiance do these people think they owe Trump ?
    They are either utterly craven, or completely nuts.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,599
    Nigelb said:

    ‘Traitors to the president’: Conservatives fear public preparation for Biden term
    https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/18/conservatives-biden-presidential-transition-437945

    ‘Traitors’ ?

    Just what kind of allegiance do these people think they owe Trump ?
    They are either utterly craven, or completely nuts.

    Replace "either/or" with "and".
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821
    Nigelb said:

    ‘..
    They are either utterly craven, or completely nuts.

    I don't think it's either/or.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    malcolmg said:

    Carnyx said:

    O/T but germane to Mr Johnson's charm offensive in Scotland -

    https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/scottish-views-boris-johnsons-handling-pandemic-hit-new-low

    "Just 19% of the Scottish public now feel that Boris Johnson is handling the pandemic well, while 62% feel he is handling it badly. In sharp contrast, 74% say Nicola Sturgeon is handling it well and just 13% that she is handling it badly. (Fieldwork took place prior to Boris Johnson’s recent comments about Scottish Devolution, in which he was widely reported to have described it as “a disaster”.)"

    Poll commissioned by the vile separatist BBC Scotland.

    Surprised they published after not getting the result they wanted
    Pretty sure they got the result they wanted.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,947
    They might settle the outright winner on the GA recount but I don't see it myself. They have 5 other states still trading - WI, MI, PA, NV, AZ - so GA does not get Biden to 270 in Betfair "states settled" world. They'd need a pretext for suddenly settling most of them too. They have settled the other 44 on the call but have not done so for these 6. What I predict is they will settle each of these 6 "disputed" states on certification and will settle their outright market only when Biden has an aggregate 270+ EC projected votes from states they have also settled. I think this is their most defensible way out from here.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 22,703
    kle4 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1329460673848483843

    Really? This is the hill they want to die on? Jeremy '30 years on the backbenches' Corbyn? Worst result since 1935 guy is the man who cannot be allowed to face even minor consequences for his political lifetime of willful (if principled) lack of party loyalty?
    paulyork64 said:

    Second? Having a power cut here. Candles on. Reminds me of the 70s.

    Been having those several times in the last month round my way. I never experienced the 70s, but as a millenial I cannot cope without the internet!
    Don't feel as if you missed out. Those wanting to renationalise everything will try and make sure you do before too long.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    state_go_away said:

    I sympathise with Betfair here - people have to realise they are not bookies they are middlemen . They cannot settle until a event is definitley known (I dont know the rules on this but it seems like it is who is sworn in so will not settle until Jan?)

    The point is the rules for the market are abysmally worded.

    It is settled based on projected EC votes.

    By whom it is projected is not stated.

    They have settled the majority of state markets before the states certified.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,873
    edited November 2020
    Cyclefree said:

    kle4 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Scott_xP said:

    https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1329460673848483843

    I hope he tells them to get stuffed and that if they want to be the sort of donors who use their money to buy advantage, they can join the Tory party.
    Well, being realistic of course they think their donations buys them advantage, that's what all big doners do and they don't magically become altruistic just because it comes from a Trade Union. It probably does buy advantage, as the big ones to the Tories unfortunately do. But you're not supposed to be so blatant when trying to purchase advantage, as it allows Starmer to stick to his guns and take the moral high ground in the face of those who want to buy his influence. I suspect it just makes middle ground voters more inclined to like him.
    Buying advantage for the benefit of your members and voters is one thing. But the unions are seeking to use their donation for the advantage of an old man who brought them to their worst defeat since 1931 and whose leadership led to a legal finding that the party had discriminated against Jews despite its self-proclaimed anti-racism.

    If that’s the sort of result they want, there are any number of lost causes they can fund. Starmer should have the balls to ignore their bullying and call it out for what it is.
    But...but he is the Left. WIthout him it is nothing, apparently.

    Must be a surprise to all those other people who were on the left, and achieving things, for many years.

    It always makes me laugh when the Corbynites bring out the 'greatest ever anti racist campaigner, caused peace in NI' etc etc stuff, since apparently he managed all that whilst being almost completely unknown outside political wonks and patiently waiting his turn to stand as leader on behalf of the troublemaker faction. Personal humility only goes so far to explain such anonymity.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,895
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Nigelb said:

    ‘..
    They are either utterly craven, or completely nuts.

    I don't think it's either/or.
    As Trump declines to travel to Georgia — instead criticizing the state’s recount efforts in a series of tweets — conservatives have also become increasingly concerned that the Democratic candidates competing in a pair of Senate runoff races there will glide to victory if Republicans fail to communicate, due to fears of upsetting Trump, what Biden and a Democratic Senate could accomplish.

    One can only hope.

    I note Trump's approval dropped to 37% with Ipsos today too.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,895
    https://twitter.com/NSF/status/1329462672627277829
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,599
    Cyclefree said:

    kle4 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Scott_xP said:

    https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1329460673848483843

    I hope he tells them to get stuffed and that if they want to be the sort of donors who use their money to buy advantage, they can join the Tory party.
    Well, being realistic of course they think their donations buys them advantage, that's what all big doners do and they don't magically become altruistic just because it comes from a Trade Union. It probably does buy advantage, as the big ones to the Tories unfortunately do. But you're not supposed to be so blatant when trying to purchase advantage, as it allows Starmer to stick to his guns and take the moral high ground in the face of those who want to buy his influence. I suspect it just makes middle ground voters more inclined to like him.
    Buying advantage for the benefit of your members and voters is one thing. But the unions are seeking to use their donation for the advantage of an old man who brought them to their worst defeat since 1931 and whose leadership led to a legal finding that the party had discriminated against Jews despite its self-proclaimed anti-racism.

    If that’s the sort of result they want, there are any number of lost causes they can fund. Starmer should have the balls to ignore their bullying and call it out for what it is.
    I would imagine there are lots of floating voters who would prefer a bigger break between Labour and the unions anyway.

    It might also be good for the future of unions. I'm sure there are lots of unions doing lots of good things on a daily basis, but the main publicity unions get to those of us not involved in that world is pretty extremist and aggressive posturing that sounds like it belongs in the last century.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,599
    Alistair said:

    state_go_away said:

    I sympathise with Betfair here - people have to realise they are not bookies they are middlemen . They cannot settle until a event is definitley known (I dont know the rules on this but it seems like it is who is sworn in so will not settle until Jan?)

    The point is the rules for the market are abysmally worded.

    It is settled based on projected EC votes.

    By whom it is projected is not stated.

    They have settled the majority of state markets before the states certified.
    Not just by whom but when. "Projected" is not necessarily a constant state even by the same person/people/institutions.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 81,460
    edited November 2020
    kle4 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1329460673848483843

    Really? This is the hill they want to die on? Jeremy '30 years on the backbenches' Corbyn? Worst result since 1935 guy is the man who cannot be allowed to face even minor consequences for his political lifetime of willful (if principled) lack of party loyalty?
    paulyork64 said:

    Second? Having a power cut here. Candles on. Reminds me of the 70s.

    Been having those several times in the last month round my way. I never experienced the 70s, but as a millenial I cannot cope without the internet!
    The way some people are willing to do everything to keep Jezza as a Labour MP you would think he was some young political genius, not some rather thick backbencher, who hasn't had an original thought in 50 years.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    JFC, I didn't realise the situation in Wisconsin was so fucked

    https://twitter.com/sbauerAP/status/1329221032566251520?s=19

    https://twitter.com/skantrow/status/1329467893520719878?s=19
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,895
    Alistair said:

    state_go_away said:

    I sympathise with Betfair here - people have to realise they are not bookies they are middlemen . They cannot settle until a event is definitley known (I dont know the rules on this but it seems like it is who is sworn in so will not settle until Jan?)

    The point is the rules for the market are abysmally worded.

    It is settled based on projected EC votes.

    By whom it is projected is not stated.

    They have settled the majority of state markets before the states certified.
    They should have probably stated by Fox, CNN, and NBC. Possibly the BBC too if you want to supersafe it all. The only overly aggresive projection made from the whole lot was Fox on Arizona.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 81,460
    edited November 2020
    COVID numbers looking like might have plateaued and this is all before lockdown effect really kicks in. We certainly not seeing the runaway number of cases experienced in places like France.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    https://twitter.com/sbauerAP/status/1329295851106217986?s=19
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Alistair said:

    state_go_away said:

    I sympathise with Betfair here - people have to realise they are not bookies they are middlemen . They cannot settle until a event is definitley known (I dont know the rules on this but it seems like it is who is sworn in so will not settle until Jan?)

    The point is the rules for the market are abysmally worded.

    It is settled based on projected EC votes.

    By whom it is projected is not stated.

    They have settled the majority of state markets before the states certified.
    To be fair it doesn't need to.

    44 states are not disputed, so there's no reason not to settle them.

    In 6 states there are ongoing court cases. Yes Betfair could settle them before the court cases are resolved, but if a court case goes in Trump's favour (not going to happen, but if it does) then what does Betfair do then?

    Betfair are within their rights to wait until the court cases are settled.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 81,460
    edited November 2020
    I thought this was a good take on post Trump defeat,

    In this episode of the podcast, Sam Harris discusses President Trump’s failure to concede the 2020 presidential election.

    https://samharris.org/podcasts/225-republic-lies/
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,895
    https://twitter.com/ASlavitt/status/1329470725967798274
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,873
    Alistair said:

    JFC, I didn't realise the situation in Wisconsin was so fucked

    https://twitter.com/sbauerAP/status/1329221032566251520?s=19

    https://twitter.com/skantrow/status/1329467893520719878?s=19

    That is so very dumb and surely cannot be legally sustainable. How can you tell people they can legally do it one way they try to throw it out?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Pulpstar said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Nigelb said:

    ‘..
    They are either utterly craven, or completely nuts.

    I don't think it's either/or.
    As Trump declines to travel to Georgia — instead criticizing the state’s recount efforts in a series of tweets — conservatives have also become increasingly concerned that the Democratic candidates competing in a pair of Senate runoff races there will glide to victory if Republicans fail to communicate, due to fears of upsetting Trump, what Biden and a Democratic Senate could accomplish.

    One can only hope.

    I note Trump's approval dropped to 37% with Ipsos today too.
    I find it hard to believe Perdue can lose when he got 49.7% in the first round.

    Would be delicious if he does, if a Winchester 1997 effect kicks in, but I don't think he will.
  • BurgessianBurgessian Posts: 2,729
    Carnyx said:

    malcolmg said:

    Carnyx said:

    O/T but germane to Mr Johnson's charm offensive in Scotland -

    https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/scottish-views-boris-johnsons-handling-pandemic-hit-new-low

    "Just 19% of the Scottish public now feel that Boris Johnson is handling the pandemic well, while 62% feel he is handling it badly. In sharp contrast, 74% say Nicola Sturgeon is handling it well and just 13% that she is handling it badly. (Fieldwork took place prior to Boris Johnson’s recent comments about Scottish Devolution, in which he was widely reported to have described it as “a disaster”.)"

    Poll commissioned by the vile separatist BBC Scotland.

    Surprised they published after not getting the result they wanted
    Hello, Malky. Makes good clickbait for their site from their point of view, I suppose ...

    It's not just Mr J - the UK Gmt doesn't do much better than him vis a v is the Scottish one.
    Well, it does a bit better....
    I think it's worth bearing in mind that there will certainly be no IndyRef so long as Boris remains PM and, I suspect, that means until the next GE (at least) - so 2024. He's far too much of a lighting rod and knows very well that he could sink the Unionist boat single-handed. Any succeeding PM much better placed simply by not being Boris.
    While I agree that denying a ref if SNP win majority may be uncomfortable, it's no way near as uncomfortable as losing one. And managing post-Covid recovery of economy is ideal cover for denying a ref.
    All the rest is wind and water, frankly.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,873
    Philip_Thompson said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Nigelb said:

    ‘..
    They are either utterly craven, or completely nuts.

    I don't think it's either/or.
    As Trump declines to travel to Georgia — instead criticizing the state’s recount efforts in a series of tweets — conservatives have also become increasingly concerned that the Democratic candidates competing in a pair of Senate runoff races there will glide to victory if Republicans fail to communicate, due to fears of upsetting Trump, what Biden and a Democratic Senate could accomplish.

    One can only hope.

    I note Trump's approval dropped to 37% with Ipsos today too.
    I find it hard to believe Perdue can lose when he got 49.7% in the first round.

    Would be delicious if he does, if a Winchester 1997 effect kicks in, but I don't think he will.
    Agreed. Ok, maybe some number of local Republicans will be put off by his antics, but set against that some people who voted Biden may simply not care as much about the senate runoffs despite the effort to convince them to do so, and some who only voted Biden because of Trump and even licking Trump's taint won't put them off Purdue, and it looks hard.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,599
    kle4 said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Nigelb said:

    ‘..
    They are either utterly craven, or completely nuts.

    I don't think it's either/or.
    As Trump declines to travel to Georgia — instead criticizing the state’s recount efforts in a series of tweets — conservatives have also become increasingly concerned that the Democratic candidates competing in a pair of Senate runoff races there will glide to victory if Republicans fail to communicate, due to fears of upsetting Trump, what Biden and a Democratic Senate could accomplish.

    One can only hope.

    I note Trump's approval dropped to 37% with Ipsos today too.
    I find it hard to believe Perdue can lose when he got 49.7% in the first round.

    Would be delicious if he does, if a Winchester 1997 effect kicks in, but I don't think he will.
    Agreed. Ok, maybe some number of local Republicans will be put off by his antics, but set against that some people who voted Biden may simply not care as much about the senate runoffs despite the effort to convince them to do so, and some who only voted Biden because of Trump and even licking Trump's taint won't put them off Purdue, and it looks hard.
    Isnt the turnout expected to be something like 20-40% smaller?

    Not many are going to switch but its quite plausible 75% of Democrat Nov voters turn out again vs 65% of Republican voters (or vice versa of course). Its not a question of preference but motivation to turnout.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    noneoftheabove said:

    kle4 said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Nigelb said:

    ‘..
    They are either utterly craven, or completely nuts.

    I don't think it's either/or.
    As Trump declines to travel to Georgia — instead criticizing the state’s recount efforts in a series of tweets — conservatives have also become increasingly concerned that the Democratic candidates competing in a pair of Senate runoff races there will glide to victory if Republicans fail to communicate, due to fears of upsetting Trump, what Biden and a Democratic Senate could accomplish.

    One can only hope.

    I note Trump's approval dropped to 37% with Ipsos today too.
    I find it hard to believe Perdue can lose when he got 49.7% in the first round.

    Would be delicious if he does, if a Winchester 1997 effect kicks in, but I don't think he will.
    Agreed. Ok, maybe some number of local Republicans will be put off by his antics, but set against that some people who voted Biden may simply not care as much about the senate runoffs despite the effort to convince them to do so, and some who only voted Biden because of Trump and even licking Trump's taint won't put them off Purdue, and it looks hard.
    Isnt the turnout expected to be something like 20-40% smaller?

    Not many are going to switch but its quite plausible 75% of Democrat Nov voters turn out again vs 65% of Republican voters (or vice versa of course). Its not a question of preference but motivation to turnout.
    I see little reason to believe differential turnout will help the Democrats.
  • SirNorfolkPassmoreSirNorfolkPassmore Posts: 7,123
    Philip_Thompson said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Nigelb said:

    ‘..
    They are either utterly craven, or completely nuts.

    I don't think it's either/or.
    As Trump declines to travel to Georgia — instead criticizing the state’s recount efforts in a series of tweets — conservatives have also become increasingly concerned that the Democratic candidates competing in a pair of Senate runoff races there will glide to victory if Republicans fail to communicate, due to fears of upsetting Trump, what Biden and a Democratic Senate could accomplish.

    One can only hope.

    I note Trump's approval dropped to 37% with Ipsos today too.
    I find it hard to believe Perdue can lose when he got 49.7% in the first round.

    Would be delicious if he does, if a Winchester 1997 effect kicks in, but I don't think he will.
    The odd thing about the run-off is that the turnout drop is likely to be huge. So, if Perdue wins, it will be with FAR fewer votes than Ossoff got in November.

    I'm wondering if postal vote turnout will hold up better than in person turnout, which would help Ossoff. But I tend to agree 49.7% was very close to not needing a run-off at all (so it's a big task to get past it), and have a gut feeling that desire for revenge and to maintain some semblance of control in the legislature from solid Republicans will probably be more significant than desire to give Biden a bare Senate majority is among Democrats.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 41,798
    Burgessian said:

    Carnyx said:

    malcolmg said:

    Carnyx said:

    O/T but germane to Mr Johnson's charm offensive in Scotland -

    https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/scottish-views-boris-johnsons-handling-pandemic-hit-new-low

    "Just 19% of the Scottish public now feel that Boris Johnson is handling the pandemic well, while 62% feel he is handling it badly. In sharp contrast, 74% say Nicola Sturgeon is handling it well and just 13% that she is handling it badly. (Fieldwork took place prior to Boris Johnson’s recent comments about Scottish Devolution, in which he was widely reported to have described it as “a disaster”.)"

    Poll commissioned by the vile separatist BBC Scotland.

    Surprised they published after not getting the result they wanted
    Hello, Malky. Makes good clickbait for their site from their point of view, I suppose ...

    It's not just Mr J - the UK Gmt doesn't do much better than him vis a v is the Scottish one.
    Well, it does a bit better....
    I think it's worth bearing in mind that there will certainly be no IndyRef so long as Boris remains PM and, I suspect, that means until the next GE (at least) - so 2024. He's far too much of a lighting rod and knows very well that he could sink the Unionist boat single-handed. Any succeeding PM much better placed simply by not being Boris.
    While I agree that denying a ref if SNP win majority may be uncomfortable, it's no way near as uncomfortable as losing one. And managing post-Covid recovery of economy is ideal cover for denying a ref.
    All the rest is wind and water, frankly.
    You're not getting a referendum cos Boris is crap is a refreshingly honest take from the 'Nats should just shut up and go away' community, frankly.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,895
    https://twitter.com/aawayne/status/1329472317240520706
  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 3,375
    O/T There is an incredible amount of Construction Work going on in Hampshire/Sussex at the moment. We are busier then we have ever been. We are also doing loads of tenders for work in the Spring. We really did not expect this to happen.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 21,965
    I was talking to a colleague in Norway earlier. She said that in Oslo there is a huge socio-economic divide in Covid infection rates. The poor districts are being hit hard, and the affluent are getting off relatively lightly.

  • MonkeysMonkeys Posts: 757
    https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/1329437293401223170
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,401
    Alistair said:

    state_go_away said:

    I sympathise with Betfair here - people have to realise they are not bookies they are middlemen . They cannot settle until a event is definitley known (I dont know the rules on this but it seems like it is who is sworn in so will not settle until Jan?)

    The point is the rules for the market are abysmally worded.

    It is settled based on projected EC votes.

    By whom it is projected is not stated.

    They have settled the majority of state markets before the states certified.
    It is terrible wording. What a mess.

    I'm getting pretty pissed off to be honest. Owed several hundred pounds.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,401
    Betfair statement:

    "US Presidential Election Settlement
    Settlement of remaining US Presidential Election related markets will not be completed until the result is beyond doubt and this may take some time."
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,342
    Philip_Thompson said:

    noneoftheabove said:

    kle4 said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Nigelb said:

    ‘..
    They are either utterly craven, or completely nuts.

    I don't think it's either/or.
    As Trump declines to travel to Georgia — instead criticizing the state’s recount efforts in a series of tweets — conservatives have also become increasingly concerned that the Democratic candidates competing in a pair of Senate runoff races there will glide to victory if Republicans fail to communicate, due to fears of upsetting Trump, what Biden and a Democratic Senate could accomplish.

    One can only hope.

    I note Trump's approval dropped to 37% with Ipsos today too.
    I find it hard to believe Perdue can lose when he got 49.7% in the first round.

    Would be delicious if he does, if a Winchester 1997 effect kicks in, but I don't think he will.
    Agreed. Ok, maybe some number of local Republicans will be put off by his antics, but set against that some people who voted Biden may simply not care as much about the senate runoffs despite the effort to convince them to do so, and some who only voted Biden because of Trump and even licking Trump's taint won't put them off Purdue, and it looks hard.
    Isnt the turnout expected to be something like 20-40% smaller?

    Not many are going to switch but its quite plausible 75% of Democrat Nov voters turn out again vs 65% of Republican voters (or vice versa of course). Its not a question of preference but motivation to turnout.
    I see little reason to believe differential turnout will help the Democrats.
    It doesn't usually. But.
    1 The Reps are pushing that elections are rigged. Why bother if you believe that?
    2 Their general behaviour ought to motivate the Dems.
    I don't fully buy it, but adds to the uncertainty.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,401
    https://twitter.com/BBCkatyaadler/status/1329468449677045762
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,113
    Philip_Thompson said:

    Alistair said:

    state_go_away said:

    I sympathise with Betfair here - people have to realise they are not bookies they are middlemen . They cannot settle until a event is definitley known (I dont know the rules on this but it seems like it is who is sworn in so will not settle until Jan?)

    The point is the rules for the market are abysmally worded.

    It is settled based on projected EC votes.

    By whom it is projected is not stated.

    They have settled the majority of state markets before the states certified.
    To be fair it doesn't need to.

    44 states are not disputed, so there's no reason not to settle them.

    In 6 states there are ongoing court cases. Yes Betfair could settle them before the court cases are resolved, but if a court case goes in Trump's favour (not going to happen, but if it does) then what does Betfair do then?

    Betfair are within their rights to wait until the court cases are settled.
    I think they are within their rights to wait for individual state certification, and pay out on the overall markets (winning party etc) when 270 is reached.

    I don`t believe that are within their rights to postpone settlement until all court cases are exhausted though.

    When a state result is certified then this has to satisfy the "projected" in the BF rules, surely.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,664
    edited November 2020
    Trump now out to 22 - longest he's been since immediate aftermath of election day.

    Everyone on CNN talking about imminent certification of key states results in next few days - but will these results actually be certified if all Republicans on canvassing boards vote No?

    Posts above suggest Wisconsin may well not vote to certify.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,113
    SandyRentool said:

    I was talking to a colleague in Norway earlier. She said that in Oslo there is a huge socio-economic divide in Covid infection rates. The poor districts are being hit hard, and the affluent are getting off relatively lightly.

    More underlying health issues with poorer cohorts I`m guessing. And closer contacts with each other, perhaps?

    I doubt if covid is any different to other ailments to be honest (flu etc).
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,113
    NerysHughes said:

    O/T There is an incredible amount of Construction Work going on in Hampshire/Sussex at the moment. We are busier then we have ever been. We are also doing loads of tenders for work in the Spring. We really did not expect this to happen.

    Do you have any insights on particular company shares we should be buying/betting on off the back of this unexpected uptick?
  • FeersumEnjineeyaFeersumEnjineeya Posts: 4,363
    edited November 2020
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    COVID numbers looking like might have plateaued and this is all before lockdown effect really kicks in. We certainly not seeing the runaway number of cases experienced in places like France.

    Yes, it does look promising. But given that lockdown started two weeks ago, I'd suggest that it may well be due to the lockdown. That'd tie in with the recent spike being due to either the end of half term or pre-lockdown socialising.

    Edit: I'd also note that France seems to have turned the corner too - cases have been falling there for a couple of weeks.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,314
    Scott_xP said:

    https://twitter.com/NSF/status/1329462672627277829

    Genuinely sad news - that was an excellent facility, responsible for thousands of discoveries over the years.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 7,483
    NerysHughes said:

    O/T There is an incredible amount of Construction Work going on in Hampshire/Sussex at the moment. We are busier then we have ever been. We are also doing loads of tenders for work in the Spring. We really did not expect this to happen.

    Although you have told us a number of times including the number of apprentices your hiring
  • BannedinnParisBannedinnParis Posts: 1,884
    "That'd tie in with the recent spike being due to either the end of half term or pre-lockdown socialising."

    Relative numbers involved suggests one more likely than the other.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,113
    FeersumEnjineeya said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    COVID numbers looking like might have plateaued and this is all before lockdown effect really kicks in. We certainly not seeing the runaway number of cases experienced in places like France.

    Yes, it does look promising. But given that lockdown started two ago, I'd suggest that it may well be due to the lockdown. That'd tie in with the recent spike being due to either the end of half term or pre-lockdown socialising.
    What would people give the chance of lockdown being extended past 3 December? I`d feeling it`s a 6/10 chance.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,314
    NerysHughes said:

    O/T There is an incredible amount of Construction Work going on in Hampshire/Sussex at the moment. We are busier then we have ever been. We are also doing loads of tenders for work in the Spring. We really did not expect this to happen.

    There’s hundreds of thousands of middle-class city workers in those areas, who have saved a lot of money this year with no commuting or holidays, who might as well invest in some refurbishments if they’re going to keep working from home to much longer.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,639
    edited November 2020
    Burgessian said:

    Carnyx said:

    malcolmg said:

    Carnyx said:

    O/T but germane to Mr Johnson's charm offensive in Scotland -

    https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/scottish-views-boris-johnsons-handling-pandemic-hit-new-low

    "Just 19% of the Scottish public now feel that Boris Johnson is handling the pandemic well, while 62% feel he is handling it badly. In sharp contrast, 74% say Nicola Sturgeon is handling it well and just 13% that she is handling it badly. (Fieldwork took place prior to Boris Johnson’s recent comments about Scottish Devolution, in which he was widely reported to have described it as “a disaster”.)"

    Poll commissioned by the vile separatist BBC Scotland.

    Surprised they published after not getting the result they wanted
    Hello, Malky. Makes good clickbait for their site from their point of view, I suppose ...

    It's not just Mr J - the UK Gmt doesn't do much better than him vis a v is the Scottish one.
    Well, it does a bit better....
    I think it's worth bearing in mind that there will certainly be no IndyRef so long as Boris remains PM and, I suspect, that means until the next GE (at least) - so 2024. He's far too much of a lighting rod and knows very well that he could sink the Unionist boat single-handed. Any succeeding PM much better placed simply by not being Boris.
    While I agree that denying a ref if SNP win majority may be uncomfortable, it's no way near as uncomfortable as losing one. And managing post-Covid recovery of economy is ideal cover for denying a ref.
    All the rest is wind and water, frankly.
    Hmm. Mrs T once said that a simple SNP majority edit@ in the Scottish seats at Westminster was enough. Now the goalposts have shifted, to and past the successive double and now triple mandate, to what is good for Mr Johnson's legacy/reputation?

    Also - on one point, the Scottish Greens need to be included, don't forget. They're the other pro-indy party at Holyrood.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,401
    Stocky said:

    FeersumEnjineeya said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    COVID numbers looking like might have plateaued and this is all before lockdown effect really kicks in. We certainly not seeing the runaway number of cases experienced in places like France.

    Yes, it does look promising. But given that lockdown started two ago, I'd suggest that it may well be due to the lockdown. That'd tie in with the recent spike being due to either the end of half term or pre-lockdown socialising.
    What would people give the chance of lockdown being extended past 3 December? I`d feeling it`s a 6/10 chance.
    9/10

    But it will be called 'regional' 'tiered' mini lockdowns.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,113
    Feeling pissed off today.

    Nothing to bet on and no gym to go to and no plane I can fuck off on.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,113
    rottenborough said:

    Stocky said:

    FeersumEnjineeya said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    COVID numbers looking like might have plateaued and this is all before lockdown effect really kicks in. We certainly not seeing the runaway number of cases experienced in places like France.

    Yes, it does look promising. But given that lockdown started two ago, I'd suggest that it may well be due to the lockdown. That'd tie in with the recent spike being due to either the end of half term or pre-lockdown socialising.
    What would people give the chance of lockdown being extended past 3 December? I`d feeling it`s a 6/10 chance.
    9/10

    But it will be called 'regional' 'tiered' mini lockdowns.
    Oh, that`s different. I meant nationwide lockdown.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,928
    Sandpit said:

    Scott_xP said:

    https://twitter.com/NSF/status/1329462672627277829

    Genuinely sad news - that was an excellent facility, responsible for thousands of discoveries over the years.
    Isn't that from Goldeneye?
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,113
    rottenborough said:

    https://twitter.com/BBCkatyaadler/status/1329468449677045762

    They won`t. They know we`ll cave. Cummings going was the final indicator of that.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Stocky said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Alistair said:

    state_go_away said:

    I sympathise with Betfair here - people have to realise they are not bookies they are middlemen . They cannot settle until a event is definitley known (I dont know the rules on this but it seems like it is who is sworn in so will not settle until Jan?)

    The point is the rules for the market are abysmally worded.

    It is settled based on projected EC votes.

    By whom it is projected is not stated.

    They have settled the majority of state markets before the states certified.
    To be fair it doesn't need to.

    44 states are not disputed, so there's no reason not to settle them.

    In 6 states there are ongoing court cases. Yes Betfair could settle them before the court cases are resolved, but if a court case goes in Trump's favour (not going to happen, but if it does) then what does Betfair do then?

    Betfair are within their rights to wait until the court cases are settled.
    I think they are within their rights to wait for individual state certification, and pay out on the overall markets (winning party etc) when 270 is reached.

    I don`t believe that are within their rights to postpone settlement until all court cases are exhausted though.

    When a state result is certified then this has to satisfy the "projected" in the BF rules, surely.
    Aren't the court cases likely to be settled before the certification occurs?
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,342
    Stocky said:

    FeersumEnjineeya said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    COVID numbers looking like might have plateaued and this is all before lockdown effect really kicks in. We certainly not seeing the runaway number of cases experienced in places like France.

    Yes, it does look promising. But given that lockdown started two ago, I'd suggest that it may well be due to the lockdown. That'd tie in with the recent spike being due to either the end of half term or pre-lockdown socialising.
    What would people give the chance of lockdown being extended past 3 December? I`d feeling it`s a 6/10 chance.
    Where? I would say 9/10 to be extended somewhere.
    1/10 to be nationally.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,513
    Philip_Thompson said:

    Stocky said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Alistair said:

    state_go_away said:

    I sympathise with Betfair here - people have to realise they are not bookies they are middlemen . They cannot settle until a event is definitley known (I dont know the rules on this but it seems like it is who is sworn in so will not settle until Jan?)

    The point is the rules for the market are abysmally worded.

    It is settled based on projected EC votes.

    By whom it is projected is not stated.

    They have settled the majority of state markets before the states certified.
    To be fair it doesn't need to.

    44 states are not disputed, so there's no reason not to settle them.

    In 6 states there are ongoing court cases. Yes Betfair could settle them before the court cases are resolved, but if a court case goes in Trump's favour (not going to happen, but if it does) then what does Betfair do then?

    Betfair are within their rights to wait until the court cases are settled.
    I think they are within their rights to wait for individual state certification, and pay out on the overall markets (winning party etc) when 270 is reached.

    I don`t believe that are within their rights to postpone settlement until all court cases are exhausted though.

    When a state result is certified then this has to satisfy the "projected" in the BF rules, surely.
    Aren't the court cases likely to be settled before the certification occurs?
    Not if my cousin Rudy has anything to do with it...
    https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1329475793647407104
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,401
    Stocky said:

    rottenborough said:

    Stocky said:

    FeersumEnjineeya said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    COVID numbers looking like might have plateaued and this is all before lockdown effect really kicks in. We certainly not seeing the runaway number of cases experienced in places like France.

    Yes, it does look promising. But given that lockdown started two ago, I'd suggest that it may well be due to the lockdown. That'd tie in with the recent spike being due to either the end of half term or pre-lockdown socialising.
    What would people give the chance of lockdown being extended past 3 December? I`d feeling it`s a 6/10 chance.
    9/10

    But it will be called 'regional' 'tiered' mini lockdowns.
    Oh, that`s different. I meant nationwide lockdown.
    0/10

    But Johnson doesn't need one as he can have half a dozen regional lockdowns instead.

    Whether we will fall for this ever-so-clever ruse is another matter.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited November 2020
    Carnyx said:

    Burgessian said:

    Carnyx said:

    malcolmg said:

    Carnyx said:

    O/T but germane to Mr Johnson's charm offensive in Scotland -

    https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/scottish-views-boris-johnsons-handling-pandemic-hit-new-low

    "Just 19% of the Scottish public now feel that Boris Johnson is handling the pandemic well, while 62% feel he is handling it badly. In sharp contrast, 74% say Nicola Sturgeon is handling it well and just 13% that she is handling it badly. (Fieldwork took place prior to Boris Johnson’s recent comments about Scottish Devolution, in which he was widely reported to have described it as “a disaster”.)"

    Poll commissioned by the vile separatist BBC Scotland.

    Surprised they published after not getting the result they wanted
    Hello, Malky. Makes good clickbait for their site from their point of view, I suppose ...

    It's not just Mr J - the UK Gmt doesn't do much better than him vis a v is the Scottish one.
    Well, it does a bit better....
    I think it's worth bearing in mind that there will certainly be no IndyRef so long as Boris remains PM and, I suspect, that means until the next GE (at least) - so 2024. He's far too much of a lighting rod and knows very well that he could sink the Unionist boat single-handed. Any succeeding PM much better placed simply by not being Boris.
    While I agree that denying a ref if SNP win majority may be uncomfortable, it's no way near as uncomfortable as losing one. And managing post-Covid recovery of economy is ideal cover for denying a ref.
    All the rest is wind and water, frankly.
    Hmm. Mrs T once said that a simple SNP majority edit@ in the Scottish seats at Westminster was enough. Now the goalposts have shifted, to and past the successive double and now triple mandate, to what is good for Mr Johnson's legacy/reputation?

    Also - on one point, the Scottish Greens need to be included, don't forget. They're the other pro-indy party at Holyrood.
    Did she ever actually say that? Many say she said that but I've never seen a source of her actually saying it.

    It seems to be one of those things that are much retold but there doesn't seem to be any clips of her actually saying it.
  • BurgessianBurgessian Posts: 2,729
    Carnyx said:

    Burgessian said:

    Carnyx said:

    malcolmg said:

    Carnyx said:

    O/T but germane to Mr Johnson's charm offensive in Scotland -

    https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/scottish-views-boris-johnsons-handling-pandemic-hit-new-low

    "Just 19% of the Scottish public now feel that Boris Johnson is handling the pandemic well, while 62% feel he is handling it badly. In sharp contrast, 74% say Nicola Sturgeon is handling it well and just 13% that she is handling it badly. (Fieldwork took place prior to Boris Johnson’s recent comments about Scottish Devolution, in which he was widely reported to have described it as “a disaster”.)"

    Poll commissioned by the vile separatist BBC Scotland.

    Surprised they published after not getting the result they wanted
    Hello, Malky. Makes good clickbait for their site from their point of view, I suppose ...

    It's not just Mr J - the UK Gmt doesn't do much better than him vis a v is the Scottish one.
    Well, it does a bit better....
    I think it's worth bearing in mind that there will certainly be no IndyRef so long as Boris remains PM and, I suspect, that means until the next GE (at least) - so 2024. He's far too much of a lighting rod and knows very well that he could sink the Unionist boat single-handed. Any succeeding PM much better placed simply by not being Boris.
    While I agree that denying a ref if SNP win majority may be uncomfortable, it's no way near as uncomfortable as losing one. And managing post-Covid recovery of economy is ideal cover for denying a ref.
    All the rest is wind and water, frankly.
    Hmm. Mrs T once said that a simple SNP majority edit@ in the Scottish seats at Westminster was enough. Now the goalposts have shifted, to and past the successive double and now triple mandate, to what is good for Mr Johnson's legacy/reputation?

    Also - on one point, the Scottish Greens need to be included, don't forget. They're the other pro-indy party at Holyrood.
    Don't think Mrs T is terribly relevant TBH.

    Question is why would Boris grant a Section 30? I can think of lots of reasons - including a very big one - why he wouldn't. Struggling to think of any why he would.

    And there is a very big political difference between SNP winning an absolute majority as they did in 2011, and not winning one (even if Greens put pro-Indy over the top.) The latter scenario would look like a very major disappointment.



  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,113
    dixiedean said:

    Stocky said:

    FeersumEnjineeya said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    COVID numbers looking like might have plateaued and this is all before lockdown effect really kicks in. We certainly not seeing the runaway number of cases experienced in places like France.

    Yes, it does look promising. But given that lockdown started two ago, I'd suggest that it may well be due to the lockdown. That'd tie in with the recent spike being due to either the end of half term or pre-lockdown socialising.
    What would people give the chance of lockdown being extended past 3 December? I`d feeling it`s a 6/10 chance.
    Where? I would say 9/10 to be extended somewhere.
    1/10 to be nationally.
    Sure, I meant nationally. Do you think that reversion to a regional approach will mean that travel will default to the corridor approach?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,639
    Burgessian said:

    Carnyx said:

    Burgessian said:

    Carnyx said:

    malcolmg said:

    Carnyx said:

    O/T but germane to Mr Johnson's charm offensive in Scotland -

    https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/scottish-views-boris-johnsons-handling-pandemic-hit-new-low

    "Just 19% of the Scottish public now feel that Boris Johnson is handling the pandemic well, while 62% feel he is handling it badly. In sharp contrast, 74% say Nicola Sturgeon is handling it well and just 13% that she is handling it badly. (Fieldwork took place prior to Boris Johnson’s recent comments about Scottish Devolution, in which he was widely reported to have described it as “a disaster”.)"

    Poll commissioned by the vile separatist BBC Scotland.

    Surprised they published after not getting the result they wanted
    Hello, Malky. Makes good clickbait for their site from their point of view, I suppose ...

    It's not just Mr J - the UK Gmt doesn't do much better than him vis a v is the Scottish one.
    Well, it does a bit better....
    I think it's worth bearing in mind that there will certainly be no IndyRef so long as Boris remains PM and, I suspect, that means until the next GE (at least) - so 2024. He's far too much of a lighting rod and knows very well that he could sink the Unionist boat single-handed. Any succeeding PM much better placed simply by not being Boris.
    While I agree that denying a ref if SNP win majority may be uncomfortable, it's no way near as uncomfortable as losing one. And managing post-Covid recovery of economy is ideal cover for denying a ref.
    All the rest is wind and water, frankly.
    Hmm. Mrs T once said that a simple SNP majority edit@ in the Scottish seats at Westminster was enough. Now the goalposts have shifted, to and past the successive double and now triple mandate, to what is good for Mr Johnson's legacy/reputation?

    Also - on one point, the Scottish Greens need to be included, don't forget. They're the other pro-indy party at Holyrood.
    Don't think Mrs T is terribly relevant TBH.

    Question is why would Boris grant a Section 30? I can think of lots of reasons - including a very big one - why he wouldn't. Struggling to think of any why he would.

    And there is a very big political difference between SNP winning an absolute majority as they did in 2011, and not winning one (even if Greens put pro-Indy over the top.) The latter scenario would look like a very major disappointment.



    Formal vote for indyref at Holyrood is the killer. Also to authorise any necessary action, e.g. legal. Mr J and his chums were happy enough with Ulster Unionist and Labour dissenter MPs in Westminster.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 10,113
    rottenborough said:

    Stocky said:

    rottenborough said:

    Stocky said:

    FeersumEnjineeya said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    COVID numbers looking like might have plateaued and this is all before lockdown effect really kicks in. We certainly not seeing the runaway number of cases experienced in places like France.

    Yes, it does look promising. But given that lockdown started two ago, I'd suggest that it may well be due to the lockdown. That'd tie in with the recent spike being due to either the end of half term or pre-lockdown socialising.
    What would people give the chance of lockdown being extended past 3 December? I`d feeling it`s a 6/10 chance.
    9/10

    But it will be called 'regional' 'tiered' mini lockdowns.
    Oh, that`s different. I meant nationwide lockdown.
    0/10

    But Johnson doesn't need one as he can have half a dozen regional lockdowns instead.

    Whether we will fall for this ever-so-clever ruse is another matter.
    Why is it a ruse? Targeted lockdowns make more sense IMO.

    Do you mean there will be so many regional lockdowns that it becomes an almost-national lockdown?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Burgessian said:

    Carnyx said:

    Burgessian said:

    Carnyx said:

    malcolmg said:

    Carnyx said:

    O/T but germane to Mr Johnson's charm offensive in Scotland -

    https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/scottish-views-boris-johnsons-handling-pandemic-hit-new-low

    "Just 19% of the Scottish public now feel that Boris Johnson is handling the pandemic well, while 62% feel he is handling it badly. In sharp contrast, 74% say Nicola Sturgeon is handling it well and just 13% that she is handling it badly. (Fieldwork took place prior to Boris Johnson’s recent comments about Scottish Devolution, in which he was widely reported to have described it as “a disaster”.)"

    Poll commissioned by the vile separatist BBC Scotland.

    Surprised they published after not getting the result they wanted
    Hello, Malky. Makes good clickbait for their site from their point of view, I suppose ...

    It's not just Mr J - the UK Gmt doesn't do much better than him vis a v is the Scottish one.
    Well, it does a bit better....
    I think it's worth bearing in mind that there will certainly be no IndyRef so long as Boris remains PM and, I suspect, that means until the next GE (at least) - so 2024. He's far too much of a lighting rod and knows very well that he could sink the Unionist boat single-handed. Any succeeding PM much better placed simply by not being Boris.
    While I agree that denying a ref if SNP win majority may be uncomfortable, it's no way near as uncomfortable as losing one. And managing post-Covid recovery of economy is ideal cover for denying a ref.
    All the rest is wind and water, frankly.
    Hmm. Mrs T once said that a simple SNP majority edit@ in the Scottish seats at Westminster was enough. Now the goalposts have shifted, to and past the successive double and now triple mandate, to what is good for Mr Johnson's legacy/reputation?

    Also - on one point, the Scottish Greens need to be included, don't forget. They're the other pro-indy party at Holyrood.
    Don't think Mrs T is terribly relevant TBH.

    Question is why would Boris grant a Section 30? I can think of lots of reasons - including a very big one - why he wouldn't. Struggling to think of any why he would.

    And there is a very big political difference between SNP winning an absolute majority as they did in 2011, and not winning one (even if Greens put pro-Indy over the top.) The latter scenario would look like a very major disappointment.



    Why he should:
    1. It would be the right thing to do if the SNP win a mandate.
    2. If he doesn't it would doom the Union by stoking grievance.
    3. If he does and wins it preserves the Union.


      Why he won't:
      1. He doesn't have to.
      2. It isn't in his interests to lose.
      3. He doesn't think he can win.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,639
    Philip_Thompson said:

    Carnyx said:

    Burgessian said:

    Carnyx said:

    malcolmg said:

    Carnyx said:

    O/T but germane to Mr Johnson's charm offensive in Scotland -

    https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/scottish-views-boris-johnsons-handling-pandemic-hit-new-low

    "Just 19% of the Scottish public now feel that Boris Johnson is handling the pandemic well, while 62% feel he is handling it badly. In sharp contrast, 74% say Nicola Sturgeon is handling it well and just 13% that she is handling it badly. (Fieldwork took place prior to Boris Johnson’s recent comments about Scottish Devolution, in which he was widely reported to have described it as “a disaster”.)"

    Poll commissioned by the vile separatist BBC Scotland.

    Surprised they published after not getting the result they wanted
    Hello, Malky. Makes good clickbait for their site from their point of view, I suppose ...

    It's not just Mr J - the UK Gmt doesn't do much better than him vis a v is the Scottish one.
    Well, it does a bit better....
    I think it's worth bearing in mind that there will certainly be no IndyRef so long as Boris remains PM and, I suspect, that means until the next GE (at least) - so 2024. He's far too much of a lighting rod and knows very well that he could sink the Unionist boat single-handed. Any succeeding PM much better placed simply by not being Boris.
    While I agree that denying a ref if SNP win majority may be uncomfortable, it's no way near as uncomfortable as losing one. And managing post-Covid recovery of economy is ideal cover for denying a ref.
    All the rest is wind and water, frankly.
    Hmm. Mrs T once said that a simple SNP majority edit@ in the Scottish seats at Westminster was enough. Now the goalposts have shifted, to and past the successive double and now triple mandate, to what is good for Mr Johnson's legacy/reputation?

    Also - on one point, the Scottish Greens need to be included, don't forget. They're the other pro-indy party at Holyrood.
    Did she ever actually say that? Many say she said that but I've never seen a source of her actually saying it.

    It seems to be one of those things that are much retold but there doesn't seem to be any clips of her actually saying it.
    Can't find it in a hurry (we did discuss it before on PB) in terms of the wording I was using, from rmemory, but this is the same thing
    https://www.arcofprosperity.org/thatcher-on-scottish-independence/

    I don't have a copy of Mrs T's book, but if you have and care to check ...?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,639
    Philip_Thompson said:

    Burgessian said:

    Carnyx said:

    Burgessian said:

    Carnyx said:

    malcolmg said:

    Carnyx said:

    O/T but germane to Mr Johnson's charm offensive in Scotland -

    https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/scottish-views-boris-johnsons-handling-pandemic-hit-new-low

    "Just 19% of the Scottish public now feel that Boris Johnson is handling the pandemic well, while 62% feel he is handling it badly. In sharp contrast, 74% say Nicola Sturgeon is handling it well and just 13% that she is handling it badly. (Fieldwork took place prior to Boris Johnson’s recent comments about Scottish Devolution, in which he was widely reported to have described it as “a disaster”.)"

    Poll commissioned by the vile separatist BBC Scotland.

    Surprised they published after not getting the result they wanted
    Hello, Malky. Makes good clickbait for their site from their point of view, I suppose ...

    It's not just Mr J - the UK Gmt doesn't do much better than him vis a v is the Scottish one.
    Well, it does a bit better....
    I think it's worth bearing in mind that there will certainly be no IndyRef so long as Boris remains PM and, I suspect, that means until the next GE (at least) - so 2024. He's far too much of a lighting rod and knows very well that he could sink the Unionist boat single-handed. Any succeeding PM much better placed simply by not being Boris.
    While I agree that denying a ref if SNP win majority may be uncomfortable, it's no way near as uncomfortable as losing one. And managing post-Covid recovery of economy is ideal cover for denying a ref.
    All the rest is wind and water, frankly.
    Hmm. Mrs T once said that a simple SNP majority edit@ in the Scottish seats at Westminster was enough. Now the goalposts have shifted, to and past the successive double and now triple mandate, to what is good for Mr Johnson's legacy/reputation?

    Also - on one point, the Scottish Greens need to be included, don't forget. They're the other pro-indy party at Holyrood.
    Don't think Mrs T is terribly relevant TBH.

    Question is why would Boris grant a Section 30? I can think of lots of reasons - including a very big one - why he wouldn't. Struggling to think of any why he would.

    And there is a very big political difference between SNP winning an absolute majority as they did in 2011, and not winning one (even if Greens put pro-Indy over the top.) The latter scenario would look like a very major disappointment.



    Why he should:
    1. It would be the right thing to do if the SNP win a mandate.
    2. If he doesn't it would doom the Union by stoking grievance.
    3. If he does and wins it preserves the Union.


      Why he won't:
      1. He doesn't have to.
      2. It isn't in his interests to lose.
      3. He doesn't think he can win.
    We don't know yet that he doesn't have to - the legal side has not been played out.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Carnyx said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Carnyx said:

    Burgessian said:

    Carnyx said:

    malcolmg said:

    Carnyx said:

    O/T but germane to Mr Johnson's charm offensive in Scotland -

    https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/scottish-views-boris-johnsons-handling-pandemic-hit-new-low

    "Just 19% of the Scottish public now feel that Boris Johnson is handling the pandemic well, while 62% feel he is handling it badly. In sharp contrast, 74% say Nicola Sturgeon is handling it well and just 13% that she is handling it badly. (Fieldwork took place prior to Boris Johnson’s recent comments about Scottish Devolution, in which he was widely reported to have described it as “a disaster”.)"

    Poll commissioned by the vile separatist BBC Scotland.

    Surprised they published after not getting the result they wanted
    Hello, Malky. Makes good clickbait for their site from their point of view, I suppose ...

    It's not just Mr J - the UK Gmt doesn't do much better than him vis a v is the Scottish one.
    Well, it does a bit better....
    I think it's worth bearing in mind that there will certainly be no IndyRef so long as Boris remains PM and, I suspect, that means until the next GE (at least) - so 2024. He's far too much of a lighting rod and knows very well that he could sink the Unionist boat single-handed. Any succeeding PM much better placed simply by not being Boris.
    While I agree that denying a ref if SNP win majority may be uncomfortable, it's no way near as uncomfortable as losing one. And managing post-Covid recovery of economy is ideal cover for denying a ref.
    All the rest is wind and water, frankly.
    Hmm. Mrs T once said that a simple SNP majority edit@ in the Scottish seats at Westminster was enough. Now the goalposts have shifted, to and past the successive double and now triple mandate, to what is good for Mr Johnson's legacy/reputation?

    Also - on one point, the Scottish Greens need to be included, don't forget. They're the other pro-indy party at Holyrood.
    Did she ever actually say that? Many say she said that but I've never seen a source of her actually saying it.

    It seems to be one of those things that are much retold but there doesn't seem to be any clips of her actually saying it.
    Can't find it in a hurry (we did discuss it before on PB) in terms of the wording I was using, from rmemory, but this is the same thing
    https://www.arcofprosperity.org/thatcher-on-scottish-independence/

    I don't have a copy of Mrs T's book, but if you have and care to check ...?
    Yes that quote is legitimate but is very different from "majority of MPs". How the Scots would determine they wish to leave has not been defined there and it seems to be an extrapolation others have made that a majority of MPs would do it.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,599
    Nigelb said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Stocky said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Alistair said:

    state_go_away said:

    I sympathise with Betfair here - people have to realise they are not bookies they are middlemen . They cannot settle until a event is definitley known (I dont know the rules on this but it seems like it is who is sworn in so will not settle until Jan?)

    The point is the rules for the market are abysmally worded.

    It is settled based on projected EC votes.

    By whom it is projected is not stated.

    They have settled the majority of state markets before the states certified.
    To be fair it doesn't need to.

    44 states are not disputed, so there's no reason not to settle them.

    In 6 states there are ongoing court cases. Yes Betfair could settle them before the court cases are resolved, but if a court case goes in Trump's favour (not going to happen, but if it does) then what does Betfair do then?

    Betfair are within their rights to wait until the court cases are settled.
    I think they are within their rights to wait for individual state certification, and pay out on the overall markets (winning party etc) when 270 is reached.

    I don`t believe that are within their rights to postpone settlement until all court cases are exhausted though.

    When a state result is certified then this has to satisfy the "projected" in the BF rules, surely.
    Aren't the court cases likely to be settled before the certification occurs?
    Not if my cousin Rudy has anything to do with it...
    https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1329475793647407104
    This is like watching the end of an empire in real time. Earlier today I was suggesting Brexiteer MPs who refuse to read the UK-EU legal text but will instead judge it on the number of pages were fools. However they are intellectual titans compared to Giuliani.
  • FenmanFenman Posts: 1,047
    Carnyx said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Burgessian said:

    Carnyx said:

    Burgessian said:

    Carnyx said:

    malcolmg said:

    Carnyx said:

    O/T but germane to Mr Johnson's charm offensive in Scotland -

    https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/scottish-views-boris-johnsons-handling-pandemic-hit-new-low

    "Just 19% of the Scottish public now feel that Boris Johnson is handling the pandemic well, while 62% feel he is handling it badly. In sharp contrast, 74% say Nicola Sturgeon is handling it well and just 13% that she is handling it badly. (Fieldwork took place prior to Boris Johnson’s recent comments about Scottish Devolution, in which he was widely reported to have described it as “a disaster”.)"

    Poll commissioned by the vile separatist BBC Scotland.

    Surprised they published after not getting the result they wanted
    Hello, Malky. Makes good clickbait for their site from their point of view, I suppose ...

    It's not just Mr J - the UK Gmt doesn't do much better than him vis a v is the Scottish one.
    Well, it does a bit better....
    I think it's worth bearing in mind that there will certainly be no IndyRef so long as Boris remains PM and, I suspect, that means until the next GE (at least) - so 2024. He's far too much of a lighting rod and knows very well that he could sink the Unionist boat single-handed. Any succeeding PM much better placed simply by not being Boris.
    While I agree that denying a ref if SNP win majority may be uncomfortable, it's no way near as uncomfortable as losing one. And managing post-Covid recovery of economy is ideal cover for denying a ref.
    All the rest is wind and water, frankly.
    Hmm. Mrs T once said that a simple SNP majority edit@ in the Scottish seats at Westminster was enough. Now the goalposts have shifted, to and past the successive double and now triple mandate, to what is good for Mr Johnson's legacy/reputation?

    Also - on one point, the Scottish Greens need to be included, don't forget. They're the other pro-indy party at Holyrood.
    Don't think Mrs T is terribly relevant TBH.

    Question is why would Boris grant a Section 30? I can think of lots of reasons - including a very big one - why he wouldn't. Struggling to think of any why he would.

    And there is a very big political difference between SNP winning an absolute majority as they did in 2011, and not winning one (even if Greens put pro-Indy over the top.) The latter scenario would look like a very major disappointment.



    Why he should:
    1. It would be the right thing to do if the SNP win a mandate.
    2. If he doesn't it would doom the Union by stoking grievance.
    3. If he does and wins it preserves the Union.


      Why he won't:
      1. He doesn't have to.
      2. It isn't in his interests to lose.
      3. He doesn't think he can win.
    We don't know yet that he doesn't have to - the legal side has not been played out.
    I suspect that when the Scots see what a balls up Brexit is after 47 years they will start to wonder what Scottish independence will be like after 217.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,873
    Fenman said:

    Carnyx said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Burgessian said:

    Carnyx said:

    Burgessian said:

    Carnyx said:

    malcolmg said:

    Carnyx said:

    O/T but germane to Mr Johnson's charm offensive in Scotland -

    https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/scottish-views-boris-johnsons-handling-pandemic-hit-new-low

    "Just 19% of the Scottish public now feel that Boris Johnson is handling the pandemic well, while 62% feel he is handling it badly. In sharp contrast, 74% say Nicola Sturgeon is handling it well and just 13% that she is handling it badly. (Fieldwork took place prior to Boris Johnson’s recent comments about Scottish Devolution, in which he was widely reported to have described it as “a disaster”.)"

    Poll commissioned by the vile separatist BBC Scotland.

    Surprised they published after not getting the result they wanted
    Hello, Malky. Makes good clickbait for their site from their point of view, I suppose ...

    It's not just Mr J - the UK Gmt doesn't do much better than him vis a v is the Scottish one.
    Well, it does a bit better....
    I think it's worth bearing in mind that there will certainly be no IndyRef so long as Boris remains PM and, I suspect, that means until the next GE (at least) - so 2024. He's far too much of a lighting rod and knows very well that he could sink the Unionist boat single-handed. Any succeeding PM much better placed simply by not being Boris.
    While I agree that denying a ref if SNP win majority may be uncomfortable, it's no way near as uncomfortable as losing one. And managing post-Covid recovery of economy is ideal cover for denying a ref.
    All the rest is wind and water, frankly.
    Hmm. Mrs T once said that a simple SNP majority edit@ in the Scottish seats at Westminster was enough. Now the goalposts have shifted, to and past the successive double and now triple mandate, to what is good for Mr Johnson's legacy/reputation?

    Also - on one point, the Scottish Greens need to be included, don't forget. They're the other pro-indy party at Holyrood.
    Don't think Mrs T is terribly relevant TBH.

    Question is why would Boris grant a Section 30? I can think of lots of reasons - including a very big one - why he wouldn't. Struggling to think of any why he would.

    And there is a very big political difference between SNP winning an absolute majority as they did in 2011, and not winning one (even if Greens put pro-Indy over the top.) The latter scenario would look like a very major disappointment.



    Why he should:
    1. It would be the right thing to do if the SNP win a mandate.
    2. If he doesn't it would doom the Union by stoking grievance.
    3. If he does and wins it preserves the Union.


      Why he won't:
      1. He doesn't have to.
      2. It isn't in his interests to lose.
      3. He doesn't think he can win.
    We don't know yet that he doesn't have to - the legal side has not been played out.
    I suspect that when the Scots see what a balls up Brexit is after 47 years they will start to wonder what Scottish independence will be like after 217.
    I fear that is wishful thinking. People will always assume it will be different for them, or that the cost will bearable if it is something they want.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,639
    Philip_Thompson said:

    Carnyx said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Carnyx said:

    Burgessian said:

    Carnyx said:

    malcolmg said:

    Carnyx said:

    O/T but germane to Mr Johnson's charm offensive in Scotland -

    https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/scottish-views-boris-johnsons-handling-pandemic-hit-new-low

    "Just 19% of the Scottish public now feel that Boris Johnson is handling the pandemic well, while 62% feel he is handling it badly. In sharp contrast, 74% say Nicola Sturgeon is handling it well and just 13% that she is handling it badly. (Fieldwork took place prior to Boris Johnson’s recent comments about Scottish Devolution, in which he was widely reported to have described it as “a disaster”.)"

    Poll commissioned by the vile separatist BBC Scotland.

    Surprised they published after not getting the result they wanted
    Hello, Malky. Makes good clickbait for their site from their point of view, I suppose ...

    It's not just Mr J - the UK Gmt doesn't do much better than him vis a v is the Scottish one.
    Well, it does a bit better....
    I think it's worth bearing in mind that there will certainly be no IndyRef so long as Boris remains PM and, I suspect, that means until the next GE (at least) - so 2024. He's far too much of a lighting rod and knows very well that he could sink the Unionist boat single-handed. Any succeeding PM much better placed simply by not being Boris.
    While I agree that denying a ref if SNP win majority may be uncomfortable, it's no way near as uncomfortable as losing one. And managing post-Covid recovery of economy is ideal cover for denying a ref.
    All the rest is wind and water, frankly.
    Hmm. Mrs T once said that a simple SNP majority edit@ in the Scottish seats at Westminster was enough. Now the goalposts have shifted, to and past the successive double and now triple mandate, to what is good for Mr Johnson's legacy/reputation?

    Also - on one point, the Scottish Greens need to be included, don't forget. They're the other pro-indy party at Holyrood.
    Did she ever actually say that? Many say she said that but I've never seen a source of her actually saying it.

    It seems to be one of those things that are much retold but there doesn't seem to be any clips of her actually saying it.
    Can't find it in a hurry (we did discuss it before on PB) in terms of the wording I was using, from rmemory, but this is the same thing
    https://www.arcofprosperity.org/thatcher-on-scottish-independence/

    I don't have a copy of Mrs T's book, but if you have and care to check ...?
    Yes that quote is legitimate but is very different from "majority of MPs". How the Scots would determine they wish to leave has not been defined there and it seems to be an extrapolation others have made that a majority of MPs would do it.
    How else would it be defined in Mrs T's eyes? The number of MPs at Westminster was then the only legitimate criterion in her eyes. She would be more likely to slaughter the Downing Street cat [not that I am recommending it] and inspect its liver than go for a referendum or set up a devolved parliament.

    As Burgessian has said, it's history in a sense - but I am making the point that the target for independence has changed drastically in the eyes of the Tories within a relatively short period of time. And that this is continuing, in the views of some PBers, to the point where what is good for Mr J's future reputation is the criterion.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,639
    Fenman said:

    Carnyx said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Burgessian said:

    Carnyx said:

    Burgessian said:

    Carnyx said:

    malcolmg said:

    Carnyx said:

    O/T but germane to Mr Johnson's charm offensive in Scotland -

    https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/scottish-views-boris-johnsons-handling-pandemic-hit-new-low

    "Just 19% of the Scottish public now feel that Boris Johnson is handling the pandemic well, while 62% feel he is handling it badly. In sharp contrast, 74% say Nicola Sturgeon is handling it well and just 13% that she is handling it badly. (Fieldwork took place prior to Boris Johnson’s recent comments about Scottish Devolution, in which he was widely reported to have described it as “a disaster”.)"

    Poll commissioned by the vile separatist BBC Scotland.

    Surprised they published after not getting the result they wanted
    Hello, Malky. Makes good clickbait for their site from their point of view, I suppose ...

    It's not just Mr J - the UK Gmt doesn't do much better than him vis a v is the Scottish one.
    Well, it does a bit better....
    I think it's worth bearing in mind that there will certainly be no IndyRef so long as Boris remains PM and, I suspect, that means until the next GE (at least) - so 2024. He's far too much of a lighting rod and knows very well that he could sink the Unionist boat single-handed. Any succeeding PM much better placed simply by not being Boris.
    While I agree that denying a ref if SNP win majority may be uncomfortable, it's no way near as uncomfortable as losing one. And managing post-Covid recovery of economy is ideal cover for denying a ref.
    All the rest is wind and water, frankly.
    Hmm. Mrs T once said that a simple SNP majority edit@ in the Scottish seats at Westminster was enough. Now the goalposts have shifted, to and past the successive double and now triple mandate, to what is good for Mr Johnson's legacy/reputation?

    Also - on one point, the Scottish Greens need to be included, don't forget. They're the other pro-indy party at Holyrood.
    Don't think Mrs T is terribly relevant TBH.

    Question is why would Boris grant a Section 30? I can think of lots of reasons - including a very big one - why he wouldn't. Struggling to think of any why he would.

    And there is a very big political difference between SNP winning an absolute majority as they did in 2011, and not winning one (even if Greens put pro-Indy over the top.) The latter scenario would look like a very major disappointment.



    Why he should:
    1. It would be the right thing to do if the SNP win a mandate.
    2. If he doesn't it would doom the Union by stoking grievance.
    3. If he does and wins it preserves the Union.


      Why he won't:
      1. He doesn't have to.
      2. It isn't in his interests to lose.
      3. He doesn't think he can win.
    We don't know yet that he doesn't have to - the legal side has not been played out.
    I suspect that when the Scots see what a balls up Brexit is after 47 years they will start to wonder what Scottish independence will be like after 217.
    That's different from actually being denied the choice besause Mr J doesn't like it.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,599
    Philip_Thompson said:

    Carnyx said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Carnyx said:

    Burgessian said:

    Carnyx said:

    malcolmg said:

    Carnyx said:

    O/T but germane to Mr Johnson's charm offensive in Scotland -

    https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/scottish-views-boris-johnsons-handling-pandemic-hit-new-low

    "Just 19% of the Scottish public now feel that Boris Johnson is handling the pandemic well, while 62% feel he is handling it badly. In sharp contrast, 74% say Nicola Sturgeon is handling it well and just 13% that she is handling it badly. (Fieldwork took place prior to Boris Johnson’s recent comments about Scottish Devolution, in which he was widely reported to have described it as “a disaster”.)"

    Poll commissioned by the vile separatist BBC Scotland.

    Surprised they published after not getting the result they wanted
    Hello, Malky. Makes good clickbait for their site from their point of view, I suppose ...

    It's not just Mr J - the UK Gmt doesn't do much better than him vis a v is the Scottish one.
    Well, it does a bit better....
    I think it's worth bearing in mind that there will certainly be no IndyRef so long as Boris remains PM and, I suspect, that means until the next GE (at least) - so 2024. He's far too much of a lighting rod and knows very well that he could sink the Unionist boat single-handed. Any succeeding PM much better placed simply by not being Boris.
    While I agree that denying a ref if SNP win majority may be uncomfortable, it's no way near as uncomfortable as losing one. And managing post-Covid recovery of economy is ideal cover for denying a ref.
    All the rest is wind and water, frankly.
    Hmm. Mrs T once said that a simple SNP majority edit@ in the Scottish seats at Westminster was enough. Now the goalposts have shifted, to and past the successive double and now triple mandate, to what is good for Mr Johnson's legacy/reputation?

    Also - on one point, the Scottish Greens need to be included, don't forget. They're the other pro-indy party at Holyrood.
    Did she ever actually say that? Many say she said that but I've never seen a source of her actually saying it.

    It seems to be one of those things that are much retold but there doesn't seem to be any clips of her actually saying it.
    Can't find it in a hurry (we did discuss it before on PB) in terms of the wording I was using, from rmemory, but this is the same thing
    https://www.arcofprosperity.org/thatcher-on-scottish-independence/

    I don't have a copy of Mrs T's book, but if you have and care to check ...?
    Yes that quote is legitimate but is very different from "majority of MPs". How the Scots would determine they wish to leave has not been defined there and it seems to be an extrapolation others have made that a majority of MPs would do it.
    I dont have much of a view on the Scottish ref or whether there should be one, but it seems entirely clear that Mrs Thatchers view on the mechanism for it happening is of zero relevance. It was said many years ago, before the Scottish parliament and before the last referendum. It should have precisely zero weight, whether she said it or not.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,947
    edited November 2020
    kle4 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    kle4 said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Scott_xP said:

    https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1329460673848483843

    I hope he tells them to get stuffed and that if they want to be the sort of donors who use their money to buy advantage, they can join the Tory party.
    Well, being realistic of course they think their donations buys them advantage, that's what all big doners do and they don't magically become altruistic just because it comes from a Trade Union. It probably does buy advantage, as the big ones to the Tories unfortunately do. But you're not supposed to be so blatant when trying to purchase advantage, as it allows Starmer to stick to his guns and take the moral high ground in the face of those who want to buy his influence. I suspect it just makes middle ground voters more inclined to like him.
    Buying advantage for the benefit of your members and voters is one thing. But the unions are seeking to use their donation for the advantage of an old man who brought them to their worst defeat since 1931 and whose leadership led to a legal finding that the party had discriminated against Jews despite its self-proclaimed anti-racism.

    If that’s the sort of result they want, there are any number of lost causes they can fund. Starmer should have the balls to ignore their bullying and call it out for what it is.
    But...but he is the Left. WIthout him it is nothing, apparently.

    Must be a surprise to all those other people who were on the left, and achieving things, for many years.

    It always makes me laugh when the Corbynites bring out the 'greatest ever anti racist campaigner, caused peace in NI' etc etc stuff, since apparently he managed all that whilst being almost completely unknown outside political wonks and patiently waiting his turn to stand as leader on behalf of the troublemaker faction. Personal humility only goes so far to explain such anonymity.
    It's not about the man at all. Corbyn is a passive historical figure of symbolic importance only but the symbolism is important, hence the intensity of the fight over his fate. For the Left, his expulsion from the PLP is a sign that Starmer was snowing them when he won the Leadership contest on a promise to not junk the radicalism. And for the Jewish community, plus some Labour MPs, his getting back the whip would be a sign that Labour are still not serious about rooting out antisemitism. And then of course the Right are piggybacking on the latter to pretend they are such passionate (!) anti-racists that any party with a suspected anti-semite in is beyond the pale.

    Starmer should ignore the Right and people who would never vote Labour on this one - their views are often not offered in good faith and are in any case irrelevant - and this is the easy part. But which of the other 2 groups to side with? Tricky decision because both sides are placing too much store by it. In truth, Labour do not need to retain Corbyn to prove their radicalism. Starmer and his team are perfectly capable of writing a great manifesto without him. And Labour do not need to kick him out to prove they are dealing with antisemitism. The party has already changed beyond recognition. So it boils down purely to the electoral politics of it. There's no moral dimension. The only question is does expelling Corbyn increase the Labour vote? If so he should be expelled, and if not he shouldn't. My view is it doesn't and he shouldn't - but Starmer will have a better handle on this than me. Least I hope he does. We're in trouble otherwise.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 81,460
    edited November 2020
    Imagine if Boris told Muslim leaders you have 15 days to accept this...

    BBC News - France's Macron issues 'republican values' ultimatum to Muslim leaders
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-55001167
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 81,460
    BBC News - Jeremy Corbyn's lawyers challenge Labour over MP suspension
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55001462
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 5,331
    edited November 2020
    noneoftheabove said:

    Nigelb said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Stocky said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Alistair said:

    state_go_away said:

    I sympathise with Betfair here - people have to realise they are not bookies they are middlemen . They cannot settle until a event is definitley known (I dont know the rules on this but it seems like it is who is sworn in so will not settle until Jan?)

    The point is the rules for the market are abysmally worded.

    It is settled based on projected EC votes.

    By whom it is projected is not stated.

    They have settled the majority of state markets before the states certified.
    To be fair it doesn't need to.

    44 states are not disputed, so there's no reason not to settle them.

    In 6 states there are ongoing court cases. Yes Betfair could settle them before the court cases are resolved, but if a court case goes in Trump's favour (not going to happen, but if it does) then what does Betfair do then?

    Betfair are within their rights to wait until the court cases are settled.
    I think they are within their rights to wait for individual state certification, and pay out on the overall markets (winning party etc) when 270 is reached.

    I don`t believe that are within their rights to postpone settlement until all court cases are exhausted though.

    When a state result is certified then this has to satisfy the "projected" in the BF rules, surely.
    Aren't the court cases likely to be settled before the certification occurs?
    Not if my cousin Rudy has anything to do with it...
    https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1329475793647407104
    This is like watching the end of an empire in real time. Earlier today I was suggesting Brexiteer MPs who refuse to read the UK-EU legal text but will instead judge it on the number of pages were fools. However they are intellectual titans compared to Giuliani.
    Christ on a bike, Republicans. How much more of this nonsense can you take before you will admit Trump lost?
This discussion has been closed.