politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Evening round up of the main political betting markets

First like Remain.

LOL hunchman.

FPT:

David_Evershed said:

Philip_Thompson said:

tlg86 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. 86, who's calling for Carney to be sacked?

[I suspect rather more want Osborne out].

As an aside, I did raise the point earlier that it seems peculiar the Bank of England seems more agitated about the UK leaving a political/trading bloc than it did about the UK splitting up.

The Moggster for one. Lamont isn't impressed with the Governor's intervention either. The one silver lining to staying in the EU is that we can throw stones at Osborne and Carney when we hit a big recession in the next 18 months.

Also, note Carney talking about a technical recession. He's a disgrace.

Why is that disgraceful? I would find it disgraceful if he DID NOT mean a technical recession but used the term anyway.

It is disgraceful because it is mere speculation and also it is in the midst of a political election when purdah is supposed to apply.

His job description specifically includes providing such speculation as to the risks of the economy so that point is moot.

Purdah is perhaps more valid. Not sure if purdah should apply here though (I thought from memory the purdah period hasn't started yet and furthermore it applies to the government and civil service, not sure it extends to the independent BoE.

hunchman said:

Greetings from Paralimni in Cyprus. Leave creeping up in the betting encouraging. Particularly with Cameron playing chicken.

Creeping up? That betting line is so flat you could hang a pair of curtains on it.

The great mystery of this campaign is why there's been so little variance in the betting odds.

Alistair said:

Philip_Thompson said:

hunchman said:

Greetings from Paralimni in Cyprus. Leave creeping up in the betting encouraging. Particularly with Cameron playing chicken.

Creeping up? That betting line is so flat you could hang a pair of curtains on it.

The great mystery of this campaign is why there's been so little variance in the betting odds.

Nothing has happened to change sentiment. If there was some revelation that Don't Know meant leave thenthere would be action.

What if Don't Know means Won't Vote? It seems the fairest assumption.

Luckyguy1983 said:

Alistair said:

Philip_Thompson said:

hunchman said:

Greetings from Paralimni in Cyprus. Leave creeping up in the betting encouraging. Particularly with Cameron playing chicken.

Creeping up? That betting line is so flat you could hang a pair of curtains on it.

The great mystery of this campaign is why there's been so little variance in the betting odds.

Nothing has happened to change sentiment. If there was some revelation that Don't Know meant leave thenthere would be action.

What if Don't Know means Won't Vote? It seems the fairest assumption.

Don't know means don't know but most will vote - I expect turnout will be 65% +

So if Clinton is 69% and Trump 25% who is the other 6%?

Gary Johnson the presumptive Libertarian Candadit?

BigRich said:

So if Clinton is 69% and Trump 25% who is the other 6%?

Gary Johnson the presumptive Libertarian Candadit?

Sanders

FPT

RobD said:

Polruan said:

No, I was saying that it would be difficult for the candidate/agent to claim that they didn't know that the activists were there or didn't know what they were doing in that situation, not that being photographed together is sufficient to be treated as local campaigning - obviously there's more to it than that. Broadly if you go door knocking and say you're there on behalf of the candidate, you're on the "local" side of the line; if you say how great the Conservatives are and by the way your candidate is a decent chap, you might be closer to the right side.

Having a script that introduces you on behalf of the candidate would be distinctly unhelpful in establishing a "national" fact pattern.

Leaders etc visiting is seen as "national" because they continue to attract national coverage (and, in the end, they have to spend the campaign somewhere).

Has any evidence of the script been released?

No idea, I was giving an example of how the relevant law works.

...having googled "channel 4 election conservative script" then yes, it looks like something purporting to be evidence has been released. I have no view on its authenticity or what it would prove if authentic.

I don't know how widespread the use of similar tactics is. I get the impression that the Tories had a lot more money than other parties and a hugely effective marginal-target operation which may mean they behaved in different and "innovative" ways, but it may be that everyone was doing the same as one another.

Alistair said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Alistair said:

Philip_Thompson said:

hunchman said:

Greetings from Paralimni in Cyprus. Leave creeping up in the betting encouraging. Particularly with Cameron playing chicken.

Creeping up? That betting line is so flat you could hang a pair of curtains on it.

The great mystery of this campaign is why there's been so little variance in the betting odds.

Nothing has happened to change sentiment. If there was some revelation that Don't Know meant leave thenthere would be action.

What if Don't Know means Won't Vote? It seems the fairest assumption.

Then it comes down to turnout and no one knows what that will be

In my view on turnout

55% Leave win
65% Remain win
75% Too close to call
85% Remain win

My reading's the opposite. A low turnout will help IN more than out. Forget self-certified certainty data and look at the demographic segments most likely to turn out in elections & IN has the edge.

MikeSmithson said:

Alistair said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Alistair said:

Philip_Thompson said:

hunchman said:

Greetings from Paralimni in Cyprus. Leave creeping up in the betting encouraging. Particularly with Cameron playing chicken.

Creeping up? That betting line is so flat you could hang a pair of curtains on it.

The great mystery of this campaign is why there's been so little variance in the betting odds.

Nothing has happened to change sentiment. If there was some revelation that Don't Know meant leave thenthere would be action.

What if Don't Know means Won't Vote? It seems the fairest assumption.

Then it comes down to turnout and no one knows what that will be

In my view on turnout

55% Leave win
65% Remain win
75% Too close to call
85% Remain win

My reading's the opposite. A low turnout will help IN more than out. Forget self-certified certainty data and look at the demographic segments most likely to turn out in elections & IN has the edge.

The voters who turn out most are the old and the middle classes, the former back Leave, the latter Remain so I don't think turn out will matter as much as at the general election or indyref when both groups backed the Tories and No respectively

MikeSmithson said:

Alistair said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Alistair said:

Philip_Thompson said:

hunchman said:

Greetings from Paralimni in Cyprus. Leave creeping up in the betting encouraging. Particularly with Cameron playing chicken.

Creeping up? That betting line is so flat you could hang a pair of curtains on it.

The great mystery of this campaign is why there's been so little variance in the betting odds.

Nothing has happened to change sentiment. If there was some revelation that Don't Know meant leave thenthere would be action.

What if Don't Know means Won't Vote? It seems the fairest assumption.

Then it comes down to turnout and no one knows what that will be

In my view on turnout

55% Leave win
65% Remain win
75% Too close to call
85% Remain win

My reading's the opposite. A low turnout will help IN more than out. Forget self-certified certainty data and look at the demographic segments most likely to turn out in elections & IN has the edge.

I think turnout will only have a fairly marginal effect, with SE class balancing out age as a factor.

It could go either way, but not by much and it hasn't had a big effect on my forecast.

23rd like Burnley 16/17

...
...

hang on there's a problem with that.

oh well, in the spirit of this Brexit campaign, who needs facts.

MikeSmithson said:

Alistair said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Alistair said:

Philip_Thompson said:

hunchman said:

Greetings from Paralimni in Cyprus. Leave creeping up in the betting encouraging. Particularly with Cameron playing chicken.

Creeping up? That betting line is so flat you could hang a pair of curtains on it.

The great mystery of this campaign is why there's been so little variance in the betting odds.

Nothing has happened to change sentiment. If there was some revelation that Don't Know meant leave thenthere would be action.

What if Don't Know means Won't Vote? It seems the fairest assumption.

Then it comes down to turnout and no one knows what that will be

In my view on turnout

55% Leave win
65% Remain win
75% Too close to call
85% Remain win

My reading's the opposite. A low turnout will help IN more than out. Forget self-certified certainty data and look at the demographic segments most likely to turn out in elections & IN has the edge.

I'm grading 65% as a low turnout, 55% is extremely low so I don't think we are far apart in thinking.

On those odds trump for republican nominee looks low. A 4% chance of a serious illness before the convention even at his age looks way too high. Clinton at 69% looks way too high as well. While she is rightly favourite Trump continues to be underestimated despite all he has achieved. But for me Leave looks the best value of all. Still odds against but much closer than that and likely to get closer.

GIN1138 said:

SeanT said:

I see Trump is now rowing back on all his madder ideas, like the total ban on Muslims. As some of us predicted. He said all that crazy stuff to win the Nom.

Now he will tack sharply to the center, and his adoring fans will forgive him.

He's much cleverer than people will admit, and he has a real chance of winning.

I tipped him, on here, at the start of 2015 and everybody thought I was crazy...

I do worry about the increasing chance of Trump winning the Presidency.

A scenario such as a US aircraft carrier in the Baltic is accidently hit by a Russian jet that was attempting a barrel roll. Maybe like in the fictional film Top Gun the navigator is taking a picture of the US vessel and they get too close. A tactical nuclear weapon carried by the Russian jet explodes in the Impact.

The point being a valuable US military asset is heavily damaged or more likely destroyed. A standoff ensues and we have a newly and untested President Trump, who has made bellicose rhetoric in relation to international relations poised on the nuclear button against an equally belligerent President Putin who will not accept blame. Neither will back down....................

SeanT said:

Pulpstar said:

SeanT said:

I see Trump is now rowing back on all his madder ideas, like the total ban on Muslims. As some of us predicted. He said all that crazy stuff to win the Nom.

Now he will tack sharply to the center, and his adoring fans will forgive him.

He's much cleverer than people will admit, and he has a real chance of winning.

It'll turn into a ban from places like Pakistan, Iran, other majority muslim countries associated with terrorism.

She told me she was Trump's next door neighbour.

Her verdict on the Donald? "He's very intelligent, and an excellent delegator".

She wasn't trying to convince me of his politics, she was just stating it as bald fact. Interesting.

That's pretty much the accepted view of Trump, except from political extremists who think he's way down the food chain. He graduated with a BSC (Econ) from the Wharton School at Penn, so that alone tells you he's very intelligent (Wharton is very hard to get into and is very prestigious).

He has built a very successful company, which you can't do without hiring good people and delegating to them.

Don't let his schtick on the campaign trail fool you - he is a smart cookie.

Just because he's smart and a good delegator isn't enough to make one vote for him however.

SeanT - Will Trump's supporters really not mind if he starts back-tracking or will they think he's selling out and a phoney? It's hard to say but I wonder if they ever really believed he would do those kind of things anyway. Perhaps they know in their heart of hearts it'll never happen but they like Trump's instincts and think it bodes well for what he'd do as commander in chief.

peter_from_putney said:

SeanT said:

I see Trump is now rowing back on all his madder ideas, like the total ban on Muslims. As some of us predicted. He said all that crazy stuff to win the Nom.

Now he will tack sharply to the center, and his adoring fans will forgive him.

He's much cleverer than people will admit, and he has a real chance of winning.

The big question from a betting point of view is .... does Trump have at least a 28% chance of winning, which is what his odds of 5/2 (or 3.5 decimal) imply?

From a non-bettor's point of view, I would think his chances are better than 50% of winning the Presidency.

Hillary has an as-yet undiscussed disadvantage against Trump in a head-to-head. Unless she brings it to the knife fight he will make it, she will look tired and washed up in comparison. If she does bring it, she will sound like a shrill harpy, further damaging her already damaged image. Bringing it to the gutter is a win-win for Trump.

There's only one thing to have on the in office when working on a thursday night in may...

hoorar for youtube.

SeanT said:

The_Taxman said:

GIN1138 said:

SeanT said:

I see Trump is now rowing back on all his madder ideas, like the total ban on Muslims. As some of us predicted. He said all that crazy stuff to win the Nom.

Now he will tack sharply to the center, and his adoring fans will forgive him.

He's much cleverer than people will admit, and he has a real chance of winning.

I tipped him, on here, at the start of 2015 and everybody thought I was crazy...

I do worry about the increasing chance of Trump winning the Presidency.

A scenario such as a US aircraft carrier in the Baltic is accidently hit by a Russian jet that was attempting a barrel roll. Maybe like in the fictional film Top Gun the navigator is taking a picture of the US vessel and they get too close. A tactical nuclear weapon carried by the Russian jet explodes in the Impact.

The point being a valuable US military asset is heavily damaged or more likely destroyed. A standoff ensues and we have a newly and untested President Trump, who has made bellicose rhetoric in relation to international relations poised on the nuclear button against an equally belligerent President Putin who will not accept blame. Neither will back down....................

No. The point you're missing is that Trump is perfectly sane, and doesn't mean half the bullshit he's said, he just realised - as a smart guy - that there was a massive gap on the right of the party (and the country) for a non-Establishment figure who looked like he was Sticking It To The Man. An American Farage, with more resources and probably more self awareness.

So he neatly filled the gap.

Now he's got the Nom he will backpedal on the nuttiness, to give himself a chance of winning the Prez. If he does win, he will govern like a rightwing version of Bill Clinton. A New York liberal capitalist with a side dish of extremely mild American Putinism.

He'll also be quite isolationist.

And pro-Brexit

@LadPolitics: #StoneRoses now 50/1 to win 2016 Mercury Music Prize. They were 20/1 before we heard the new single. https://t.co/C0Etki1fi2

@bpolitics: In Cannes, George Clooney vows Donald Trump won't be president https://t.co/JhzrdjRHl1 https://t.co/yvppAV0ieV

Scott_P said:

@LadPolitics: #StoneRoses now 50/1 to win 2016 Mercury Music Prize. They were 20/1 before we heard the new single. https://t.co/C0Etki1fi2

How are they still alive? The Grim Reaper is busy knocking off every celeb under the sun and somehow the likes of the Stone Roses appear to have pickled themselves into living forever.

I know there is a big festival on the Cochella site this autumn. The Who, the Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan and Paul McCartney, Neil Young and Pink Floyd's Roger Waters. It will be like a festival of the zombie apocalypse.

Anecdote alert. I was at a small social gathering with some people - not ones I know very well but I would argue largely middle class liberals - and somehow the conversation turned to politics. Obviously the shenanigans in the Welsh Assembly were amusing/embarrassing however you see it and mention of Ukip came up. Interestingly there was no sneering at Ukip voters, seeing it (rightly or wrongly) primarily as a protest vote and one or two people thought it might not be a bad thing for them to have members in Cardiff so people will see what they're really like. One lady (undoubtedly the most working class) expressed support for Brexit having changed her mind because of Cameron's fear-mongering - World War 3 wtf! Nobody else expressed a view on the referendum but there was bemusement at the whole circus of TV debates and legal action. I'm guessing most of the people there would be for remain but since they really ought to be the core vote, the lack of enthusiasm was disturbing. It doesn't fill me with optimism.

The Corbyn supporter was really rather annoyed at people judging him for not being Prime-ministerial and instead focused on his principles/sincerity. Curiously whilst disdaining Cameron she expressed admiration for Gove, who she thought would wipe the floor with Dave in a debate and even had a good word for Boris' intellectual credentials, suggesting that usual political tribalism is suspended.

MTimT said:

SeanT said:

The_Taxman said:

GIN1138 said:

SeanT said:

I see Trump is now rowing back on all his madder ideas, like the total ban on Muslims. As some of us predicted. He said all that crazy stuff to win the Nom.

Now he will tack sharply to the center, and his adoring fans will forgive him.

He's much cleverer than people will admit, and he has a real chance of winning.

I tipped him, on here, at the start of 2015 and everybody thought I was crazy...

I do worry about the increasing chance of Trump winning the Presidency.

A scenario such as a US aircraft carrier in the Baltic is accidently hit by a Russian jet that was attempting a barrel roll. Maybe like in the fictional film Top Gun the navigator is taking a picture of the US vessel and they get too close. A tactical nuclear weapon carried by the Russian jet explodes in the Impact.

The point being a valuable US military asset is heavily damaged or more likely destroyed. A standoff ensues and we have a newly and untested President Trump, who has made bellicose rhetoric in relation to international relations poised on the nuclear button against an equally belligerent President Putin who will not accept blame. Neither will back down....................

No. The point you're missing is that Trump is perfectly sane, and doesn't mean half the bullshit he's said, he just realised - as a smart guy - that there was a massive gap on the right of the party (and the country) for a non-Establishment figure who looked like he was Sticking It To The Man. An American Farage, with more resources and probably more self awareness.

So he neatly filled the gap.

Now he's got the Nom he will backpedal on the nuttiness, to give himself a chance of winning the Prez. If he does win, he will govern like a rightwing version of Bill Clinton. A New York liberal capitalist with a side dish of extremely mild American Putinism.

He'll also be quite isolationist.

And pro-Brexit

This week. Next week? Who knows?

SeanT said:

peter_from_putney said:

SeanT said:

I see Trump is now rowing back on all his madder ideas, like the total ban on Muslims. As some of us predicted. He said all that crazy stuff to win the Nom.

Now he will tack sharply to the center, and his adoring fans will forgive him.

He's much cleverer than people will admit, and he has a real chance of winning.

The big question from a betting point of view is .... does Trump have at least a 28% chance of winning, which is what his odds of 5/2 (or 3.5 decimal) imply?

I think so, but I'm crap at betting (except with my fellow pb-ers, where my record is near flawless).

It's a two horse race. The Dems have been in power for ages. Hillary is a rather poor, ageing candidate with a lot of dodgy history. And then there's Bill. And do the Yanks REALLY want another Clinton???

And the Donald is smart.

I reckon he should be nearer 2/1.

33.3%

Bill Clinton is the most popular ex president alive, he is Hillary's best asset

Scott_P said:

@bpolitics: In Cannes, George Clooney vows Donald Trump won't be president https://t.co/JhzrdjRHl1 https://t.co/yvppAV0ieV

Who on God's earth would take the slightest notice of what George Clooney thinks? I mean he's just an actor of sorts.

Just donated £200 to Leave. A drop in the ocean of the government machine and propaganda (WAR!!!!) but atleast I can look back and say I tried.



The remain campaign have already overspent the spending limits (£9M) but this was never going to be a fair fight......

peter_from_putney said:

Scott_P said:

@bpolitics: In Cannes, George Clooney vows Donald Trump won't be president https://t.co/JhzrdjRHl1 https://t.co/yvppAV0ieV

Who on God's earth would take the slightest notice of what George Clooney thinks? I mean he's just an actor of sorts.

Whereas Trump is a reality TV star.

HYUFD said:

Reagan won on hope and optimism, Trump is running largely on fear, fear of migrants, fear of the establishment and fear of terrorism, it might win but it is not really a message of optimism!

You think that but his supporters hear 'Make America Great Again'. Anyone who wants to defeat Trump needs to undermine this message, not accuse him of fear-mongering.

Watch the video. It's pretty powerful propaganda.

nunu said:

Just donated £200 to Leave. A drop in the ocean of the government machine and propaganda (WAR!!!!) but atleast I can look back and say I tried.



The remain campaign have already overspent the spending limits (£9M) but this was never going to be a fair fight......

Good man/woman.

I am not at all impressed with Vote Leave, however, have been delivering leaflets and will get involved in some door to door canvassing as I could not forgive myself if it is close.

williamglenn said:

HYUFD said:

Reagan won on hope and optimism, Trump is running largely on fear, fear of migrants, fear of the establishment and fear of terrorism, it might win but it is not really a message of optimism!

You think that but his supporters hear 'Make America Great Again'. Anyone who wants to defeat Trump needs to undermine this message, not accuse him of fear-mongering.

Watch the video. It's pretty powerful propaganda.

You do not undermine Trump by constantly reiterating his best campaign slogan (which in any case is a pale copy of Reagan's 'morning in America' and 'shining city on a hill) you win on showing how he wants to shut the border with Mexico, attack migrants (something Reagan never did), create a damaging trade war with China and make foreign policy on the hoof. Though Hillary has the rebut 'America has never stopped being great' to counter Trump too

HYUFD said:

Though Hillary has the rebut 'America has never stopped being great' to counter Trump too

Hardly a humdinger. She might as well say, 'This is as good as it gets folks'.

My point was that Hillary needs to undermine the perception that Trump is capable of making the country better, not disputing whether it needs to be.

Hillary might make a competent if dull president, but she's a horrible candidate.

nunu said:

Just donated £200 to Leave. A drop in the ocean of the government machine and propaganda (WAR!!!!) but atleast I can look back and say I tried.



The remain campaign have already overspent the spending limits (£9M) but this was never going to be a fair fight......

Well done Sir. Good for you.

Scott_P said:

@faisalislam: Carney is kryptonite for Leave campaign - Comres poll says most important view: 61% - double as important as Obama https://t.co/4y30uHlFvQ

No surprise. He used to work for Goldmans. The public wouldn't be foolish enough to go against their advice.

I don't think I was entirely clear in my anecdote that the pro-Corbyn lady was also the firm Brexiter. She was also most indignant about Mark Carney's comments on the risks.

PeterC said:

Alistair said:

MikeSmithson said:

Alistair said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Alistair said:

Philip_Thompson said:

hunchman said:

Greetings from Paralimni in Cyprus. Leave creeping up in the betting encouraging. Particularly with Cameron playing chicken.

Creeping up? That betting line is so flat you could hang a pair of curtains on it.

The great mystery of this campaign is why there's been so little variance in the betting odds.

Nothing has happened to change sentiment. If there was some revelation that Don't Know meant leave thenthere would be action.

What if Don't Know means Won't Vote? It seems the fairest assumption.

Then it comes down to turnout and no one knows what that will be

In my view on turnout

55% Leave win
65% Remain win
75% Too close to call
85% Remain win

My reading's the opposite. A low turnout will help IN more than out. Forget self-certified certainty data and look at the demographic segments most likely to turn out in elections & IN has the edge.

I'm grading 65% as a low turnout, 55% is extremely low so I don't think we are far apart in thinking.

Why is 65% a low turnout? It's general election level these days. The 1975 referendum had a turnout some 8 points below the October 1974 GE.

The last referendum I participated in had an 85% turnout. And I was disappointed it wasn't higher.

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/730864698770509825

Alistair said:

PeterC said:

Alistair said:

MikeSmithson said:

Alistair said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Alistair said:

Philip_Thompson said:

hunchman said:

Greetings from Paralimni in Cyprus. Leave creeping up in the betting encouraging. Particularly with Cameron playing chicken.

Creeping up? That betting line is so flat you could hang a pair of curtains on it.

The great mystery of this campaign is why there's been so little variance in the betting odds.

Nothing has happened to change sentiment. If there was some revelation that Don't Know meant leave thenthere would be action.

What if Don't Know means Won't Vote? It seems the fairest assumption.

Then it comes down to turnout and no one knows what that will be

In my view on turnout

55% Leave win
65% Remain win
75% Too close to call
85% Remain win

My reading's the opposite. A low turnout will help IN more than out. Forget self-certified certainty data and look at the demographic segments most likely to turn out in elections & IN has the edge.

I'm grading 65% as a low turnout, 55% is extremely low so I don't think we are far apart in thinking.

Why is 65% a low turnout? It's general election level these days. The 1975 referendum had a turnout some 8 points below the October 1974 GE.

The last referendum I participated in had an 85% turnout. And I was disappointed it wasn't higher.

There is a ceiling effect with turnout. A number of people such as students are double registered yet can vote only once. Fox jr is one, indeed registered thrice.

foxinsoxuk said:

Alistair said:

PeterC said:

Alistair said:

MikeSmithson said:

Alistair said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Alistair said:

Philip_Thompson said:

hunchman said:

Greetings from Paralimni in Cyprus. Leave creeping up in the betting encouraging. Particularly with Cameron playing chicken.

Creeping up? That betting line is so flat you could hang a pair of curtains on it.

The great mystery of this campaign is why there's been so little variance in the betting odds.

Nothing has happened to change sentiment. If there was some revelation that Don't Know meant leave thenthere would be action.

What if Don't Know means Won't Vote? It seems the fairest assumption.

Then it comes down to turnout and no one knows what that will be

In my view on turnout

55% Leave win
65% Remain win
75% Too close to call
85% Remain win

My reading's the opposite. A low turnout will help IN more than out. Forget self-certified certainty data and look at the demographic segments most likely to turn out in elections & IN has the edge.

I'm grading 65% as a low turnout, 55% is extremely low so I don't think we are far apart in thinking.

Why is 65% a low turnout? It's general election level these days. The 1975 referendum had a turnout some 8 points below the October 1974 GE.

The last referendum I participated in had an 85% turnout. And I was disappointed it wasn't higher.

There is a ceiling effect with turnout. A number of people such as students are double registered yet can vote only once. Fox jr is one, indeed registered thrice.

One of the side effects on individual registration is that it asks you if you would like to be taken off the register at other address(es).

viewcode said:

FrankBooth said:

The Corbyn supporter...had a good word for Boris' intellectual credentials...

To the end of my days I will never understand this unkillable conceit that Boris is an intellectual. Going to Oxford to study Classics doesn't indicate you are intelligent, it indicates you have been well-taught and/or can work hard - which isn't the same thing. He hasn't shown any real capacity for original thought and his postgraduate publication history has been more journalism than research - synthesising and presenting existing sources instead of generating new thought. Gove is arguably his superior, and in terms of authorship Hague definitely is.

Intellectuals rarely get the top job in politics, Boris is smart which is more important

Scrapheap_as_was said:

FrankBooth said:

Scott_P said:

@faisalislam: Carney is kryptonite for Leave campaign - Comres poll says most important view: 61% - double as important as Obama https://t.co/4y30uHlFvQ

No surprise. He used to work for Goldmans. The public wouldn't be foolish enough to go against their advice.

so did i....

damn they must brainwash us if we are Remainers...

now there is a scandal

I wonder if Remain are holding back their star player.

Could it be Lloyd Blankfein?

Scott_P said:

@faisalislam: Extraordinary polling by Comres for how important Gov Carney view (60%ish) is in every age group, class, region: https://t.co/klHZ1WhHWP

Fecking hell, I follow politics and keep getting him mixed up with Martha Kearney.

A good evening from Dictatrix Cyclefree.

AlastairMeeks said:

Evening all. I've had a busy day and missed my own thread. I also missed record-breaking quantities of fauxtrage from people who are happy to label others quislings, traitors and hating their own country. They must have wide throats not to choke on their hypocrisy.

While you are here Mr. Meeks can I ask you again to identify those posters on here that are directed and/or paid for by foreign agencies. The other evening you said that they exist but despite being asked a couple of times you have so far not named them.

GIN1138 said:

I tipped [Trump], on here, at the start of 2015 and everybody thought I was crazy...

You were crazy.

But right!

HurstLlama said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Evening all. I've had a busy day and missed my own thread. I also missed record-breaking quantities of fauxtrage from people who are happy to label others quislings, traitors and hating their own country. They must have wide throats not to choke on their hypocrisy.

While you are here Mr. Meeks can I ask you again to identify those posters on here that are directed and/or paid for by foreign agencies. The other evening you said that they exist but despite being asked a couple of times you have so far not named them.

I think RCS1000 has confirmed that we have a number of posters from Russian IP addresses.

If you suggest that Ukraine has the right to self determination and applicatant status for EU membership and they tend to pop up.

DavidL said:

SeanT said:

Pulpstar said:

SeanT said:

I see Trump is now rowing back on all his madder ideas, like the total ban on Muslims. As some of us predicted. He said all that crazy stuff to win the Nom.

Now he will tack sharply to the center, and his adoring fans will forgive him.

He's much cleverer than people will admit, and he has a real chance of winning.

It'll turn into a ban from places like Pakistan, Iran, other majority muslim countries associated with terrorism.

Brief reminder: I met a very smart, funny, acute, elderly American billionairess when i was in Kenya looking at THE THREE LAST NORTHERN WHITE RHINOS ON EARTH, last month.

She'd been in the safari camp for a month, spending her money. She told me she was Trump's next door neighbour.

Her verdict on the Donald? "He's very intelligent, and an excellent delegator".

She wasn't trying to convince me of his politics, she was just stating it as bald fact. Interesting.

I think President Trump will be a surprise and a disappointment all at once. Those who are expecting disaster will be pleasantly surprised. Those expecting radical change will be seriously disappointed about how much the new boss is like the old boss.

The big risk with Trump is that he'll get bored. He clearly wants to win the Presidency, but whether he actually wants to be President is another matter entirely. If you're not a politician - and he's not - it could get tiring to be so constrained.