politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » With the court challenge to Theresa May’s Royal Prerogative pl

Dinesh D'Souza Verified account
‏@DineshDSouza

I guess it is now fine for men to use women's bathrooms but not for the CEO of Miss Universe to walk into a woman's dressing room

This is an actual post. That a person wrote.

TOPPING said:

I am very interested to see what ground the government makes on reducing both EU and non-EU immigration. If we assume that it was the pesky LDs holding them back 2010-2015 (as per Ms Rudd's speech), then I am interested in what measures they will now take, especially now of course, to reduce it.

Have they announced a cut-off date for EU nationals in terms of eligibility to stay in advance of our actual leaving. ie will those that come over the next two and a half years have the right to stay?

I must say if anyone thought the naming and shaming nudge was distasteful, I must believe that it's going to get a whole lot less tasteful in the months and years ahead.

Immigration will naturally fall back. The difference between EU and UK wage rates has just shifted 15%. It is therefore much less profitable to be here than it was a few months ago.

JackW said:

Florida - Florida Atlantic University - Sample 500 - 5-9 Oct

Clinton 49 .. Trump 43

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/FAU.pdf

So we are at get three in a hunded wrong people wrong in the polls and we have an almighty shock territory.

With a sample size of 500 that is 15 people

Mr. Indigo, it might happen. Votes can turn out the most unexpected results.

@rcs1000

'Immigration will naturally fall back. The difference between EU and UK wage rates has just shifted 15%. It is therefore much less profitable to be here than it was a few months ago.'

What about the difference between EU and UK benefit payments which is part of the total package for many EU immigrants.

ThreeQuidder said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

Indigo said:

Pro_Rata said:

The difficulty in this, as Southam has observed many times, is entirely political - in that previous PM and Home Office policies make admitting that any of this is a good way to go politically nigh on impossible for this Conservative government. The same lies that hamstrung the Remain campaign now are now hamstringing any thought of soft Brexit and they should not be.

Indeed. Plus anything involving still being subject to the ECJ is going to be catastrophically unpopular.

From where we are now though May's pledges were clear and unambiguous, No payments, No ECJ, Control of Borders, Laws made only in the UK. There is no way she can back away from those and stay in her job, and possibly no way to back away from those and win an election. So the die is cast, it might be a slog, it might end up in the courts, there certainly will be endless bitching in the papers from remainers, but she has given herself no option of retreat.

All trade agreements involve agreeing to binding arbitration: whether its the EFTA court in Luxembourg, the secret ISDS tribunals for NAFTA, or the ECJ in the EU.

The question is whether the ECJ is limited to opining on single market access and NTBs.

All trade agreements necessarily involve a loss of sovereignty. The EU is unique in its level of democratic and political oversight - going backwards on this score is not a win for the UK.

"Democratic". Yeah, right.

It even has a parliament in which noted experts on trade such as Daniel Hannan can have their say. The fact that he'd rather speechify about his utopian ideas and doesn't even know about the FTAs that the EU has negotiated is a flaw in the process, I'll admit.

HurstLlama said:

rcs1000 said:

TOPPING said:

I am very interested to see what ground the government makes on reducing both EU and non-EU immigration. If we assume that it was the pesky LDs holding them back 2010-2015 (as per Ms Rudd's speech), then I am interested in what measures they will now take, especially now of course, to reduce it.

Have they announced a cut-off date for EU nationals in terms of eligibility to stay in advance of our actual leaving. ie will those that come over the next two and a half years have the right to stay?

I must say if anyone thought the naming and shaming nudge was distasteful, I must believe that it's going to get a whole lot less tasteful in the months and years ahead.

Immigration will naturally fall back. The difference between EU and UK wage rates has just shifted 15%. It is therefore much less profitable to be here than it was a few months ago.

What is the minimum wage in Bulgaria, Rumania and other countries of Eastern Europe? What level of child benefits do they pay out? Then there are those other in-work benefits to consider, not to mention education and health care. The level of pull for immigration may have dropped enough at your rarified level, though I doubt it, but it certainly will not have at the bottom end.

You make the natural mistake of thinking of it as a step function, rather than a curve.

If £1 was worth €0.10, then I think you'd agree there'd be almost no-one here. If, on the other hand, £1 was worth €10, then I think there'd be another 50m pushing to get in.

There are a large number of migrant workers who come here by Megabus, stay five to a room, work on building sites for £100/day, and send half of that home to Gsansk.

They've just seen the money that goes back to Poland cut by 15%. And if the cost of living here rise through inflation, as seems likely, then the real cut might be close to 20%.

A number of these people will now choose building sites in Germany* or the Netherlands, rather than the UK.

* And German construction, which has been in the doldrums since the early 1990s, is beginning to go through the roof.

''Condemning one doesn't mean you defend the other.''

In media terms, that simply isn;t correct. They are supposed to be even handed.

The Marmite war has crossed the pond:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/14/business/international/marmite-brexit-britain.html?_r=0

rcs1000 said:

HurstLlama said:

rcs1000 said:

TOPPING said:

I am very interested to see what ground the government makes on reducing both EU and non-EU immigration. If we assume that it was the pesky LDs holding them back 2010-2015 (as per Ms Rudd's speech), then I am interested in what measures they will now take, especially now of course, to reduce it.

Have they announced a cut-off date for EU nationals in terms of eligibility to stay in advance of our actual leaving. ie will those that come over the next two and a half years have the right to stay?

I must say if anyone thought the naming and shaming nudge was distasteful, I must believe that it's going to get a whole lot less tasteful in the months and years ahead.

Immigration will naturally fall back. The difference between EU and UK wage rates has just shifted 15%. It is therefore much less profitable to be here than it was a few months ago.

What is the minimum wage in Bulgaria, Rumania and other countries of Eastern Europe? What level of child benefits do they pay out? Then there are those other in-work benefits to consider, not to mention education and health care. The level of pull for immigration may have dropped enough at your rarified level, though I doubt it, but it certainly will not have at the bottom end.

You make the natural mistake of thinking of it as a step function, rather than a curve.

If £1 was worth €0.10, then I think you'd agree there'd be almost no-one here. If, on the other hand, £1 was worth €10, then I think there'd be another 50m pushing to get in.

There are a large number of migrant workers who come here by Megabus, stay five to a room, work on building sites for £100/day, and send half of that home to Gsansk.

They've just seen the money that goes back to Poland cut by 15%. And if the cost of living here rise through inflation, as seems likely, then the real cut might be close to 20%.

A number of these people will now choose building sites in Germany* or the Netherlands, rather than the UK.

* And German construction, which has been in the doldrums since the early 1990s, is beginning to go through the roof.

Do you suppose there will be a similar function inhibiting UK citizens from migrating to the EU?

Philip_Thompson said:

Indigo said:

I assume all those remainers that told us what a good chap Mervyn King was before the referendum are now taking him off their Christmas Card list ?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/pound-sterling-value-crash-mervyn-king-bank-of-england-welcomes-brexit-a7355076.html

“During the referendum campaign, someone said the real danger of Brexit is you'll end up with higher interest rates, lower house prices and a lower exchange rate, and I thought: dream on. Because that's what we've been trying to achieve for the past three years and now we have a chance of getting it.

So Sterling devaluation actually good after all, who knew it.

Lord King backed Brexit. Remainers seem to prefer to pretend he doesn't exist so they can pretend that experts back them. People who disagree like King or Sir Digby Jones get written off like Orwellian unpersons.

On the contrary. Brexiters have a selective adoration of Bank of England Governors.

Now that Queen Elizabeth II is the world's longest reigning monarch, she should celebrate her achievement by exercising her royal prerogative to invoke Article 50 straight away. That would stop the impertinence of the nincompoopismatic lawyers, politicians and bremoaniacs.

Indigo said:

williamglenn said:

ThreeQuidder said:

williamglenn said:

rcs1000 said:

Indigo said:

Pro_Rata said:

The difficulty in this, as Southam has observed many times, is entirely political - in that previous PM and Home Office policies make admitting that any of this is a good way to go politically nigh on impossible for this Conservative government. The same lies that hamstrung the Remain campaign now are now hamstringing any thought of soft Brexit and they should not be.

Indeed. Plus anything involving still being subject to the ECJ is going to be catastrophically unpopular.

From where we are now though May's pledges were clear and unambiguous, No payments, No ECJ, Control of Borders, Laws made only in the UK. There is no way she can back away from those and stay in her job, and possibly no way to back away from those and win an election. So the die is cast, it might be a slog, it might end up in the courts, there certainly will be endless bitching in the papers from remainers, but she has given herself no option of retreat.

All trade agreements involve agreeing to binding arbitration: whether its the EFTA court in Luxembourg, the secret ISDS tribunals for NAFTA, or the ECJ in the EU.

The question is whether the ECJ is limited to opining on single market access and NTBs.

All trade agreements necessarily involve a loss of sovereignty. The EU is unique in its level of democratic and political oversight - going backwards on this score is not a win for the UK.

"Democratic". Yeah, right.

It even has a parliament in which noted experts on trade such as Daniel Hannan can have their say. The fact that he'd rather speechify about his utopian ideas and doesn't even know about the FTAs that the EU has negotiated is a flaw in the process, I'll admit.

A parliament which cannot propose legislation, very democratic I am sure.

And why can't it? Because the democratic national governments don't want it to be able to.

PlatoSaid said:

Jon Fitch
Damn RT @DieselTrumpGOD: @jonfitchdotnet They admit Hillary is Bills Enabler https://t.co/G85onT39mT

Oh dear me.

Isn't that just someone emailing a Daily Mail headline to someone else? If that what constitutes an admission these days?

I've been following the debate on here for some time.
I think people have far too much confidence on here that the current government can weather the course they have embarked on.
There must be a high chance that the current government will fall, when the implications of the Brexit strategy fall in to place. As it is starting to now. Scotland is one issue, Ireland is another, the economic fallout of the fall in value of the pound another. And then there are a whole host of other interrelated issues, issues that have already been considered but will start to become more real over the next few months: what happens to trident if Scotland becomes independent. What happens to the land border in Ireland. and so on.
These are all questions that we know about already, but they haven't been thought through by anyone to any conclusion, because there is so much uncertainty, and there are so many distractions as events roll out on a daily basis.
The key developments I would argue is that there is now an organised 'opposition' in parliament. Businesses are spooked. The bizarre movements of the pound. The statements by Nissan, land rover, American banks. Petrol prices have risen 10%.
In the town where I work every single private sector funded major investment project has been stopped or halted due to Brexit.
I'm not saying anything new, but all I am saying is look at the volatility. It is completely unprecedented. The decision to go forward with leaving the EU would result in vast political, economic and constitional chaos. I don't believe that the government can weather it. I believe that they will fall, and that the tories will not be able to decide how resolve it when they call a general election, because the Brexitters are already starting to argue amongst themselves.

And it is anyones guess how it could play out after that.

I think people are in denial about the true scale of the political, economic and social volatility the UK is currently in. The phoney peace is currently coming to an end, and people are starting to wake up.

On topic, from a betting point of view, I think the odds that A50 wont be triggered until the second half of next year are very good.

And another post debate poll, national this time that shows the situation returning back to normal:

https://twitter.com/PpollingNumbers/status/786604227565068288

All the national polls done after the debate show now an average Hillary lead of 3.6% .

rcs1000 said:

@Hurst, John Zims

My forecast is that the UK will have negative net migration at some point in the next five years.

There may be a fair number of retired Brits returning, both gross and net.

Speedy said:

And another post debate poll, national this time that shows the situation returning back to normal:

All the national polls done after the debate show now an average Hillary lead of 3.6% .

Normal with one difference - Johnson and Stein are getting squeezed out of the picture in the 4-way, but without evidence of a decisive break towards either Trump or Clinton. It's still wide open.

williamglenn said:

Speedy said:

And another post debate poll, national this time that shows the situation returning back to normal:

All the national polls done after the debate show now an average Hillary lead of 3.6% .

Normal with one difference - Johnson and Stein are getting squeezed out of the picture in the 4-way, but without evidence of a decisive break towards either Trump or Clinton. It's still wide open.

3rd parties usually get squeezed after debates which are not invited.

But my call that absent another tape, that this is Trump's bottom on the betting markets seems to be accurate.

Speedy said:

There is a change in the format of the 3rd debate, before it would have been about Foreign Policy, now it will include he following:

https://twitter.com/khinman/status/786303822104788992

If Trump repeats his second debate performance I will upgrade his chances of winning the election for the first time since he choose Pence as his VP.

I doubt we will get very far with any of the questions if it is like last debate.

@FF43


'I think we can tackle this three ways:

1. We don't want to pay the money so we won't

2. What's the precedent? Is the EU a club, where the club takes on corporate obligations that are completely separate from the membership? Or is a it an association where each constituent shares the assets and obligations?

3. It just comes down to a haggle. This will be sorted out with all the other stuff.'


Any club will have a rule book and in this case it's the Lisbon agreement,so if the section (which is apparently very brief) that covers Article 50 says we have to pay for this stuff so be it,if not we don't.

nielh said:

I've been following the debate on here for some time.
I think people have far too much confidence on here that the current government can weather the course they have embarked on.
There must be a high chance that the current government will fall, when the implications of the Brexit strategy fall in to place. As it is starting to now. Scotland is one issue, Ireland is another, the economic fallout of the fall in value of the pound another. And then there are a whole host of other interrelated issues, issues that have already been considered but will start to become more real over the next few months: what happens to trident if Scotland becomes independent. What happens to the land border in Ireland. and so on.
These are all questions that we know about already, but they haven't been thought through by anyone to any conclusion, because there is so much uncertainty, and there are so many distractions as events roll out on a daily basis.
The key developments I would argue is that there is now an organised 'opposition' in parliament. Businesses are spooked. The bizarre movements of the pound. The statements by Nissan, land rover, American banks. Petrol prices have risen 10%.
In the town where I work every single private sector funded major investment project has been stopped or halted due to Brexit.
I'm not saying anything new, but all I am saying is look at the volatility. It is completely unprecedented. The decision to go forward with leaving the EU would result in vast political, economic and constitional chaos. I don't believe that the government can weather it. I believe that they will fall, and that the tories will not be able to decide how resolve it when they call a general election, because the Brexitters are already starting to argue amongst themselves.

And it is anyones guess how it could play out after that.

I think people are in denial about the true scale of the political, economic and social volatility the UK is currently in. The phoney peace is currently coming to an end, and people are starting to wake up.

On topic, from a betting point of view, I think the odds that A50 wont be triggered until the second half of next year are very good.

Welcome, Neil, and thanks for that insight. As you say, the headwinds are huge and go right across the board.

Philip_Thompson said:

williamglenn said:

Speedy said:

And another post debate poll, national this time that shows the situation returning back to normal:

All the national polls done after the debate show now an average Hillary lead of 3.6% .

Normal with one difference - Johnson and Stein are getting squeezed out of the picture in the 4-way, but without evidence of a decisive break towards either Trump or Clinton. It's still wide open.

3.6% isn't wide open.

It's just less than Romney's defeat, with 3 weeks to go and another debate it's on the edge of the plausible that Trump could do it.

It's remarkable what Trump's debate victory did.

So, to sum up, people are worried that Clinton doesn't mean what she says, and are worried that Donald Trump does.

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

williamglenn said:

Speedy said:

And another post debate poll, national this time that shows the situation returning back to normal:

All the national polls done after the debate show now an average Hillary lead of 3.6% .

Normal with one difference - Johnson and Stein are getting squeezed out of the picture in the 4-way, but without evidence of a decisive break towards either Trump or Clinton. It's still wide open.

3.6% isn't wide open.

No candidate above 50% and an electoral college on a knife-edge is.

Nate Silver of 538 has the best track record.
According to his polls Clinton wins ALL 14 swing States including Florida, Ohio, Iowa and even Arizona, giving her 342 EC votes to Trump's 196.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

619 said:

PlatoSaid said:

So, the GOP establishment are supporting Trump - hmm

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/rnc-donald-trump-ad-spending-229711

RNC TV ad spending for Trump: $0

The national party breaks with tradition of spending millions on ads supporting its nominees.

PlatoSaid said:

So, the GOP establishment are supporting Trump - hmm

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/rnc-donald-trump-ad-spending-229711

RNC TV ad spending for Trump: $0

The national party breaks with tradition of spending millions on ads supporting its nominees.

i thought he was a self funding millionaire?

Has your handler told you to move to a post election loss attack the RNC footing now?

Its what single subject your handler instructs you to comment on all day here after Nov8th that is more intresting to me.

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

williamglenn said:

Speedy said:

And another post debate poll, national this time that shows the situation returning back to normal:

All the national polls done after the debate show now an average Hillary lead of 3.6% .

Normal with one difference - Johnson and Stein are getting squeezed out of the picture in the 4-way, but without evidence of a decisive break towards either Trump or Clinton. It's still wide open.

3.6% isn't wide open.

No candidate above 50% and an electoral college on a knife-edge is.

Silly me.
If it's on a knife edge, do you want a wager say £20 at evens?

619 said:

Speedy said:

Philip_Thompson said:

williamglenn said:

Speedy said:

And another post debate poll, national this time that shows the situation returning back to normal:

All the national polls done after the debate show now an average Hillary lead of 3.6% .

Normal with one difference - Johnson and Stein are getting squeezed out of the picture in the 4-way, but without evidence of a decisive break towards either Trump or Clinton. It's still wide open.

3.6% isn't wide open.

It's just less than Romney's defeat, with 3 weeks to go and another debate it's on the edge of the plausible that Trump could do it.

It's remarkable what Trump's debate victory did.

the rcp poll average is 6.5%. What are u talking about???

I'm talking about the average of all polls done post-debate, the RCP average still includes polls done before the debate.

All the national polls that where done exclusively after the debate show Hillary leads of 7, 5, 5 ,3 and a Trump lead of 2, that's 5 national polls with an average of 3.6 for Hillary.

And the post debate state polls also point to a small but modest Hillary lead nationally of around 4 points.

Right as write this yet another post-debate state poll, this time from a democratic pollster:

https://twitter.com/PpollingNumbers/status/786610029805858817

logical_song said:

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

williamglenn said:

Speedy said:

And another post debate poll, national this time that shows the situation returning back to normal:

All the national polls done after the debate show now an average Hillary lead of 3.6% .

Normal with one difference - Johnson and Stein are getting squeezed out of the picture in the 4-way, but without evidence of a decisive break towards either Trump or Clinton. It's still wide open.

3.6% isn't wide open.

No candidate above 50% and an electoral college on a knife-edge is.

Nate Silver of 538 has the best track record.
According to his polls Clinton wins ALL 14 swing States including Florida, Ohio, Iowa and even Arizona, giving her 342 EC votes to Trump's 196.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

Unless something involving a black swan happens in next two weeks this is over. Trump is going down to a landslide.

PlatoSaid said:

williamglenn said:

PlatoSaid said:

Jon Fitch
Damn RT @DieselTrumpGOD: @jonfitchdotnet They admit Hillary is Bills Enabler https://t.co/G85onT39mT

Oh dear me.

Isn't that just someone emailing a Daily Mail headline to someone else? If that what constitutes an admission these days?

What? The responder is agreeing that Hillary enabled Bill's sex life.

No they aren't. You know we can actually read these emails rather than just misleading extracts?

rcs1000 said:

@Hurst, John Zims

My forecast is that the UK will have negative net migration at some point in the next five years.

Ironically as Merv has effectively pointed out Brexit has brought about the rebalancing of the economy that was desperately wanted and desired for three years to stop the masses turning on the EU

JosiasJessop said:

PlatoSaid said:

Paul_Bedfordshire said:

JackW said:

Florida - Florida Atlantic University - Sample 500 - 5-9 Oct

Clinton 49 .. Trump 43

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/FAU.pdf

So we are at get three in a hunded wrong people wrong in the polls and we have an almighty shock territory.

With a sample size of 500 that is 15 people

Honestly, I've seen enough bias everywhere to ignore the polling and look entirely at the campaign behaviour now.

If HRC was as far ahead as claimed - they wouldn't be resorting to implying that Trump's a paedo or serial groper from 35yrs ago. It smacks of desperation, not clear lead. Hillary isn't campaigning again today - even Michelle is turning out for an event.

There's a problem that's more than a course of anti-biotics.

Plato: the problem is that you're not looking at the campaign behaviour: you're looking at the campaign behaviour through the prism of a one-sided set of sources, with your mind already set to look for things which reinforce your existing view.

Thus you ignore polling that contradicts your view, and say it's because they are biased.

From your posts, I'd say it's much more likely that you're biased than the polls.

Im looking at it from the view of making some more money out of William Hill.

Gardenwalker said:

The more we continue with this insanity, the more we support Sturgeon's narrative that the country has been captured by a loony minority in the Tory party. A Brexit that dissolves the Union is no victory at all.

But that narrative would be pursued regardless of anything else that was going on, along with the new list of grievances: demands for Scottish exceptionalism on issues such as immigration and single market access, which cannot possibly be met by anything other than independence, yet which the UK Government will be accused of wrongfully denying to Scotland when they are not forthcoming. Regardless of how well or not Brexit itself actually goes, the SNPs usual array of hate figures and institutions is being set up to fail. It was ever thus.

Beyond that, whilst I don't expect the Union to founder and I don't want it to founder, there is a hierarchy of priorities at work here. The ultimate purpose of the EU is to dismantle the nation states of Europe. If the EU were to survive and achieve its aims with us still in it, then eventually there would be no UK regardless. With the country out of the EU, there is a chance for the Union between England and Scotland to survive. Within the EU, should the project progress to its logical conclusion, the terms England and Scotland would eventually cease to have any meaning.

Therefore, the primary aim has to be to extract the UK from the EU, even at the risk of compromising its integrity. Keeping the UK 92% intact outside of the EU would be better than having 100% of the UK gradually dissolved to mush inside of it.

rottenborough said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Oh god...Wussellly Brand is back doing his Trews....He must have a tour to flog or a new movie...or some t-shirts made with sweat shop labour.

Well, Ed M seems to be back in action, so why not his old mucker Brand?

Easy to be nostalgic for the days politics was practised by sensible grown ups like Ed and Russell. Not the juvenile charlatans we have to deal with today.

ThreeQuidder said:

nielh said:

The decision to go forward with leaving the EU would result in vast political, economic and constitional chaos.

The decision not to go forward with leaving the EU would result in worse political, economic and constitutional chaos.

That we will never know.

Speedy said:

It's just less than Romney's defeat, with 3 weeks to go and another debate it's on the edge of the plausible that Trump could do it.

It's remarkable what Trump's debate victory did.

You keep repeating this "Trump's debate victory" myth.

All the polls showed a Clinton win. You relate to other polls regularly but choose to ignore the debate polls. Very odd.