politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The robots are coming

Sandpit said:

rcs1000 said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/johnrentoul/status/798642340311207936

Lol. All bluster.

Edit to add: pay us €60bn now, or in two years you'll have to pay NOTHING.

That's hilarious, and would surely be met with the famous Arkell v Pressdram response by our negotiators.

We've always been pretty good at paying over and above our fair share to the EU despite much public bluster and huffing and puffing.

steve_garner said:

Whilst EU fanatic Scott P is about perhaps he can tell us about the "massive inflation" figures today.

Still under half of the target figure.

https://twitter.com/TheStalwart/status/798597671414022145

Alistair said:

https://twitter.com/TheStalwart/status/798597671414022145

Well clearly, their candidate won so things are on the up! You can see the converse in the Dem figure.

Cyclefree said:

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

Speedy said:

rcs1000 said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/johnrentoul/status/798642340311207936

Lol. All bluster.

Edit to add: pay us €60bn now, or in two years you'll have to pay NOTHING.

The EU sure is a bad negotiator.

This is all just anchoring.

This is not anchoring. This is someone wildly adrift and moving out of the real world. Fast.

Presumably if we simply refused to pay, we'd be out in March 2019, with no deal and an EU refusal even to discuss one until we paid up.

Anyway, since we're back on Brexit, I think I'll be off.

Fine. Our balance of payments will improve. Significantly.

https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/798647681266708480

We continue to await any real sign of a Ukip collapse. Relatively high levels of Labour support compared with other recent polls appear to be down to lower than typical Lib Dem figures, at 6%.

Black_Rook said:

https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/798647681266708480

We continue to await any real sign of a Ukip collapse. Modest recovery in Labour support appears to be at the expense of the LDs, back down to 6%.

Oh dear, attatching the EU grouping to each party. A bit late for that, and utterly irrelevant for national politics.

geoffw said:

DavidL said:

IanB2 said:

viewcode said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/johnrentoul/status/798642340311207936

I must confess to some confusion here. What are the Commission's grounds for belief that we will give them anything? I can see the sense in a quid pro quo - we give x billion, they give us certain accesses, and so on - but the idea we would maintain contributions for things we get no benefit from is surely risible?

Bet you we do, though.

Only if we get things we really want in return such as the Single Passport. Otherwise cheerio.

Who is responsible for e.g. the pensions of soon-to-be-redundant British EU functionaries?

The EU, I would have thought.

IanB2 said:

Speedy said:

HurstLlama said:

Speedy said:

MikeL said:

Dow Jones has just closed at all time record high.

Trump's economic policies, just like Brexit, is good for domestic companies, bad for foreign ones and tech.

His proposals for $500 billion extra spending on infrastructure projects, plus keeping low interest rates, plus deregulation outweights his protectionist policies.

Especially if the extra money is spent domestically thanks to protectionism, it will push economic growth and inflation something the economy badly needs.

The changes in the bond market is also consistent with investors anticipating a high growth high inflation environment.

When you say high inflation, Mr. Speedy, what sort of figure are you thinking of?

We will see, but the bond market is definitely expecting both economic growth and inflation to rise sharply under Trump.

Unemployment is already very low in america, but most jobs are low paid ones and most people have dropped out of the labour market too.
It will be interesting to see what happens when you push economic growth with tons of cash in that labour environment.

A spurt of 5% growth 5% inflation could be the top side, Trump will definitely try to buy tons of cheap popularity by giving voters jobs and money, and if he goes protectionist that cash will stay inside the economy.

This months input price figure is about 4.5% up on last year, and factory gate price inflation is at a three-year high. It is surprising that it is taking so long to feed through to retail prices, particularly as in some sectors the higher prices are already obvious. But it is coming, for sure.

Possibly, but this round of inflation is being driven rather differently, by the rising cost of imports and devaluation, rather than rising demand and wage inflation. The fact that despite devaluation, inflation remains flat suggests that we are in deflation in reality.

Scott_P said:

steve_garner said:

perhaps he can tell us about the "massive inflation" figures today.

https://twitter.com/peston/status/798482965856546816

So despite that, inflation still went down?

TheScreamingEagles said:

I was assured by PB Tory leavers this wouldn't happen if Leave won.

Nigel Farage has hinted he may seek to rejoin the Conservatives in a bid to hold the Party to account over Brexit, as sources suggested he will meet with Theresa May following discussions with Donald Trump.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/15/nigel-farage-hints-he-may-seek-to-rejoin-the-tories-as-sources-s/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

The Tory party would be wise to refuse him.

Black_Rook said:

https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/798647681266708480

We continue to await any real sign of a Ukip collapse. Relatively high levels of Labour support compared with other recent polls appear to be down to lower than typical Lib Dem figures, at 6%.

LOL @ the Lib Dems. The party of the 48%... More like the party of the eurofanatics.

TheScreamingEagles said:

I was assured by PB Tory leavers this wouldn't happen if Leave won.

Nigel Farage has hinted he may seek to rejoin the Conservatives in a bid to hold the Party to account over Brexit, as sources suggested he will meet with Theresa May following discussions with Donald Trump.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/15/nigel-farage-hints-he-may-seek-to-rejoin-the-tories-as-sources-s/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

If he's saying he's joining the party specifically to make things more difficult for the party, the chances are that joining the party isn't his primary intention.

TOPPING said:

RobD said:

Scott_P said:

steve_garner said:

perhaps he can tell us about the "massive inflation" figures today.

https://twitter.com/peston/status/798482965856546816

So despite that, inflation still went down?

Holidays, clothing, some other super essentials now cheaper.

Meanwhile fripperies such as fuel and manufacturing inputs up significantly.

Still, I'm at a loss as to why inflation went down despite fuel going up. I thought that would be a significant driver for inflation.

geoffw said:

DavidL said:

IanB2 said:

viewcode said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/johnrentoul/status/798642340311207936

I must confess to some confusion here. What are the Commission's grounds for belief that we will give them anything? I can see the sense in a quid pro quo - we give x billion, they give us certain accesses, and so on - but the idea we would maintain contributions for things we get no benefit from is surely risible?

Bet you we do, though.

Only if we get things we really want in return such as the Single Passport. Otherwise cheerio.

Who is responsible for e.g. the pensions of soon-to-be-redundant British EU functionaries?

Well, their employers obviously. They have been assured that they will not be made redundant but we shall see. What share of the buildings built with British taxpayers money do we own? And the EIB? Etc.

Jonathan said:

Anecdote alert...

My fish and chip shop has a sign saying its prices are up 7% due to Brexit.

Uh oh if the curry houses join in it would mean the end..


......of the world. Anecdata is the way forward.

Jonathan said:

Anecdote alert...

My fish and chip shop has a sign saying its prices are up 7% due to Brexit.

I'd go to another chippie if I were you. Your one is plainly taking the piss. Or just ask them what products they serve are actually imported and how come fish and chip shops elsewhere have not needed to put up prices.

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

Speedy said:

rcs1000 said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/johnrentoul/status/798642340311207936

Lol. All bluster.

Edit to add: pay us €60bn now, or in two years you'll have to pay NOTHING.

The EU sure is a bad negotiator.

This is all just anchoring.

This is not anchoring. This is someone wildly adrift and moving out of the real world. Fast.

Oh please, it's bluster, and pre-negotiation bombast.

Wherever I've been involved in any serious negotiation, I've walked out at least twice. It's all part of the game.

MaxPB said:

Jonathan said:

Anecdote alert...

My fish and chip shop has a sign saying its prices are up 7% due to Brexit.

British fish, British potatoes and British vegetable oil. Looks to me like profiteering either by the chip shop or by one of their suppliers.

Question is do they sell British battered emulsified high fat offal tubes?

RobD said:

geoffw said:

DavidL said:

IanB2 said:

viewcode said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/johnrentoul/status/798642340311207936

I must confess to some confusion here. What are the Commission's grounds for belief that we will give them anything? I can see the sense in a quid pro quo - we give x billion, they give us certain accesses, and so on - but the idea we would maintain contributions for things we get no benefit from is surely risible?

Bet you we do, though.

Only if we get things we really want in return such as the Single Passport. Otherwise cheerio.

Who is responsible for e.g. the pensions of soon-to-be-redundant British EU functionaries?

The EU, I would have thought.

Well yes, I suppose a company would still be responsible for future pensions of former employees, but such pensions are funded from contributions while they were employees. But EU officials' pensions are funded from current tax contributions from member states. Barnier's line is that this should be picked up by the UK.

TheScreamingEagles said:

I was assured by PB Tory leavers this wouldn't happen if Leave won.

Nigel Farage has hinted he may seek to rejoin the Conservatives in a bid to hold the Party to account over Brexit, as sources suggested he will meet with Theresa May following discussions with Donald Trump.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/15/nigel-farage-hints-he-may-seek-to-rejoin-the-tories-as-sources-s/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

He could be in the Cabinet before long.

rcs1000 said:

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

Speedy said:

rcs1000 said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/johnrentoul/status/798642340311207936

Lol. All bluster.

Edit to add: pay us €60bn now, or in two years you'll have to pay NOTHING.

The EU sure is a bad negotiator.

This is all just anchoring.

This is not anchoring. This is someone wildly adrift and moving out of the real world. Fast.

Oh please, it's bluster, and pre-negotiation bombast.

Wherever I've been involved in any serious negotiation, I've walked out at least twice. It's all part of the game.

Walking out is a fine tactic and nothing wrong with it. But threats need to have some element of credibility about them or they are simply met with derisory laughter. And this certainly falls into that territory.

Cyclefree said:

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

Speedy said:

rcs1000 said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/johnrentoul/status/798642340311207936

Lol. All bluster.

Edit to add: pay us €60bn now, or in two years you'll have to pay NOTHING.

The EU sure is a bad negotiator.

This is all just anchoring.

This is not anchoring. This is someone wildly adrift and moving out of the real world. Fast.

Presumably if we simply refused to pay, we'd be out in March 2019, with no deal and an EU refusal even to discuss one until we paid up.

Anyway, since we're back on Brexit, I think I'll be off.

As I said earlier, it's "give us €60bn, or you have to leave in two years and pay us NOTHING"

Remember: 1, this if just a newspaper story, and 2, both sides have an interest in assisting as hardline as possible prior to negotiations. Hence the rubbish that dr fox came out with any South Korea renegotiating the deal with the EU if we were no longer members.

geoffw said:

RobD said:

geoffw said:

DavidL said:

IanB2 said:

viewcode said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/johnrentoul/status/798642340311207936

I must confess to some confusion here. What are the Commission's grounds for belief that we will give them anything? I can see the sense in a quid pro quo - we give x billion, they give us certain accesses, and so on - but the idea we would maintain contributions for things we get no benefit from is surely risible?

Bet you we do, though.

Only if we get things we really want in return such as the Single Passport. Otherwise cheerio.

Who is responsible for e.g. the pensions of soon-to-be-redundant British EU functionaries?

The EU, I would have thought.

Well yes, I suppose a company would still be responsible for future pensions of former employees, but such pensions are funded from contributions while they were employees. But EU officials' pensions are funded from current tax contributions from member states. Barnier's line is that this should be picked up by the UK.

I have some sympathy with that view, although you could also argue we own a substantial fraction of all assets the EU has.

MikeL said:

Dow Jones has just closed at all time record high.

Normal Republican President then. A boom to be followed by a bust.

nunu said:

MikeL said:

Dow Jones has just closed at all time record high.

Normal Republican President then. A boom to be followed by a bust.

Haven't all the stock markets been pumped up with QE?

steve_garner said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I was assured by PB Tory leavers this wouldn't happen if Leave won.

Nigel Farage has hinted he may seek to rejoin the Conservatives in a bid to hold the Party to account over Brexit, as sources suggested he will meet with Theresa May following discussions with Donald Trump.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/15/nigel-farage-hints-he-may-seek-to-rejoin-the-tories-as-sources-s/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

We were all assured by PB Remainers that the following would happen if Leave won: immediate recession, higher interest rates, higher taxes, public spending cuts etc etc. Where did it all go wrong?

We haven't triggered Article 50 yet let alone left.

I have never walked out of any negotiation. Sounds like I have been missing a trick!!

steve_garner said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

steve_garner said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I was assured by PB Tory leavers this wouldn't happen if Leave won.

Nigel Farage has hinted he may seek to rejoin the Conservatives in a bid to hold the Party to account over Brexit, as sources suggested he will meet with Theresa May following discussions with Donald Trump.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/15/nigel-farage-hints-he-may-seek-to-rejoin-the-tories-as-sources-s/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

We were all assured by PB Remainers that the following would happen if Leave won: immediate recession, higher interest rates, higher taxes, public spending cuts etc etc. Where did it all go wrong?

We haven't triggered Article 50 yet let alone left yet.

No I'm sorry. Your hero Osborne said there would be an immediate recession.

I'm not sure Osborne is a PB Remainer, which is what you said in your post.

Educated people do face serious danger from robots, but it isn't that they're going to take our jobs, it's that they're going to kill us all.

The way elements of the campaign to leave the EU sought to “toxify the debate” before the referendum is likely to have contributed to an increase in reported hate crimes, MPs have heard.

Taking evidence on the subject from groups which deal with hate crimes, the home affairs committee was told that interventions by Boris Johnson and by Leave.EU, co-founded by the Ukip donor Arron Banks, had been particularly worrying.

“I do think that there was a deliberate strategy. Not to encourage attacks on the street, but in a sense, that was one of the consequences,” said Nick Lowles from Hope Not Hate, which investigates the actions of those who follow extremist groups.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/15/brexit-debate-referendum-boris-johnson-hate-crimes-immigration

Jonathan said:

MaxPB said:

Jonathan said:

Anecdote alert...

My fish and chip shop has a sign saying its prices are up 7% due to Brexit.

British fish, British potatoes and British vegetable oil. Looks to me like profiteering either by the chip shop or by one of their suppliers.

Their fish market in Euros apparently, Oil a commodity priced in Dollars. According to the sign.

I'd go somewhere cheaper.

RobD said:

geoffw said:

RobD said:

geoffw said:

DavidL said:

IanB2 said:

viewcode said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/johnrentoul/status/798642340311207936

I must confess to some confusion here. What are the Commission's grounds for belief that we will give them anything? I can see the sense in a quid pro quo - we give x billion, they give us certain accesses, and so on - but the idea we would maintain contributions for things we get no benefit from is surely risible?

Bet you we do, though.

Only if we get things we really want in return such as the Single Passport. Otherwise cheerio.

Who is responsible for e.g. the pensions of soon-to-be-redundant British EU functionaries?

The EU, I would have thought.

Well yes, I suppose a company would still be responsible for future pensions of former employees, but such pensions are funded from contributions while they were employees. But EU officials' pensions are funded from current tax contributions from member states. Barnier's line is that this should be picked up by the UK.

I have some sympathy with that view, although you could also argue we own a substantial fraction of all assets the EU has.

Not many EU buildings in the UK. Do we "own" part of the Berlaymont? - That might be more liability than asset (asbestos).

The pound shop Gordon Brown strikes again.

The Times say Deloitte only issued their statement after pressure from the government amid fears the firm would be stripped of future contracts

steve_garner said:

Scott P, you posted that earlier today. Do you have your own view on today's CPI figures and future inflation? If so what is it? Today's figures suggest your "massive inflation" projection may be wide of the mark. What did you mean by massive inflation by the way? 2%, 3% do tell.

My rule of thumb about a rise of inflation from a devaluation is always Imports as a share of GDP multiplied by the size of the devaluation since the start of the year.

So 24%*0.15=3.6%

Since inflation was zero you should get just 3.6%.

It doesn't always work, it depends on monetary policy and trade policy that might mitigate or exaggerate it.

geoffw said:

RobD said:

geoffw said:

RobD said:

geoffw said:

DavidL said:

IanB2 said:

viewcode said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/johnrentoul/status/798642340311207936

I must confess to some confusion here. What are the Commission's grounds for belief that we will give them anything? I can see the sense in a quid pro quo - we give x billion, they give us certain accesses, and so on - but the idea we would maintain contributions for things we get no benefit from is surely risible?

Bet you we do, though.

Only if we get things we really want in return such as the Single Passport. Otherwise cheerio.

Who is responsible for e.g. the pensions of soon-to-be-redundant British EU functionaries?

The EU, I would have thought.

Well yes, I suppose a company would still be responsible for future pensions of former employees, but such pensions are funded from contributions while they were employees. But EU officials' pensions are funded from current tax contributions from member states. Barnier's line is that this should be picked up by the UK.

I have some sympathy with that view, although you could also argue we own a substantial fraction of all assets the EU has.

Not many EU buildings in the UK. Do we "own" part of the Berlaymont? - That might be more liability than asset (asbestos).

Doesn't have to be limited to the UK. There are plenty of EU-owned property elsewhere, which were funded by all members of the EU.

(all contributor states, I should say)

edmundintokyo said:

Educated people do face serious danger from robots, but it isn't that they're going to take our jobs, it's that they're going to kill us all.

How?

rcs1000 said:

HurstLlama said:

Jonathan said:

MaxPB said:

Jonathan said:

Anecdote alert...

My fish and chip shop has a sign saying its prices are up 7% due to Brexit.

British fish, British potatoes and British vegetable oil. Looks to me like profiteering either by the chip shop or by one of their suppliers.

Their fish market in Euros apparently, Oil a commodity priced in Dollars. According to the sign.

They are taking the piss, Mr. Jonathan. Go elsewhere.

Fish are a global commodity, so it's not entirely unsurprising. If you catch some haddock, and the price is £1 or €1.25, you used to prefer to sell it to the Brit, and not you prefer to sell it to the European.

Have fish exports risen ?

TheScreamingEagles said:

The pound shop Gordon Brown strikes again.

The Times say Deloitte only issued their statement after pressure from the government amid fears the firm would be stripped of future contracts

LOL it was Deloittes? The govt made it sound as though the "pitch" was from a firm whose offices were above Chicken Cottage on Leyton High Street.

RobD said:

geoffw said:

DavidL said:

IanB2 said:

viewcode said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/johnrentoul/status/798642340311207936

I must confess to some confusion here. What are the Commission's grounds for belief that we will give them anything? I can see the sense in a quid pro quo - we give x billion, they give us certain accesses, and so on - but the idea we would maintain contributions for things we get no benefit from is surely risible?

Bet you we do, though.

Only if we get things we really want in return such as the Single Passport. Otherwise cheerio.

Who is responsible for e.g. the pensions of soon-to-be-redundant British EU functionaries?

The EU, I would have thought.

The EU is a is a cooperative, with common assets and common liabilities. We are owed a share of the assets, but - just as Scotland would be responsible for a share of the debt of HMG on independence - we owe a share of the liabilities too.

Our 14% share of assets is worth close to €30bn. Realistically, our share of future pension liabilities and the like is probably €20bn in today's money, or €40bn in cumulative payments over the next 60 years.

Comparing a number in today's money, with one that will be paid in half a century's time is ridiculous.

Speedy said:

rcs1000 said:

HurstLlama said:

Jonathan said:

MaxPB said:

Jonathan said:

Anecdote alert...

My fish and chip shop has a sign saying its prices are up 7% due to Brexit.

British fish, British potatoes and British vegetable oil. Looks to me like profiteering either by the chip shop or by one of their suppliers.

Their fish market in Euros apparently, Oil a commodity priced in Dollars. According to the sign.

They are taking the piss, Mr. Jonathan. Go elsewhere.

Fish are a global commodity, so it's not entirely unsurprising. If you catch some haddock, and the price is £1 or €1.25, you used to prefer to sell it to the Brit, and not you prefer to sell it to the European.

Have fish exports risen ?

We're a net importer of fish.

First post in ages for an update on the French presidential race:

For the first time a poll gives Fillon (+9) and Sarkozy (-1) tied at 25% on the Republicains primary's first round, with Juppé at 33% (-7).

Fillon would beat either Sarkozy (63/37) or Juppé (54/46) on the second round. Juppé would beat Sarkozy easily (57/43)

Link for those who read French:
http://www.atlantico.fr/decryptage/sondage-exclusif-francois-fillon-rattrape-nicolas-sarkozy-pour-1er-tour-primaire-et-battrait-largement-alain-juppe-au-second-2880518.html

This comes after several primary polls showing the same story in the last week or so: Fillon up, Juppé down, Sarkozy flat. Basically Fillon is going up by squeezing the other moderates (Le Maire and Juppé) while Sarkozy has a very stable support around 25%. All polls show Sarkozy losing the second round, often by big margins.

Previous polls still show a sizable gap between Sarkozy and Fillon but the media narrative and momentum seem to be clearly in Fillon's direction.

This race will be tight and I think that the current odds do not appropriately reflect it.
IMHO the Juppé price is too tight and it makes no sense to have Sarkozy (who has no realistic chance to win this primary) at the same price as Fillon that has a good chance to win the second round if he qualifies.

Laying both Sarkozy and Hollande still seems a safe strategy.

geoffw said:

RobD said:

geoffw said:

RobD said:

geoffw said:

DavidL said:

IanB2 said:

viewcode said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/johnrentoul/status/798642340311207936

I must confess to some confusion here. What are the Commission's grounds for belief that we will give them anything? I can see the sense in a quid pro quo - we give x billion, they give us certain accesses, and so on - but the idea we would maintain contributions for things we get no benefit from is surely risible?

Bet you we do, though.

Only if we get things we really want in return such as the Single Passport. Otherwise cheerio.

Who is responsible for e.g. the pensions of soon-to-be-redundant British EU functionaries?

The EU, I would have thought.

Well yes, I suppose a company would still be responsible for future pensions of former employees, but such pensions are funded from contributions while they were employees. But EU officials' pensions are funded from current tax contributions from member states. Barnier's line is that this should be picked up by the UK.

I have some sympathy with that view, although you could also argue we own a substantial fraction of all assets the EU has.

Not many EU buildings in the UK. Do we "own" part of the Berlaymont? - That might be more liability than asset (asbestos).

Yes we do. We also own a share of the EIB, and lots of other things.

The negotiations regarding division of assets is going to be contentious.

Chris_from_Paris said:

First post in ages for an update on the French presidential race:

For the first time a poll gives Fillon (+9) and Sarkozy (-1) tied at 25% on the Republicains primary's first round, with Juppé at 33% (-7).

Fillon would beat either Sarkozy (63/37) or Juppé (54/46) on the second round. Juppé would beat Sarkozy easily (57/43)

Link for those who read French:
http://www.atlantico.fr/decryptage/sondage-exclusif-francois-fillon-rattrape-nicolas-sarkozy-pour-1er-tour-primaire-et-battrait-largement-alain-juppe-au-second-2880518.html

This comes after several primary polls showing the same story in the last week or so: Fillon up, Juppé down, Sarkozy flat. Basically Fillon is going up by squeezing the other moderates (Le Maire and Juppé) while Sarkozy has a very stable support around 25%. All polls show Sarkozy losing the second round, often by big margins.

Previous polls still show a sizable gap between Sarkozy and Fillon but the media narrative and momentum seem to be clearly in Fillon's direction.

This race will be tight and I think that the current odds do not appropriately reflect it.
IMHO the Juppé price is too tight and it makes no sense to have Sarkozy (who has no realistic chance to win this primary) at the same price as Fillon that has a good chance to win the second round if he qualifies.

Laying both Sarkozy and Hollande still seems a safe strategy.

My question is what are the dynamics of a Fillon-Le Pen race.

Speedy said:

Chris_from_Paris said:

First post in ages for an update on the French presidential race:

For the first time a poll gives Fillon (+9) and Sarkozy (-1) tied at 25% on the Republicains primary's first round, with Juppé at 33% (-7).

Fillon would beat either Sarkozy (63/37) or Juppé (54/46) on the second round. Juppé would beat Sarkozy easily (57/43)

Link for those who read French:
http://www.atlantico.fr/decryptage/sondage-exclusif-francois-fillon-rattrape-nicolas-sarkozy-pour-1er-tour-primaire-et-battrait-largement-alain-juppe-au-second-2880518.html

This comes after several primary polls showing the same story in the last week or so: Fillon up, Juppé down, Sarkozy flat. Basically Fillon is going up by squeezing the other moderates (Le Maire and Juppé) while Sarkozy has a very stable support around 25%. All polls show Sarkozy losing the second round, often by big margins.

Previous polls still show a sizable gap between Sarkozy and Fillon but the media narrative and momentum seem to be clearly in Fillon's direction.

This race will be tight and I think that the current odds do not appropriately reflect it.
IMHO the Juppé price is too tight and it makes no sense to have Sarkozy (who has no realistic chance to win this primary) at the same price as Fillon that has a good chance to win the second round if he qualifies.

Laying both Sarkozy and Hollande still seems a safe strategy.

My question is what are the dynamics of a Fillon-Le Pen race.

70:30 to Fillon

rcs1000 said:

RobD said:

rcs1000 said:

RobD said:

geoffw said:

DavidL said:

IanB2 said:

viewcode said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/johnrentoul/status/798642340311207936

I must confess to some confusion here. What are the Commission's grounds for belief that we will give them anything? I can see the sense in a quid pro quo - we give x billion, they give us certain accesses, and so on - but the idea we would maintain contributions for things we get no benefit from is surely risible?

Bet you we do, though.

Only if we get things we really want in return such as the Single Passport. Otherwise cheerio.

Who is responsible for e.g. the pensions of soon-to-be-redundant British EU functionaries?

The EU, I would have thought.

The EU is a is a cooperative, with common assets and common liabilities. We are owed a share of the assets, but - just as Scotland would be responsible for a share of the debt of HMG on independence - we owe a share of the liabilities too.

Our 14% share of assets is worth close to €30bn. Realistically, our share of future pension liabilities and the like is probably €20bn in today's money, or €40bn in cumulative payments over the next 60 years.

Comparing a number in today's money, with one that will be paid in half a century's time is ridiculous.

So we're owed 10bn Euros net? Isn't that 33 new hospitals?

Around 15% of the EU's assets are in Greek government bonds, which if a further complication...

I vote we don't include any greek bonds in our 14% share

rcs1000 said:

Speedy said:

rcs1000 said:

HurstLlama said:

Jonathan said:

MaxPB said:

Jonathan said:

Anecdote alert...

My fish and chip shop has a sign saying its prices are up 7% due to Brexit.

British fish, British potatoes and British vegetable oil. Looks to me like profiteering either by the chip shop or by one of their suppliers.

Their fish market in Euros apparently, Oil a commodity priced in Dollars. According to the sign.

They are taking the piss, Mr. Jonathan. Go elsewhere.

Fish are a global commodity, so it's not entirely unsurprising. If you catch some haddock, and the price is £1 or €1.25, you used to prefer to sell it to the Brit, and not you prefer to sell it to the European.

Have fish exports risen ?

We're a net importer of fish.

We may be a net importer, but we still export a huge amount of top quality seafood - to France and Spain in particular.