Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » And now BuzzWord bingo on Trump’s Inaugural speech
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » And now BuzzWord bingo on Trump’s Inaugural speech
Well done to Shadsy, head of political odds at Ladbrokes, for getting this together – buzzword bingo on what’s almost certainly going to be the most watched and scrutinised political speech of 2017 – the Trump address at his inauguration on January 20th.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
collect your winnings
Obamacare seems like a good bet to me. But I almost always lose on these markets.
Mostly, though, inauguration speeches comprise content-free boiler-plate platitudes:
http://content.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1872715,00.html
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=25853
http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres63.html
Trump may be different, of course.
It's probably not odds on but it's not 5/1.
Rolls Royce Cars - 4,000 sold last year, another 100 skilled jobs to add to the 100 it already announced in July.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/01/09/rolls-royce-enjoys-record-demand-second-best-year-ever/
But surely among her vast army of civil servants there must be someone senior enough to warn her that now she's PM the briefest of burps can sent our flimsy currency flailing so why can't she just keep her big trap shut?
His election victory speech may be more of the model - gracious(ish) but also rather long winded.
Sorry to go back to Brexit so quickly, but a question that's troubling me. It seems that our 2 red lines are forming around 1) control of UK borders 2) no European Court of Justice oversight.
#1 I can at least understand.
But my question to leavers is on #2 - assuming there is some arrangement with the EU albeit looser than we have now, who do we want to police it? Surely there needs to be some arbiter of disputes? No way the EU would agree that everything would be decided by the Supreme Court in London (which is stuffed with ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE lest we forget) So who? An entirely separate legal mechanism? A new court etc? Who would Leavers trust to oversee this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHn-g7T9f9A
NSFW but hilarious!
What is it about Hollywood actors that makes them think that accepting an award for their acting is both an appropriate platform for a political speech, and that everyone wants to hear it?
However, since the largest stake Ladbrokes will offer me is tuppence ha'penny, it's rather academic in my case!
On Amateur Transplants - I saw them live in 2010 - they were brilliant. And I was humming the London Underground song as I crossed Waterloo Bridge this morning.
http://news.sky.com/story/uk-to-remain-home-of-rolls-royce-after-remarkable-sales-10722679
As said by some soon-to-be Brussels Eurocrat and now leading Remainer.
Central line was working from Gants Hill all the way to Liverpool Street, though Wanstead, Leyton, Mile End and Bethnal Green were closed. Then Metropolitan to Euston Square (Moorgate and Barbican closed), 5 minute walk to Euston main line.
Got to Coventry at 12.40.
A lot of random shite masquerading as cleverness.
If we're going for something more comprehensive then the EFTA court possibly, although I think, politically, the EU will want to make us subject to the ECJ in something so they can say, "a-ha, the UK has left but now has to comply with X without having any say in the rules"
The job of the UK Government will be to try and negotiate that that 'X' is in a relatively politically unimportant field.
So far events are playing out exactly as I predicted.
Sherlock is awesome.
Be interested to hear if I have missed something!
The ECJ is a body of the EU and why would we trust a body of the EU to oversee a deal between the EU and the UK? How is the ECJ ever going to be impartial in any dispute between the UK and the EU? I don't know of any deal anywhere where one party is its own adjudicator between itself and another party.
That would be like NAFTA being overseen by SCOTUS. It isn't.
Given the story and that feeling America is regressing under Trump, might be how liberal America fights back.
FWIW, I enjoyed it.
Next year: more business will be done. This will probably be the trickiest time for May domestically because it'll become clear where the redlines really are, and where concessions are being made. But, as news of private progress behind the scenes leaks, towards the back end of 2018, Sterling should improve.
A few EU countries will then throw their toys out of the pram at the last minute in early 2019, and cause another slump in Sterling as markets worry we'll drop out without a deal.
Finally, a basic transition (divorce) deal of some sort will be struck late March 2019. The pound will stabilise and May will announce a long-term plan for Brexit off the back of it including future negotiations and intentions of collaboration with the EU.
Once we've done some penance - a few years outside, and the EU feels it has politically stabilised a bit, and they feel the UK has paid a sufficient price for Brexiting - there'll then be further talk in the 2020s for a more comprehensive deal.
Won two general elections, referendums on AV and Scottish Independence, lost a referendum on the EU.
And you're left thinking: eh?
We're supposed to think the fact the plots are disconnected, and make virtually no sense are in fact very 'clever', and those who don't get it are stupid, but I think it's actually an excuse for lazy and complacent writing.
Not sure how the Twenty-fifth amendment plays out in that scenario.
The country won't fall apart.
Forex traders and luvvies will overreact. They will then wake up after the event, go back to work and at some point the penny will drop (as opposed to the pound), that most people will just get on with it.
As I've said before, the only deal that'll 'stick' is one that both Leavers *and* Remainers can both applaud, and criticise.
Which means we'll be arguing about it forever.
Which is terrific.
Is there a Betfair "financials", or something?
It's not just Streep. Whenever many actors get up to receive an award *for their work in acting* they feel that what people really should be privileged to hear in gratitude is their political views, for which they expect to be applauded.
Casino Royale helpfully suggested a bespoke court along the lines of the ISDS court made up of representatives from both sides. From where I'm sitting that would be worse than the ECJ as it would create a separate bureaucracy and power base - but I've learnt not to judge anything on Brexit from my vantage point.
As others have said, the best model is his election victory speech, in which he basically said nothing at all of substance.
BTW you missed out the 'r' in 'your'.
(Though of course Burr shot Hamilton, not Jefferson - and did so after Hamilton had challenged him.)
ISDS tend to have a minimal influence conflict resolution style whereas courts tend to view themselves as a law unto themselves so an ISDS would be far preferable to having a foreign bodies domestic court ruling over our agreements.