politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » My 66/1 long-shot bet for the 2020 White House race: Democrati

First!

Who is Kathleen Warren? You mean Elizabeth Warren.

Try Tulsi Gabbard instead, think she's about 100/1

Modesty forbids you from mentioning your previous forays into Presidential betting

I wonder how many of these extreme long shots you have to back before you get a winner? I have put 3 big bets on at long odds, two of which I have won and one which didn't win. Overall I have won circa £1.5k over the past two year (GE 2015 and Trump) with the two bets that won on a stake of £120. Against this I lost £100 backing John McCain in 2008, wasted £9 backing some terrible momentum song as 2016 Christmas number one, a quid on nigel farage as next UKIP leader and live in the feint hope that David Davis will be next conservative leader which I backed at 100/1. On reflection I think I realised that - in the absence of superhuman powers of political insight and judgement - these small long shot bets are very unlikely to come good. But fun anyway.

FPT I thought Mays speech - what I saw of it at least - struck the correct tone. It is not what I want and I have my extreme doubts that it will work, but I've been of the view for the past few months that hard Brexit has to happen. People voted for this and they have to experience the consequences of it. Brexit lite or leave in name only would suit me better, but politically it would only feed the UKIP resentment machine. Certainly I am relieved that we have Theresa May at the helm and not Leadsom or Boris Johnson.

RobD said:

CarlottaVance said:

the daughter of an Indian-American mother and Jamaican-American father.

How long before someone asks to see her birth certificate?

Is she being mentioned because she is any good, or because she ticks boxes?

She's had quite an impressive political career - though as with anyone who has served in public office there's plenty of ammunition for her opponents:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_Harris

CarlottaVance said:

Stumbled across this on the BBC:

Thousands of people are faking living in Ireland to get family members into the UK, a BBC investigation has revealed.

The scam involves UK nationals who want to bring in close relatives from outside the European Economic Area.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38597384

Another way in which members of certain 'communities' find loopholes in UK immigration law, whereas those of us who do things properly get caught up in the bureaucracy.

Sandpit said:

CarlottaVance said:

Stumbled across this on the BBC:

Thousands of people are faking living in Ireland to get family members into the UK, a BBC investigation has revealed.

The scam involves UK nationals who want to bring in close relatives from outside the European Economic Area.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38597384

Another way in which members of certain 'communities' find loopholes in UK immigration law, whereas those of us who do things properly get caught up in the bureaucracy.

It's a good old fashioned scoop from investigative journalism - curious the BBC doesn't give it more prominence.....

Sandpit said:

Another way in which members of certain 'communities' find loopholes in UK immigration law, whereas those of us who do things properly get caught up in the bureaucracy.

I don't think anyone does immigration rules "properly". It's a machine: It won't apply the spirit of the rules in your favour, and you'll get screwed unless you work out how to use the letter of them to get what you need.

Every career move I've made here, and I'm currently doing a job that the Japanese government really wants people to do (not least advising a Japanese government committee), has involved some kind of trick to get around the spirit of the immigration rules, which never thought I was the kind of person qualified for their imagination of what I was doing.

rkrkrk said:

Is the Presidency bet for 2020 election... or next President?

At the moment Betfair is showing 2.22/2.6 lay on Trump leaving before end of 1st term!

That's a good point, and one that Betfair appeared to be ambiguous about is time too.

Right now, their market "Next President"
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/#/politics/event/28009878/market?marketId=1.128151441
Says in the rules that it is a market on the result of the 2020 Presidential election.

Two scenarios in which the winner of the 2020 election isn't the next president, one is that Trump wins and carries on, the other is that Trump is replaced (presumably by Pence) before 2020. DYOR before betting!

YellowSubmarine said:

Also in the News and Star's By-election write up was a report the Conservative candidate for Copeland will be selected " in a few weeks " which will mean they'll be the last of the major parties to select. An odd approach for a seat you are said to be targeting ?

Curious- the GE2015 candidate is deputy chair of the local party:

http://copelandconservatives.com

nielh said:

I wonder how many of these extreme long shots you have to back before you get a winner? I have put 3 big bets on at long odds, two of which I have won and one which didn't win. Overall I have won circa £1.5k over the past two year (GE 2015 and Trump) with the two bets that won on a stake of £120. Against this I lost £100 backing John McCain in 2008, wasted £9 backing some terrible momentum song as 2016 Christmas number one, a quid on nigel farage as next UKIP leader and live in the feint hope that David Davis will be next conservative leader which I backed at 100/1. On reflection I think I realised that - in the absence of superhuman powers of political insight and judgement - these small long shot bets are very unlikely to come good. But fun anyway.

FPT I thought Mays speech - what I saw of it at least - struck the correct tone. It is not what I want and I have my extreme doubts that it will work, but I've been of the view for the past few months that hard Brexit has to happen. People voted for this and they have to experience the consequences of it. Brexit lite or leave in name only would suit me better, but politically it would only feed the UKIP resentment machine. Certainly I am relieved that we have Theresa May at the helm and not Leadsom or Boris Johnson.

First para sounds like buying penny shares!

YellowSubmarine said:

In Copeland news Jeremy Corbyn has visited. But for a private meeting with Labour Party members ! So the press write up used a tiny stock photo of him looking scruffy in a flat cap and his views were relayed to the electorate by quotes from local Labour councillors who attended the meeting. I know normal people don't read press coverage like obsessives like me but it's a very strange approach. ' We'd like your vote, our party leader visited but only met party members, however some of the people allowed in will now tell you want he thinks. '.

Unless the local party members have made it clear they'd rather Corbyn kept a safe distance.

edmundintokyo said:

Sandpit said:

Another way in which members of certain 'communities' find loopholes in UK immigration law, whereas those of us who do things properly get caught up in the bureaucracy.

I don't think anyone does immigration rules "properly". It's a machine: It won't apply the spirit of the rules in your favour, and you'll get screwed unless you work out how to use the letter of them to get what you need.

Every career move I've made here, and I'm currently doing a job that the Japanese government really wants people to do (not least advising a Japanese government committee), has involved some kind of trick to get around the spirit of the immigration rules, which never thought I was the kind of person qualified for their imagination of what I was doing.

I don't disagree that sometimes an unconventional and creative approach is needed with immigration departments the world over.

However, there's a big difference between finding loopholes and falsifying documents. The subjects of this investigation are clearly fraudsters.

daodao said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/821602525770031105

And the EU27 will treat the UK (or rUK as I expect Scotland and the 6 counties to depart after a hard Brexit) as a distant relative of which they are ashamed locked away in a lunatic asylum.

May's speech tried to make a virtue out of political necessity, but she's whistling in the wilderness. The EU27 collectively are 10 times more powerful than the UK, so I wouldn't expect the relationship post-Brexit to be any better than that currently between the EU27 and Russia.

When we are 20% of the EU GDP and 25% of its defence spending- and one voice - how are the EU27 "ten times more powerful"?

daodao said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/821602525770031105

And the EU27 will treat the UK (or rUK as I expect Scotland and the 6 counties to depart after a hard Brexit) as a distant relative of which they are ashamed locked away in a lunatic asylum.

May's speech tried to make a virtue out of political necessity, but she's whistling in the wilderness. The EU27 collectively are 10 times more powerful than the UK, so I wouldn't expect the relationship post-Brexit to be any better than that currently between the EU27 and Russia.

We'll end up with a decent relationship because both sides will need one. There will be a lot of unpleasantness in the newspapers in the meantime, but the simple fact is that it would be ridiculous for Europe to turn its back on us and we need Europe. The regrettable thing from my perspective is that we are about to make it more expensive and time consuming to do business in our single biggest export market in exchange for a reduction in our global soft power and not much else. We'll get by - either as the UK or as England - by being a low-tax, light touch regulation jurisdiction, but we will miss more opportunities than we gain, and the left behind and forgotten the right enlisted for the Leave campaign will be the ones who pick up the tab; the metropolitan liberal elite will do just fine. But at least there is a level of certainty now: my company, for example, can now start planning to open an office inside the single market and to get it done before the UK leaves the EU. That is very helpful.

ydoethur said:

daodao said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/821602525770031105

And the EU27 will treat the UK (or rUK as I expect Scotland and the 6 counties to depart after a hard Brexit) as a distant relative of which they are ashamed locked away in a lunatic asylum.

May's speech tried to make a virtue out of political necessity, but she's whistling in the wilderness. The EU27 collectively are 10 times more powerful than the UK, so I wouldn't expect the relationship post-Brexit to be any better than that currently between the EU27 and Russia.

Unless you expect us to invade Ireland in a desperate bid to reclaim it, I suspect that last sentence will be a slight exaggeration.

Less good trading relations, undoubtedly. A war and sanctions seems pushing it.

(It's also worth pointing out Russia is far more powerful than the EU, another level on which your analogy fails.)

Agree, and it’s good to see you posting again. How did the OFSTED go?

SouthamObserver said:

daodao said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/821602525770031105

And the EU27 will treat the UK (or rUK as I expect Scotland and the 6 counties to depart after a hard Brexit) as a distant relative of which they are ashamed locked away in a lunatic asylum.

May's speech tried to make a virtue out of political necessity, but she's whistling in the wilderness. The EU27 collectively are 10 times more powerful than the UK, so I wouldn't expect the relationship post-Brexit to be any better than that currently between the EU27 and Russia.

We'll end up with a decent relationship because both sides will need one. There will be a lot of unpleasantness in the newspapers in the meantime, but the simple fact is that it would be ridiculous for Europe to turn its back on us and we need Europe. The regrettable thing from my perspective is that we are about to make it more expensive and time consuming to do business in our single biggest export market in exchange for a reduction in our global soft power and not much else. We'll get by - either as the UK or as England - by being a low-tax, light touch regulation jurisdiction, but we will miss more opportunities than we gain, and the left behind and forgotten the right enlisted for the Leave campaign will be the ones who pick up the tab; the metropolitan liberal elite will do just fine. But at least there is a level of certainty now: my company, for example, can now start planning to open an office inside the single market and to get it done before the UK leaves the EU. That is very helpful.

I think that is right. We will be diminished, but not by a lot, and the ills of globalisation will not be mitigated (indeed in a bucanneering free trade economy they are likely to worsen).

Business hates uncertainty, and so knowing it will be a hard Brexit at least allows for planning.

daodao said:

ydoethur said:

daodao said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/821602525770031105

And the EU27 will treat the UK (or rUK as I expect Scotland and the 6 counties to depart after a hard Brexit) as a distant relative of which they are ashamed locked away in a lunatic asylum.

May's speech tried to make a virtue out of political necessity, but she's whistling in the wilderness. The EU27 collectively are 10 times more powerful than the UK, so I wouldn't expect the relationship post-Brexit to be any better than that currently between the EU27 and Russia.

Unless you expect us to invade Ireland in a desperate bid to reclaim it, I suspect that last sentence will be a slight exaggeration.

Less good trading relations, undoubtedly. A war and sanctions seems pushing it.

(It's also worth pointing out Russia is far more powerful than the EU, another level on which your analogy fails.)

There might be fighting over the 6 counties yet, given the current political instability there. Hopefully, Brexit might be the opportunity for the 6 counties to emerge from under the bloody cloak of the butcher's apron which has lain over these lands since the flight of the Earls over 400 years ago.

That is a possibility I suppose but for your analogy to work the British would have to invade Donegal and Calais, assassinate the Taoiseach and put a British stooge in place while locking up all opposition leaders, shoot down a random EasyJet plane and then say it was the Irish themselves doing it, honestly.

However bad Brexit gets, somehow I don't quite see that happening.

ydoethur said:

OldKingCole said:

ydoethur said:

daodao said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/821602525770031105

And the EU27 will treat the UK (or rUK as I expect Scotland and the 6 counties to depart after a hard Brexit) as a distant relative of which they are ashamed locked away in a lunatic asylum.

May's speech tried to make a virtue out of political necessity, but she's whistling in the wilderness. The EU27 collectively are 10 times more powerful than the UK, so I wouldn't expect the relationship post-Brexit to be any better than that currently between the EU27 and Russia.

Unless you expect us to invade Ireland in a desperate bid to reclaim it, I suspect that last sentence will be a slight exaggeration.

Less good trading relations, undoubtedly. A war and sanctions seems pushing it.

(It's also worth pointing out Russia is far more powerful than the EU, another level on which your analogy fails.)

Agree, and it’s good to see you posting again. How did the OFSTED go?

It hasn't yet, but events are so fascinating I can't help myself. I'm trying to keep posting within bounds. The preparation is coming along OK as well, which helps.

I’m glad to read that. I've three current and two retired teachers in my family, all of whom have experienced OFSTED! Must say one of the retired ones came out of it very well indeed!

daodao said:

SouthamObserver said:

daodao said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/821602525770031105

And the EU27 will treat the UK (or rUK as I expect Scotland and the 6 counties to depart after a hard Brexit) as a distant relative of which they are ashamed locked away in a lunatic asylum.

May's speech tried to make a virtue out of political necessity, but she's whistling in the wilderness. The EU27 collectively are 10 times more powerful than the UK, so I wouldn't expect the relationship post-Brexit to be any better than that currently between the EU27 and Russia.

We'll end up with a decent relationship because both sides will need one. There will be a lot of unpleasantness in the newspapers in the meantime, but the simple fact is that it would be ridiculous for Europe to turn its back on us and we need Europe. The regrettable thing from my perspective is that we are about to make it more expensive and time consuming to do business in our single biggest export market in exchange for a reduction in our global soft power and not much else. We'll get by - either as the UK or as England - by being a low-tax, light touch regulation jurisdiction, but we will miss more opportunities than we gain, and the left behind and forgotten the right enlisted for the Leave campaign will be the ones who pick up the tab; the metropolitan liberal elite will do just fine. But at least there is a level of certainty now: my company, for example, can now start planning to open an office inside the single market and to get it done before the UK leaves the EU. That is very helpful.

I broadly agree with much of what you have stated, expect that for political reasons I expect the EU27 to punish the UK, even at some economic cost to themselves, "pour encourager les autres".

I think that the cold, hard reality of Brexit and Trump combined have pretty much had their affect on "les autres" already.

ydoethur said:

daodao said:

ydoethur said:

daodao said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/821602525770031105

And the EU27 will treat the UK (or rUK as I expect Scotland and the 6 counties to depart after a hard Brexit) as a distant relative of which they are ashamed locked away in a lunatic asylum.

May's speech tried to make a virtue out of political necessity, but she's whistling in the wilderness. The EU27 collectively are 10 times more powerful than the UK, so I wouldn't expect the relationship post-Brexit to be any better than that currently between the EU27 and Russia.

Unless you expect us to invade Ireland in a desperate bid to reclaim it, I suspect that last sentence will be a slight exaggeration.

Less good trading relations, undoubtedly. A war and sanctions seems pushing it.

(It's also worth pointing out Russia is far more powerful than the EU, another level on which your analogy fails.)

There might be fighting over the 6 counties yet, given the current political instability there. Hopefully, Brexit might be the opportunity for the 6 counties to emerge from under the bloody cloak of the butcher's apron which has lain over these lands since the flight of the Earls over 400 years ago.

That is a possibility I suppose but for your analogy to work the British would have to invade Donegal and Calais, assassinate the Taoiseach and put a British stooge in place while locking up all opposition leaders, shoot down a random EasyJet plane and then say it was the Irish themselves doing it, honestly.

However bad Brexit gets, somehow I don't quite see that happening.

Random Ryannair, surely, not Easyjet!

Bromptonaut said:

SouthamObserver said:

daodao said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/821602525770031105

And the EU27 will treat the UK (or rUK as I expect Scotland and the 6 counties to depart after a hard Brexit) as a distant relative of which they are ashamed locked away in a lunatic asylum.

May's speech tried to make a virtue out of political necessity, but she's whistling in the wilderness. The EU27 collectively are 10 times more powerful than the UK, so I wouldn't expect the relationship post-Brexit to be any better than that currently between the EU27 and Russia.

But at least there is a level of certainty now: my company, for example, can now start planning to open an office inside the single market and to get it done before the UK leaves the EU. That is very helpful.

That is the single best thing I've ever got (not gotten btw) out of reading PB.

We already do work in Ireland. We'll start planning a Dublin office today.

You were waiting for SO's statement rather than that of Theresa May?

Sandpit said:

rkrkrk said:

Is the Presidency bet for 2020 election... or next President?

At the moment Betfair is showing 2.22/2.6 lay on Trump leaving before end of 1st term!

That's a good point, and one that Betfair appeared to be ambiguous about is time too.

Right now, their market "Next President"
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/#/politics/event/28009878/market?marketId=1.128151441
Says in the rules that it is a market on the result of the 2020 Presidential election.

Two scenarios in which the winner of the 2020 election isn't the next president, one is that Trump wins and carries on, the other is that Trump is replaced (presumably by Pence) before 2020. DYOR before betting!

Thanks for pointing that out- I didn't spot that.
IMO that is a very misleading definition of next President - not in keeping with how they do 'next party leader' ...

Laying Trump to go in 2017 at around 9 seems value to me.

ydoethur said:

daodao said:

I broadly agree with much of what you have stated, expect that for political reasons I expect the EU27 to punish the UK, even at some economic cost to themselves, "pour encourager les autres".

It is fair to say many would probably like to punish us. However, there are risks to the EU in doing so as well. I'm not thinking about a small loss of trade here - any punishment the Euro and particularly the eurozone gilts take as a result of Brexit could easily topple the Greek and Italian economies, and there are still unresolved problems in Ireland (who will inevitably be most damaged by Brexit whatever form it takes given their size and location).

The question is whether the ardently Europhile negotiators under Barnier and backed by Verhofstadt will see that, or whether the governments will force them to see it. This could be very tricky all around and end up doing terrible damage if not handled correctly.

That's why in a way it's reassuring that May, who while not imaginative or flexible is at least also not prone to panic or impulse is in charge, rather than somebody reckless like Cameron. I would have preferred Hammond with May as Chancellor, but it's easy to imagine worse fates than we have (Boris...).

Of course, things will brighten considerably all around if that lunatic Juncker is sacked so the grownups can take direct charge. However that doesn't seem likely right now.

Juncker is a peripheral figure. The deal will be dictated by Germany and France, with the other member states using veto threats to get specific concessions. The UK will not walk away.

OldKingCole said:

ydoethur said:

daodao said:

ydoethur said:

daodao said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/821602525770031105

And the EU27 will treat the UK (or rUK as I expect Scotland and the 6 counties to depart after a hard Brexit) as a distant relative of which they are ashamed locked away in a lunatic asylum.

May's speech tried to make a virtue out of political necessity, but she's whistling in the wilderness. The EU27 collectively are 10 times more powerful than the UK, so I wouldn't expect the relationship post-Brexit to be any better than that currently between the EU27 and Russia.

Unless you expect us to invade Ireland in a desperate bid to reclaim it, I suspect that last sentence will be a slight exaggeration.

Less good trading relations, undoubtedly. A war and sanctions seems pushing it.

(It's also worth pointing out Russia is far more powerful than the EU, another level on which your analogy fails.)

There might be fighting over the 6 counties yet, given the current political instability there. Hopefully, Brexit might be the opportunity for the 6 counties to emerge from under the bloody cloak of the butcher's apron which has lain over these lands since the flight of the Earls over 400 years ago.

That is a possibility I suppose but for your analogy to work the British would have to invade Donegal and Calais, assassinate the Taoiseach and put a British stooge in place while locking up all opposition leaders, shoot down a random EasyJet plane and then say it was the Irish themselves doing it, honestly.

However bad Brexit gets, somehow I don't quite see that happening.

Random Ryannair, surely, not Easyjet!

No, Ryanair is based in the Emerald Isle. Malaysia Airways had no presence in Ukraine. Perhaps El Al would have been a better analogy!

With that, I am off to work. Have a good morning.

SouthamObserver said:

ydoethur said:

daodao said:

I broadly agree with much of what you have stated, expect that for political reasons I expect the EU27 to punish the UK, even at some economic cost to themselves, "pour encourager les autres".

It is fair to say many would probably like to punish us. However, there are risks to the EU in doing so as well. I'm not thinking about a small loss of trade here - any punishment the Euro and particularly the eurozone gilts take as a result of Brexit could easily topple the Greek and Italian economies, and there are still unresolved problems in Ireland (who will inevitably be most damaged by Brexit whatever form it takes given their size and location).

The question is whether the ardently Europhile negotiators under Barnier and backed by Verhofstadt will see that, or whether the governments will force them to see it. This could be very tricky all around and end up doing terrible damage if not handled correctly.

That's why in a way it's reassuring that May, who while not imaginative or flexible is at least also not prone to panic or impulse is in charge, rather than somebody reckless like Cameron. I would have preferred Hammond with May as Chancellor, but it's easy to imagine worse fates than we have (Boris...).

Of course, things will brighten considerably all around if that lunatic Juncker is sacked so the grownups can take direct charge. However that doesn't seem likely right now.

Juncker is a peripheral figure. The deal will be dictated by Germany and France, with the other member states using veto threats to get specific concessions. The UK will not walk away.

Typically fair and reasonable posts from you this morning, SO, even if I personally think they're pessimistic.

rkrkrk said:

Sandpit said:

rkrkrk said:

Is the Presidency bet for 2020 election... or next President?

At the moment Betfair is showing 2.22/2.6 lay on Trump leaving before end of 1st term!

That's a good point, and one that Betfair appeared to be ambiguous about is time too.

Right now, their market "Next President"
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/#/politics/event/28009878/market?marketId=1.128151441
Says in the rules that it is a market on the result of the 2020 Presidential election.

Two scenarios in which the winner of the 2020 election isn't the next president, one is that Trump wins and carries on, the other is that Trump is replaced (presumably by Pence) before 2020. DYOR before betting!

Thanks for pointing that out- I didn't spot that.
IMO that is a very misleading definition of next President - not in keeping with how they do 'next party leader' ...

Laying Trump to go in 2017 at around 9 seems value to me.

The "Next President" market rules are the same for 2020 as they were for 2016. It generated a lot of comment on here when various scandals, health scares etc came up during the camplaign.

Basically Betfair will settle the "Next President" market the day after the next Presidential election. As you say, completely different from how they'd settle "Next Prime Minister" here. Don't use the "Next President" market to back Trump resigning or being impeached.

nielh said:

I wonder how many of these extreme long shots you have to back before you get a winner? I have put 3 big bets on at long odds, two of which I have won and one which didn't win. Overall I have won circa £1.5k over the past two year (GE 2015 and Trump) with the two bets that won on a stake of £120. Against this I lost £100 backing John McCain in 2008, wasted £9 backing some terrible momentum song as 2016 Christmas number one, a quid on nigel farage as next UKIP leader and live in the feint hope that David Davis will be next conservative leader which I backed at 100/1. On reflection I think I realised that - in the absence of superhuman powers of political insight and judgement - these small long shot bets are very unlikely to come good. But fun anyway.

FPT I thought Mays speech - what I saw of it at least - struck the correct tone. It is not what I want and I have my extreme doubts that it will work, but I've been of the view for the past few months that hard Brexit has to happen. People voted for this and they have to experience the consequences of it. Brexit lite or leave in name only would suit me better, but politically it would only feed the UKIP resentment machine. Certainly I am relieved that we have Theresa May at the helm and not Leadsom or Boris Johnson.

Hadn't the bloke who eventually won the no rain at Wimbledon bet at long odds put a monkey on it each year for many years before?

On topic, Senator Harris seems a reasonable punt (best odds seem to be with Ladbrokes), though I favoured the Dem nomination. It is early for candidates to declare, and she has not been a Senator for long. Worth a light dabble. Ladbrokes seems explicit that this is a 2020 bet.

Hamon winning in France seems very remote, but Ladbrokes have 50/1 on a Fillon/Hamon final two which seems reasonable.

One (relatively) happy Lib Dem:

Secondly, it’s tactically smart. The Prime Minister is about to enter the toughest and most complex set of negotiations this country has had to undertake in over 70 years. She can’t do that on the back foot. She needed to offer a clear vision, one which strikes a deliberately independent pose, to anchor the British position in a way which avoids ambiguity or hostages to fortune. I think she largely succeeded.

That’s why I can’t feign the outrage I’ve seen expressed today about our departure from the single market. Of course I think it’s the wrong choice. And yes, I think Vote Leave was deliberately disingenuous in the referendum campaign in eliding single market membership/access. It’s also quite possible that a referendum specifically on membership of the single market might have produced a different result.

But we are where we are. I think it’s at the very least arguable that Theresa May’s decision to choose a swift exit may prove less economically harmful than protracted fudge-and-mudge.

http://stephentall.org/2017/01/17/theresa-mays-hard-brexit-politically-and-tactically-smart/

I can well imagine the democrats going for another woman the next time but a woman from California? Senators also rarely make it to President. Before Obama the previous was JFK and there has only been 1 other in history.

In contrast Clinton, GW Bush, Carter and Reagan all served as governors. If I was looking for a long shot I would be looking at governors of swing states, probably female, 20 years younger than Hillary or Trump.

Barnesian said:

SouthamObserver said:

ydoethur said:

daodao said:

I broadly agree with much of what you have stated, expect that for political reasons I expect the EU27 to punish the UK, even at some economic cost to themselves, "pour encourager les autres".

It is fair to say many would probably like to punish us. However, there are risks to the EU in doing so as well. I'm not thinking about a small loss of trade here - any punishment the Euro and particularly the eurozone gilts take as a result of Brexit could easily topple the Greek and Italian economies, and there are still unresolved problems in Ireland (who will inevitably be most damaged by Brexit whatever form it takes given their size and location).

The question is whether the ardently Europhile negotiators under Barnier and backed by Verhofstadt will see that, or whether the governments will force them to see it. This could be very tricky all around and end up doing terrible damage if not handled correctly.

That's why in a way it's reassuring that May, who while not imaginative or flexible is at least also not prone to panic or impulse is in charge, rather than somebody reckless like Cameron. I would have preferred Hammond with May as Chancellor, but it's easy to imagine worse fates than we have (Boris...).

Of course, things will brighten considerably all around if that lunatic Juncker is sacked so the grownups can take direct charge. However that doesn't seem likely right now.

Juncker is a peripheral figure. The deal will be dictated by Germany and France, with the other member states using veto threats to get specific concessions. The UK will not walk away.

I think that's right. I think the likelihood of a WTO hard Brexit is considerably reduced by May's negotiating strategy - and that is why sterling has strengthened.

Had she gone for the single market as a priority and then tried to negotiate opt-outs like free movement and much reduced contributions, a WTO ending would have been much more likely.

Reading the change in Sterling as an endorsement is probably over doing it. There were also yesterdays inflation figures pointing to an interest rate rise on the cards, and nervousness over Trump saying the Dollar is too strong. There are a lot of nerves and volatility over reading tea-leaves at the moment.

DavidL said:

I can well imagine the democrats going for another woman the next time but a woman from California? Senators also rarely make it to President. Before Obama the previous was JFK and there has only been 1 other in history.

In contrast Clinton, GW Bush, Carter and Reagan all served as governors. If I was looking for a long shot I would be looking at governors of swing states, probably female, 20 years younger than Hillary or Trump.

Slightly misleading. Three Senators have moved directly from The Senate to The White House, but in total sixteen Senators have eventually become POTUS

The BBC's news web site still has Chelsea Manning as its lead story. More evidence that the BBC's overnight news team spends too much time watching the American satellite news channels.

DecrepitJohnL said:

The BBC's news web site still has Chelsea Manning as its lead story. More evidence that the BBC's overnight news team spends too much time watching the American satellite news channels.

A case of some Wikileaks good, some Wikileaks bad?

TheScreamingEagles said:

DavidL said:

I can well imagine the democrats going for another woman the next time but a woman from California? Senators also rarely make it to President. Before Obama the previous was JFK and there has only been 1 other in history.

In contrast Clinton, GW Bush, Carter and Reagan all served as governors. If I was looking for a long shot I would be looking at governors of swing states, probably female, 20 years younger than Hillary or Trump.

Slightly misleading. Three Senators have moved directly from The Senate to The White House, but in total sixteen Senators have eventually become POTUS

But the others had gone off and done other things, in many cases like Nixon, LBJ, Truman and others been VP. I was caught out by Obama because my rule of thumb was that senators as a whole struggle to have the national profile, don't have executive experience and strangely often seem to be poor debaters.

I think we are both relying on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_other_offices_held

which is an interesting page, not least because it points out that Trump is the very first US President not to have held any of the offices listed before being elected.

foxinsoxuk said:

Barnesian said:

SouthamObserver said:

ydoethur said:

daodao said:

I broadly agree with much of what you have stated, expect that for political reasons I expect the EU27 to punish the UK, even at some economic cost to themselves, "pour encourager les autres".

It is fair to say many would probably like to punish us. However, there are risks to the EU in doing so as well. I'm not thinking about a small loss of trade here - any punishment the Euro and particularly the eurozone gilts take as a result of Brexit could easily topple the Greek and Italian economies, and there are still unresolved problems in Ireland (who will inevitably be most damaged by Brexit whatever form it takes given their size and location).

The question is whether the ardently Europhile negotiators under Barnier and backed by Verhofstadt will see that, or whether the governments will force them to see it. This could be very tricky all around and end up doing terrible damage if not handled correctly.

That's why in a way it's reassuring that May, who while not imaginative or flexible is at least also not prone to panic or impulse is in charge, rather than somebody reckless like Cameron. I would have preferred Hammond with May as Chancellor, but it's easy to imagine worse fates than we have (Boris...).

Of course, things will brighten considerably all around if that lunatic Juncker is sacked so the grownups can take direct charge. However that doesn't seem likely right now.

Juncker is a peripheral figure. The deal will be dictated by Germany and France, with the other member states using veto threats to get specific concessions. The UK will not walk away.

I think that's right. I think the likelihood of a WTO hard Brexit is considerably reduced by May's negotiating strategy - and that is why sterling has strengthened.

Had she gone for the single market as a priority and then tried to negotiate opt-outs like free movement and much reduced contributions, a WTO ending would have been much more likely.

Reading the change in Sterling as an endorsement is probably over doing it. There were also yesterdays inflation figures pointing to an interest rate rise on the cards, and nervousness over Trump saying the Dollar is too strong. There are a lot of nerves and volatility over reading tea-leaves at the moment.

According to the BBC the reason for the infinitessimal rise in sterling was because it was was wrongly believed that by allowing a vote in parliament meant that Brexit could be reversed

Roger said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Barnesian said:

SouthamObserver said:

ydoethur said:

daodao said:

I broadly agree with much of what you have stated, expect that for political reasons I expect the EU27 to punish the UK, even at some economic cost to themselves, "pour encourager les autres".

It is fair to say many would probably like to punish us. However, there are risks to the EU in doing so as well. I'm not thinking about a small loss of trade here - any punishment the Euro and particularly the eurozone gilts take as a result of Brexit could easily topple the Greek and Italian economies, and there are still unresolved problems in Ireland (who will inevitably be most damaged by Brexit whatever form it takes given their size and location).

The question is whether the ardently Europhile negotiators under Barnier and backed by Verhofstadt will see that, or whether the governments will force them to see it. This could be very tricky all around and end up doing terrible damage if not handled correctly.

That's why in a way it's reassuring that May, who while not imaginative or flexible is at least also not prone to panic or impulse is in charge, rather than somebody reckless like Cameron. I would have preferred Hammond with May as Chancellor, but it's easy to imagine worse fates than we have (Boris...).

Of course, things will brighten considerably all around if that lunatic Juncker is sacked so the grownups can take direct charge. However that doesn't seem likely right now.

Juncker is a peripheral figure. The deal will be dictated by Germany and France, with the other member states using veto threats to get specific concessions. The UK will not walk away.

I think that's right. I think the likelihood of a WTO hard Brexit is considerably reduced by May's negotiating strategy - and that is why sterling has strengthened.

Had she gone for the single market as a priority and then tried to negotiate opt-outs like free movement and much reduced contributions, a WTO ending would have been much more likely.

Reading the change in Sterling as an endorsement is probably over doing it. There were also yesterdays inflation figures pointing to an interest rate rise on the cards, and nervousness over Trump saying the Dollar is too strong. There are a lot of nerves and volatility over reading tea-leaves at the moment.

According to the BBC the reason for the infinitessimal rise in sterling was because it was was wrongly believed that by allowing a vote in parliament meant that Brexit could be reversed

Well then either the BBC journos are idiots or the forex traders are. Either is plausible.

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

DavidL said:

I can well imagine the democrats going for another woman the next time but a woman from California? Senators also rarely make it to President. Before Obama the previous was JFK and there has only been 1 other in history.

In contrast Clinton, GW Bush, Carter and Reagan all served as governors. If I was looking for a long shot I would be looking at governors of swing states, probably female, 20 years younger than Hillary or Trump.

Slightly misleading. Three Senators have moved directly from The Senate to The White House, but in total sixteen Senators have eventually become POTUS

But the others had gone off and done other things, in many cases like Nixon, LBJ, Truman and others been VP. I was caught out by Obama because my rule of thumb was that senators as a whole struggle to have the national profile, don't have executive experience and strangely often seem to be poor debaters.

I think we are both relying on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_other_offices_held

which is an interesting page, not least because it points out that Trump is the very first US President not to have held any of the offices listed before being elected.

You were also caught out by Obama because his opponents in both the primaries and the general election were senators.

david_herdson said:

Well then either the BBC journos are idiots or the forex traders are. Either is plausible.

It does make you wonder what else traders get wrong if they are misinterpreting the vote as deal versus EU, rather than as deal versus no deal.

glw said:

Barnesian said:

I think that's right. I think the likelihood of a WTO hard Brexit is considerably reduced by May's negotiating strategy - and that is why sterling has strengthened.

Had she gone for the single market as a priority and then tried to negotiate opt-outs like free movement and much reduced contributions, a WTO ending would have been much more likely.

I agree. May has shot the EU's fox by saying we will leave the single market and customs union, whereas a few days ago it was widely assumed we were seeking to remain in them somehow. The EU has much less leverage now, which ought to make a deal more straightforward rather than endless arguments about how stay in the single market without the four freedoms.

I think May's team have played a blinder, given the hand she was dealt by the voters and the judges. We still might not get a decent deal, but that can be put down to the intransigence of an EU trapped in the "punishment" mindset. May comes out of it fine either way.

Such a breath of fresh air after the way Cameron got it so wrong.

HYUFD said:

After Hillary the Democratic base will certainly be looking for a more left liberal candidate to take on Trump, so if Harris runs on that agenda she has a chance otherwise it is hard to see past Warren. However the Democrats will be focusing on the 2018 midterms first to get the best possible platform for 2020

If the democrats are serious about winning in 2020 they'd be insane to offer a candidate who:
1. Is from California or New York
2. Smells of identity politics
3. Looks 'other' to middle America
4. Looks anti business, anti gun rights or anti 'confidence' that America is great - no hand wringing apologists
5. Won't campaign hard in marginal states and spend time in Flyover country.

A left liberal Californian black/Indian woman may tick all the Dem boxes - but would pretty much guarantee a Trump re-election. They face the same dilemma as Labour in the UK - ideological purity or victory?

No-one mentions the WTO "rules" we're supposed to be falling back on. Our WTO schedules are currently undefined and subject to complex negotiations with 160 countries, including most importantly the EU. As these will kick in, or not, the moment we leave in 2019, it would be helpful to have an idea of what they are going to be.

ydoethur said:

daodao said:

I broadly agree with much of what you have stated, expect that for political reasons I expect the EU27 to punish the UK, even at some economic cost to themselves, "pour encourager les autres".

It is fair to say many would probably like to punish us. However, there are risks to the EU in doing so as well. I'm not thinking about a small loss of trade here - any punishment the Euro and particularly the eurozone gilts take as a result of Brexit could easily topple the Greek and Italian economies, and there are still unresolved problems in Ireland (who will inevitably be most damaged by Brexit whatever form it takes given their size and location).

The question is whether the ardently Europhile negotiators under Barnier and backed by Verhofstadt will see that, or whether the governments will force them to see it. This could be very tricky all around and end up doing terrible damage if not handled correctly.

That's why in a way it's reassuring that May, who while not imaginative or flexible is at least also not prone to panic or impulse is in charge, rather than somebody reckless like Cameron. I would have preferred Hammond with May as Chancellor, but it's easy to imagine worse fates than we have (Boris...).

Of course, things will brighten considerably all around if that lunatic Juncker is sacked so the grownups can take direct charge. However that doesn't seem likely right now.

I've just had a thought. The above comment plus the reports of a plan to eliminate refunds in the EU makes me wonder if Brexit will be used as an excuse for a fundamental shake up of the EU with a number of states being thrown under the bus leaving a slimmer 'fitter' rump EU of mostly Northern states.

Edited - another thought, perhaps the rump EU that's formed will be more attractive to the UK - not that we'll ever join that club again.

Scott_P said:

@PolhomeEditor: David Davis insists new trade deal between UK and EU will be agreed by the end of the two-year Article 50 period. Ambitious. #r4today

@BBCNormanS: Transitional arrangements to implement Brexti deal will be "a year or two" says David Davis @BBCr4today

So are we prepared to walk away with no deal, or not?

you haven't done much negotiating have you...

The confirmation process in the US for Trumps cabinet is a gift that keeps giving.
Education sec pick, (another billionaire) says the gun free school zones should be eliminated and local authorities decide i,e, in Wyoming for defence against Grizzly Bears! Also thought there should no federal disability rights for disabled children.

It also seems that Rex Tillerson is not having a smooth ride as nominee for Sec of State. Even people opposed to him expected someone worldly sage. Instead he came across as largely ignorant of security issues, Lied about Exon ever lobbying against various dictators and human rights abusers etc. (for some reason he;d been let off having to swear an Oath over his testimony).

It seems even some Republican members of the committee are wavering.


Then there is Trumps nominee for Sec of Labour (another billionaire, this time fast food). Who has had poor time in the hearings and looks like he might withdraw. It increasingly looks like his billionaire picks are used to be surrounding be Yes men and not used to having their views challenged or having to justify themselves.

foxinsoxuk said:

Barnesian said:

SouthamObserver said:

ydoethur said:

daodao said:

I broadly agree with much of what you have stated, expect that for political reasons I expect the EU27 to punish the UK, even at some economic cost to themselves, "pour encourager les autres".

It is fair to say many would probably like to punish us. However, there are risks to the EU in doing so as well. I'm not thinking about a small loss of trade here - any punishment the Euro and particularly the eurozone gilts take as a result of Brexit could easily topple the Greek and Italian economies, and there are still unresolved problems in Ireland (who will inevitably be most damaged by Brexit whatever form it takes given their size and location).

The question is whether the ardently Europhile negotiators under Barnier and backed by Verhofstadt will see that, or whether the governments will force them to see it. This could be very tricky all around and end up doing terrible damage if not handled correctly.

That's why in a way it's reassuring that May, who while not imaginative or flexible is at least also not prone to panic or impulse is in charge, rather than somebody reckless like Cameron. I would have preferred Hammond with May as Chancellor, but it's easy to imagine worse fates than we have (Boris...).

Of course, things will brighten considerably all around if that lunatic Juncker is sacked so the grownups can take direct charge. However that doesn't seem likely right now.

Juncker is a peripheral figure. The deal will be dictated by Germany and France, with the other member states using veto threats to get specific concessions. The UK will not walk away.

I think that's right. I think the likelihood of a WTO hard Brexit is considerably reduced by May's negotiating strategy - and that is why sterling has strengthened.

Had she gone for the single market as a priority and then tried to negotiate opt-outs like free movement and much reduced contributions, a WTO ending would have been much more likely.

Reading the change in Sterling as an endorsement is probably over doing it. There were also yesterdays inflation figures pointing to an interest rate rise on the cards, and nervousness over Trump saying the Dollar is too strong. There are a lot of nerves and volatility over reading tea-leaves at the moment.

I agree there is a lot of volatility in Sterling at the moment. But there was a 2 cent rise in two hours starting at 11:45am yesterday as May got into her speech. It strongly suggests that her speech and Sterling's rise yesterday are connected.

@bbcnickrobinson: First post speech concession on potential cost of Brexit - @DavidDavisMP says lorries may face customs checks