Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Punters move against Trump on the “will he survive ” markets
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Punters move against Trump on the “will he survive ” markets
Analysis | Trump's careening toward an inevitable showdown with an undeniable truth https://t.co/3idPwpv94X
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/may/16/uk-brexit-boost-ecj-rules-trade-deals-parliament-ratification
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) is set to pave the way for a hard Brexit by handing 38 national and regional parliaments the power to veto trade deals.
In a move that further clouds the prospects of a swift and comprehensive UK-EU deal, the European Union’s highest court is expected to extend the veto rights to regional parliaments through a ruling on the EU’s 2014 trade agreement with Singapore.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/eu-court-threatens-brexit-trade-deals-vbkxvbccc
It is not as if Kirsty Wark was asking really tough questions.
The 'fully costed' line has comprehensively unravelled in a matter of hours. It is almost as if they aren't trying to be credible.
If you put out inaccurate and under prepared policy statements and then can't deal with straightforward questions, it is inevitable that the press will treat you with a certain amount of disbelief.
The media, for all of their many faults, can hardly be blamed for asking questions that shadow ministers can't answer
If they are ever done, they would be funded 100% through borrowing - as they would be deemed "capital investment".
Thus they are completely outside the spending and tax commitments detailed in the manifesto - which relate to ongoing annual tax and spend - not capital transactions.
Seems surprising they didn't just say that - whatever you think of the idea it would be a simple and easy thing to say which would close the subject down.
When questioned on it, Corbyn started talking about the benefits cap - ie the £23k limit (or £20k outside London). And he referred to spending £2bn.
But the benefits freeze is a completely different matter - the vast majority of benefits - eg tax credits, child benefit etc are frozen in cash terms.
With inflation now nearly 3% this is a very big real terms cut and the freeze is currently scheduled until 2020.
To get rid of the freeze would cost far, far more than £2bn (it was by far the biggest component of Cameron's £12bn welfare cuts) - it's a very big item - and it seems extraordinary that Labour just forgot about it.
If you want to bribe people I would have thought it would have been one of their absolute top priorities - surely far more important than tuition fees - it affects far, far more people - and it would be more cash in their pockets right now.
As far as I recall, we do have to repay our loans and all the interest so it really isn't free money. We do have to pay.
But the twisted thinking on display seems to show that the Shadow team really does believe that the international lenders will just give us money for nothing.
With such statements on the public record, there will be some very unemployable former MPs in just over 3 weeks time. Who on earth would give such people real jobs?
https://twitter.com/CrapLocalNews/status/864166083443425280
Oh dear, another humiliating outing for Diane Abbott at yesterday’s Police Federation conference. Whose turn will it be today I wonder...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4512938/Robert-Hardman-humiliation-Diane-Abbott.html
Currently the government can borrow at extremely low rates. The return on capital in (say) the water companies is way in excess of government borrowing costs.
If the government is holding an asset yielding more than the cost of borrowing which paid for it, there is no immediate need to repay the debt. Of course the debt, if not repaid, will in due course have to be refinanced, and if we actually experienced a Corbyn government the cost of that financing would almost certainly not stay as low as it is now.
www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-labour-manifesto-renationalisation-rail-energy-banks-europe-a7731961.html%3Famp
The money markets would be hard to please in the advent of a Corbyn win and so it is hard to believe that they would secure long term finance deals at current rates.
I (and I suspect many others) find it hard to believe that a Corbyn government could run an economic plan along the lines they are attempting to set out and to actually make it work in the real world.
Given how much Corbyn admires the Chavez way of running a country in your the ground, there is no real expectation that he would avoid plunging us into a similarly catastrophic decline.
Thankfully it won't happen but it is scary to have the main opposition party peddling such flawed economic thinking.
Still, it requires the Republicans to move against him in force for him to go. But, if they do, it will happen very quickly.
1) I am far from convinced that rail is a natural monopoly. It has plenty of competition from bus, coach, truck, ship and plane. It may be for commuters in some situations, but that's far from the entirety of rail.
2) "Assuming it doesn’t overpay, the cost to the state of buying back, for instance, the Royal Mail or the National Grid will be balanced by the flow of future net revenues from those businesses."
I think assuming the Royal Mail will be generating net revenues in ten years' time is optimistic, to say the least.
My view: nationalisation and privatisation are tools. You use the best tool for the job, and you don't use a screwdriver to hammer in a nail just because you like screwdrivers. But the best tool of all, and the one politicians rarely use, is the do-nothing tool.
I'm on at 14/1. I'm astonished that was ever available.
FPT
Harry Cole ✔ @MrHarryCole
Overheard in the pubs of Westminster tonight... seasoned hands think Watson and Skinner constituencies are in play.
11:43 PM - 16 May 2017
55 55 Retweets 62 62 likes
If Skinner loses, its Armageddon time.
http://elections.newstatesman.com/the-650/profile-of-a-landslide-where-the-tories-are-gaining-and-labour-losing/
"New analysis by Populus reveals the Tories are making real progress in Labour’s heartlands and cannibalising Ukip’s support – while the opposition’s support is concentrated among those less likely to turn out."
Basically, the Tories stack up support in seats where it matters, are popular with older voters, but also - crucially - their support is buoyed by a lot of Ukip voters, whereas Labour is reliant to a proportionately similar extent on previous non-voters. The suggestion is that a substantial cohort of those who claim they will vote Labour - young voters and previous non-voters - won't bother to vote on the day (whereas more reliable Ukippers and especially the old will go and vote Conservative.)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39944331
"The key question, from a public policy perspective, is whether the business assets are likely to be run more efficiently in the interests of the public in one form of ownership than the other.... These ought to be empirical questions, informed by analysis, evidence (including from abroad) and judgement. Yet for much of the British media and political classes it is, alas, a matter of ideology."
1. Underlying Returns are sustainable long term
2. The government can run the business as efficiently as private owners
3. There is no political interference in the business
4. There will be sufficient capital available to make rational investments in maintenance and expansion
5. There is no effective cap on government borrowing
6. If such borrowing is available there are no better uses for it that would generate a higher social return
7. There is no impact on overall borrowing costs of the extra borrowing
8. There is no impact on the capital markets of nationalisation
9. Pension funds who buy infrastructure assets (encouraged by government) to match their longevity risk are able to find sufficient suitable investment opportunities without diluting their returns (and hence people's pensions)
All of these points are arguable
It is a child who blurts out classified information in order to impress distinguished visitors. It is a child who asks the head of the F.B.I. why the rules cannot be suspended for his friend and ally. It is a child who does not understand the obvious consequences of his more vindictive actions — like firing the very same man whom you had asked to potentially obstruct justice on your say-so.
A child cannot be president. I love my children; they cannot have the nuclear codes.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/opinion/25th-amendment-trump.html
People need to read the report and watch the video.. I mean ...Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez.
Bolsover is now very much an ex-mining constituency that's been quietly drifting Tory for years - their vote is pretty well steady as the Labour vote has declined sharply. Moreover it has a big UKIP vote and Skinner is getting very old. Again, that's one that Labour certainly should be treating as 'at risk' and I don't think its loss would signify Armageddon. Differential turnout might be the killer punch there.
I must admit that I do favour a retirement age for all parliamentarians (and other elected types). 75 would seem a reasonable age to fight your last election, maybe even 70. The days of the parliamentary dinosaurs should really be over.
Watson in particular is hated by the right (because he's basically not a very nice person) by the left (because he's behind most of the briefings against Corbyn) and regarded with distrust by the centre (as the key Brownite attack dog). If he is campaigning on his high profile and personal popularity he's taking an absolutely enormous risk.
Skinner does however have a track record of nearly 50 years of good service as an MP to fall back on. Whether that will be enough is another question.
The only scandal I can see is the organised campaign to remove an elected President. It should terrify everyone on this board of any political stripe.
What I would have said is that the far left's basic problem is that it actually does not control the Labour party. If it did, Corbyn would definitely step down on 9th June and an orderly succession would be organised. The treality, though, is that for as long as the Labour leadership rules stand as they are, Corbyn is going to be the last far left Labour leader and if he goes the far left is going to be expunged from the party. That is why he will not step down and why he will fight any leadership challenge.
The fact that McCluskey set a 200 seat threshold is notable. Champagne Len may be many things, but he is no fool. He knows that Labour will not get 200 seats. He also knows that the far left has lost control of his union executive.
I am beginning to think there is some truth to tbe rumours that Trump is losing his mental clarity, and these are not so much lies as confabulating. Look back at his interviews of 10 years ago and compare with current ramblings.
Looking at the timescales for exit, 2018 looks more realistic than 2017. American processes move slowly.
How has life in Bolsover been improved as a direct result of his nearly 50 years of being awkward?
I doubt he's out pounding the streets at his age and, even if he did, he hates the Tories too much to fight them properly.
If he does lose, I expect his speech to be more David Mellor than Portillo or Balls.
It used to be claimed that John McDonnell was the smart one of the 2 and the more dangerous. After yesterday he only looks dangerous to his own side.
The excuse given ("the rubbish she posts misleads bettors") is daft - people can filter themselves if they wish
6% for SNP? Higher than they got in 2015!
Until they do.
My guess is that most voters in Bolsover and West Bromwich do not hold strong views about their MPs. In that, they would be like most other constituents in most other constituencies. What Watson and Skinner both have, though, is name recognition. That could swing it for them. And in Watson's case, his profile is very much anti-Corbyn - which may also be a help in holding onto voters who might otherwise be tempted to vote against the Labour leader.
The line that the reporter has chosen to take is amusing, too.
Yet it still remains totemic in certain places.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/06/wikileaks-show-washington-post-writer-asked-dnc-for-anti-trump-research/#ixzz4PV5V28AI
Which wouldn't count for much anyway since over 180 Labour MPs are too.
However, two thirds of voters in Sandwell voted Leave. That must have included a substantial chunk of Labour voters.
Watson as a high profile Remainer therefore has a certain disadvantage, particularly with UKIP not standing. If even half of the non-Conservative leave vote rallies to them, he's in real trouble.
The administration sent multiple people out to deny the story, then Trump admitted it.
That's reporting, not bias.
Oh, oh, whoa...
Oh, oh, Diane
Oh, oh, Diane
(Talkin' 'bout Diane)
Oh, oh, whoa...
Oh, oh, Diane
Oh, oh, Diane
(Talkin' 'bout Diane)
Oh, oh, Diane
Meanwhile, there has been a shift in SNP messaging. When the snap election was called, the party line was that a strong Nationalist vote would force Theresa May to agree to a new referendum. Ms Sturgeon and Alex Salmond plainly said so.
That line has now been ditched.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/675e1cce-3a81-11e7-a451-ead20c30db3d
Tusk!
Now here you go again
You say you want your freedom
Well who am I to keep you down
It's only right that you should
Play the way you feel it
But listen carefully to the sound
Of your loneliness
Like a heartbeat .. drives you mad
In the stillness of remembering what you had
And what you lost ...
And what you had ...
And what you lost
Albatross
There are no words.....
Fair play to that. I can't complain as I hardly ever look at the links you post either.
Sandwell voted heavily leave yes, but look at the recent Metro Mayor vote there. Even with the John Lewis candidate v Sion Simon, the Tories did not win over the area. Don't get me wrong if Watson is in trouble great and 14/1 for Casino Royale are good odds - hope it comes in.
I think incidentally that as long as Pence is Veep, Trump is safe enough unless he actually does something unambiguously criminal. No way will the Democratics or even a large number of Republicans risk putting Pence in charge unless they absolutely have to. That of course may be why he was chosen ahead of say, Chris Christie.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_line_of_succession
Tell me lies
Tell me sweet little lies
(Tell me lies, tell me, tell me lies)
Oh, no, no you can't disguise
(You can't disguise, no you can't disguise)
Tell me lies
Tell me sweet little lies
Although I'm not making plans