politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If you think that CON will struggle to agree a DUP supply/conf

On topic, this seems a market where a lot of opinion could come into play. I suspect that the Tories and DUP will end up with something pretty messy and provisional. Which side of the line Mike has identified this will be deemed to fall seems somewhat up in air.

DUP talking to Labour and LibDems. They govern NI with Sinn Fein. Don't tell me they won't do a deal with Labour because Corbyn...

dyedwoolie said:

I wonder how long people will be prepared to sleep on air beds in a room full of screaming kids before they conclude that this isn't good enough?
Britain 2017 where we all live in shit pit death traps and vote for pollsters daughters to evict us for our own safety in the middle of the night.
Still, those queues for the dunny at Glastonbury hey?
Yes, I'm being a dork. It's that sort of day.

I take it its sunnier where you are? Windy and overcast here so less opportunity to enjoy, eh, the weather.

dyedwoolie said:

I wonder how long people will be prepared to sleep on air beds in a room full of screaming kids before they conclude that this isn't good enough?
Britain 2017 where we all live in shit pit death traps and vote for pollsters daughters to evict us for our own safety in the middle of the night.
Still, those queues for the dunny at Glastonbury hey?
Yes, I'm being a dork. It's that sort of day.

It's ok not long until the messiah takes the stage...

FrancisUrquhart said:

dyedwoolie said:

I wonder how long people will be prepared to sleep on air beds in a room full of screaming kids before they conclude that this isn't good enough?
Britain 2017 where we all live in shit pit death traps and vote for pollsters daughters to evict us for our own safety in the middle of the night.
Still, those queues for the dunny at Glastonbury hey?
Yes, I'm being a dork. It's that sort of day.

It's ok not long until the messiah takes the stage...

We're alright

OP is wrong imo. If the QS passes, then by definition there is C&S whether or not there is a formal agreement. What OGH has actually backed is a Conservative coalition with either or both the DUP or SNP and 60/1 is not a tempting price.

DecrepitJohnL said:

OP is wrong imo. If the QS passes, then by definition there is C&S whether or not there is a formal agreement. What OGH has actually backed is a Conservative coalition with either or both the DUP or SNP and 60/1 is not a tempting price.

Surely not C&S if DUP abstain?

While Corbyn does Glasto, Mrs May does Liverpool:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/24/theresa-may-praises-tremendous-military-troops-march-liverpool/

Mortimer said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

OP is wrong imo. If the QS passes, then by definition there is C&S whether or not there is a formal agreement. What OGH has actually backed is a Conservative coalition with either or both the DUP or SNP and 60/1 is not a tempting price.

Surely not C&S if DUP abstain?

If DUP abstain then it is a Con minority still as Con's have a slim working majority if Sinn Fein, DUP and Speaker abstain.

Think of it another way, under Betfair rules it is clear that 326 is required for a majority. But if the Tories had got 325 then taking Speaker and Sinn Fein into account there would have been a very slim working majority but no actual majority.

Even if every other party voted against them they'd still win a majority if a three line whip is observed.

RochdalePioneers said:

DUP talking to Labour and LibDems. They govern NI with Sinn Fein. Don't tell me they won't do a deal with Labour because Corbyn...

Corbyn would have to offer something very big to the DUP, to get them onside.

But, stranger things have happened.

DecrepitJohnL said:

CarlottaVance said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

CarlottaVance said:

Surely a 'minority' government is one which maintains the confidence of the house, passing budgets and legislation without having a majority of MPs?

In other news...how many guesses on how often the Guardian mentions which party runs Camden council (and has for all but four of the last 40 years...)

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/24/have-you-been-affected-by-the-camden-tower-block-evacuations?CMP=share_btn_tw

Funny how all those screaming that Grenfell must not be politicised change their tune when a Labour council hoves into view.

Funny how those claiming Tories kill turn silent when a Labour Council hoves into view....

Did anyone claim that on here? There was a lot of criticism that Theresa May was slow to get a grip but I don't recall anyone saying she'd installed the cladding herself, let alone had been spotted with a box of matches and can of petrol.

Maybe not on here, that wasn't actually claimed, but Diane Abbott certainly blamed the Tories for the deaths

DecrepitJohnL said:

CarlottaVance said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

CarlottaVance said:

Surely a 'minority' government is one which maintains the confidence of the house, passing budgets and legislation without having a majority of MPs?

In other news...how many guesses on how often the Guardian mentions which party runs Camden council (and has for all but four of the last 40 years...)

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/24/have-you-been-affected-by-the-camden-tower-block-evacuations?CMP=share_btn_tw

Funny how all those screaming that Grenfell must not be politicised change their tune when a Labour council hoves into view.

Funny how those claiming Tories kill turn silent when a Labour Council hoves into view....

Did anyone claim that on here? There was a lot of criticism that Theresa May was slow to get a grip but I don't recall anyone saying she'd installed the cladding herself, let alone had been spotted with a box of matches and can of petrol.

You've been living a very sheltered life if you missed the commentary:

The horror of poor people burned alive within feet of the country’s grandest mansions… perfectly captures the politics of the past seven years’, says Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee. Perfectly: there’s a ghoulish relish here, a perverse glee at how allegedly perfect is this symbol in west London, this fiery judgement. And note that it only indicts the past seven years. It says nothing about the preceding 13 years? About the New Labour era, with its deregulation, its demeaning of social-housing residents as ‘anti-social’ pests, its failures in house-building? Of course not: this fire only says what Ms Toynbee wants it to say. It’s her fire.

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/after-the-fire-grenfell-tower/19974#.WU5sicaQ3UY

GeoffM said:

This bet formulation is too vague, in my opinion, and will only end up in punter tears.

Not for those who had money on Con minority, and have since cashed out....
:-)

Sean_F said:

RochdalePioneers said:

DUP talking to Labour and LibDems. They govern NI with Sinn Fein. Don't tell me they won't do a deal with Labour because Corbyn...

Corbyn would have to offer something very big to the DUP, to get them onside.

But, stranger things have happened.

Worth noting that:

Con + DUP has majority of 13

Lab + everyone else (including DUP) has majority of 7

So Lab with DUP much less stable than Con with DUP.

Though Corbyn probably wouldn't mind that and would strongly fancy his chances at another quick GE.

MikeL said:

Sean_F said:

RochdalePioneers said:

DUP talking to Labour and LibDems. They govern NI with Sinn Fein. Don't tell me they won't do a deal with Labour because Corbyn...

Corbyn would have to offer something very big to the DUP, to get them onside.

But, stranger things have happened.

Worth noting that:

Con + DUP has majority of 13

Lab + everyone else (including DUP) has majority of 7

So Lab with DUP much less stable than Con with DUP.

Though Corbyn probably wouldn't mind that and would strongly fancy his chances at another quick GE.

The DUP might reckon they have more leverage over a party with 262 MP's than one with 318.

If the market is voided, do I lose all my profits even though I'm cashed out ?
I would not be happy.

Is Ricciardo in Mr Dancer's pocket ?
He appears to have handed Bottas pole with that red flag.

Philip_Thompson said:

Mortimer said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

OP is wrong imo. If the QS passes, then by definition there is C&S whether or not there is a formal agreement. What OGH has actually backed is a Conservative coalition with either or both the DUP or SNP and 60/1 is not a tempting price.

Surely not C&S if DUP abstain?

If DUP abstain then it is a Con minority still as Con's have a slim working majority if Sinn Fein, DUP and Speaker abstain.

Think of it another way, under Betfair rules it is clear that 326 is required for a majority. But if the Tories had got 325 then taking Speaker and Sinn Fein into account there would have been a very slim working majority but no actual majority.

Even if every other party voted against them they'd still win a majority if a three line whip is observed.

The definition is specific - confidence AND supply are required.

MikeSmithson said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Mortimer said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

OP is wrong imo. If the QS passes, then by definition there is C&S whether or not there is a formal agreement. What OGH has actually backed is a Conservative coalition with either or both the DUP or SNP and 60/1 is not a tempting price.

Surely not C&S if DUP abstain?

If DUP abstain then it is a Con minority still as Con's have a slim working majority if Sinn Fein, DUP and Speaker abstain.

Think of it another way, under Betfair rules it is clear that 326 is required for a majority. But if the Tories had got 325 then taking Speaker and Sinn Fein into account there would have been a very slim working majority but no actual majority.

Even if every other party voted against them they'd still win a majority if a three line whip is observed.

The definition is specific - confidence AND supply are required.

If the QS passes they have confidence, if a budget passes they have supply.

DecrepitJohnL said:

CarlottaVance said:

Surely a 'minority' government is one which maintains the confidence of the house, passing budgets and legislation without having a majority of MPs?

In other news...how many guesses on how often the Guardian mentions which party runs Camden council (and has for all but four of the last 40 years...)

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/24/have-you-been-affected-by-the-camden-tower-block-evacuations?CMP=share_btn_tw

Funny how all those screaming that Grenfell must not be politicised change their tune when a Labour council hoves into view.

Surely the point is that this really isn't a party political issue ?

It's a political issue in that it's clearly a long standing problem which hasn't been addressed by various administrations, and needs sorting. The competition to assign blame on either side is pathetic.

Nigelb said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

CarlottaVance said:

Surely a 'minority' government is one which maintains the confidence of the house, passing budgets and legislation without having a majority of MPs?

In other news...how many guesses on how often the Guardian mentions which party runs Camden council (and has for all but four of the last 40 years...)

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/24/have-you-been-affected-by-the-camden-tower-block-evacuations?CMP=share_btn_tw

Funny how all those screaming that Grenfell must not be politicised change their tune when a Labour council hoves into view.

Surely the point is that this really isn't a party political issue ?

It's a political issue in that it's clearly a long standing problem which hasn't been addressed by various administrations, and needs sorting. The competition to assign blame on either side is pathetic.

I agree. People trying to make it about one party or the other, esp when ALL parties have been in charge this century, are just being stupid, petty, and quite insensitive I would say

LadyBucket said:

Does anyone agree with me, that the coverage of Royal Ascot on ITV, has been an absolute shambles? Talk about dumbing-down, it seems to be all about the third-rate presenters.

Racing suffers from what the Australians used to call a cultural cringe. Here, the assumption that any viewers have tuned in by mistake so need to be entertained by plate-spinning presenters. Football coverage generally starts from the belief that viewers want to watch football. Closer to home, the BBC's election coverage had the same fault.

Nigelb said:

Is Ricciardo in Mr Dancer's pocket ?
He appears to have handed Bottas pole with that red flag.

Very happy with the Hamilton pole - and surely Mr.D's hedge came off ?

GeoffM said:

BETTING POST

Is anyone betting on the Bellator 180 MMA tonight?

For what it's worth I'm taking Silva over Sonnen. Sonnen's great at the hype before a fight and that's just not here this time around.

Fedor is nothing without sympathetic Russian judges and only carries name recoginition. Mitrione for that one.

Larkin is quite underrated in my opinion but Douglas Lima should take that one.

Have gone for a Patent across that lot.

I'm guessing Mixed Martial Arts?

MikeL said:

If DUP does deal with Lab it's worth bearing in mind the LDs.

SNP, PC, Green will support all Lab economic policies.

But LDs won't - even Cable has been very scathing.

So Corbyn won't be able to introduce vast majority of his tax and spend plans as LDs will block.

Another GE would surely thus follow almost immediately.

Only if a majority of MP's saw an advantage to it.

DecrepitJohnL said:

OP is wrong imo. If the QS passes, then by definition there is C&S whether or not there is a formal agreement. What OGH has actually backed is a Conservative coalition with either or both the DUP or SNP and 60/1 is not a tempting price.

+1

As I flagged in the previous threat, Betfair are all over the place with the definitions they are using in their rules for these bets. On the basis of the discussion here I am cashing out of the next government market and moving money into the PM after the election market, which amounts to the same thing except for the small chance that May wins the QS and then resigns on the spot.

My guess is that 'confidence and supply' is being used loosely to indicate that a minority government gets its QS through, and is neither intended to require any sort of formal agreement nor are 'confidence' and 'supply' intended to be two different things.

DecrepitJohnL said:

MikeSmithson said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Mortimer said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

OP is wrong imo. If the QS passes, then by definition there is C&S whether or not there is a formal agreement. What OGH has actually backed is a Conservative coalition with either or both the DUP or SNP and 60/1 is not a tempting price.

Surely not C&S if DUP abstain?

If DUP abstain then it is a Con minority still as Con's have a slim working majority if Sinn Fein, DUP and Speaker abstain.

Think of it another way, under Betfair rules it is clear that 326 is required for a majority. But if the Tories had got 325 then taking Speaker and Sinn Fein into account there would have been a very slim working majority but no actual majority.

Even if every other party voted against them they'd still win a majority if a three line whip is observed.

The definition is specific - confidence AND supply are required.

Yes but no because in practice the bet will be settled after the QS passes (or doesn't). Betfair are hardly likely to keep the bet open till 2020 on the off-chance that Hammond's fourth budget will fail.

Betfair told me this morning that they are waiting until the QS vote to settle these bets. Personally I regard their rules as highly ambiguous, but the customer services person this morning was having none of it. Her interpretation was along the lines of the longer text that TSE posted in the previous thread, not that I can find this on the BFex website.

I see BF say that C & S would be "enjoyed" by the governing party.

Not sure thats how Tories will see it :-)

But, more formally, BF does not spell out what form the C&S must take. Could be a one line statement as per Liberals in 1970s.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Interesting idea. Might put a couple of pounds on it.

F1: will set about writing the pre-race nonsense, but it'll probably be a while before the markets wake up. If Ladbrokes have the group markets again I'll check those.

surbiton said:

Since this QS is for two years, was Boundary Commission proposals mentioned in it ?

Boundary Commission law changes have already received royal assent in the 2010-15 Parliament. They're already the law now.

Only if they were planning to change the law (ie to go back to 650 constituencies) would it be mentioned in the Queen's Speech surely?

Parliament has to vote on the new boundaries but it won't be an Act of Parliament. It would take an Act of Parliament to have 650 new boundaries though.

rottenborough said:

I see BF say that C & S would be "enjoyed" by the governing party.

Not sure thats how Tories will see it :-)

But, more formally, BF does not spell out what form the C&S must take. Could be a one line statement as per Liberals in 1970s.

Pretty much the only pleasure I can see for Tories in the next couple of years is watching the frustration build in Corbyn and hoping he explodes.

DavidL said:

rottenborough said:

I see BF say that C & S would be "enjoyed" by the governing party.

Not sure thats how Tories will see it :-)

But, more formally, BF does not spell out what form the C&S must take. Could be a one line statement as per Liberals in 1970s.

Pretty much the only pleasure I can see for Tories in the next couple of years is watching the frustration build in Corbyn and hoping he explodes.

Corbyn will probably remain zen-like.

His mad supporters on the other hand already think he is the PM. They will self-combust.

Philip_Thompson said:

surbiton said:

Since this QS is for two years, was Boundary Commission proposals mentioned in it ?

Boundary Commission law changes have already received royal assent in the 2010-15 Parliament. They're already the law now.

Only if they were planning to change the law (ie to go back to 650 constituencies) would it be mentioned in the Queen's Speech surely?

Parliament has to vote on the new boundaries but it won't be an Act of Parliament. It would take an Act of Parliament to have 650 new boundaries though.

Parliament also has to amend the BC review timetable to de-link it from the 2015-2020-2025 timetable hard-wired into the FTPA. When they do so, I expect the 2018 review will be dropped and the BC will be asked to start again, working to 650 seats and more sensible and more flexible review criteria.

surbiton said:

Philip_Thompson said:

surbiton said:

Since this QS is for two years, was Boundary Commission proposals mentioned in it ?

Boundary Commission law changes have already received royal assent in the 2010-15 Parliament. They're already the law now.

Only if they were planning to change the law (ie to go back to 650 constituencies) would it be mentioned in the Queen's Speech surely?

Parliament has to vote on the new boundaries but it won't be an Act of Parliament. It would take an Act of Parliament to have 650 new boundaries though.

So are you saying the DUP. for example, will just accept their seats potentially go down by 2 ?

I am still puzzled by your answer. Parliament has decided that there will be 600 MPs at the next election but not their boundaries. Is that correct ? So how does that work ?

For the review to be confirmed, the final recommendations (which we won't have until Xmas) need to be accepted by a vote of Parliament. I don't think this will happen, and expect that, prior, Parliament will be asked to suspend the review and instruct the BC to start again. This may commence from the Lords, as it did last time.

surbiton said:

Philip_Thompson said:

surbiton said:

Since this QS is for two years, was Boundary Commission proposals mentioned in it ?

Boundary Commission law changes have already received royal assent in the 2010-15 Parliament. They're already the law now.

Only if they were planning to change the law (ie to go back to 650 constituencies) would it be mentioned in the Queen's Speech surely?

Parliament has to vote on the new boundaries but it won't be an Act of Parliament. It would take an Act of Parliament to have 650 new boundaries though.

So are you saying the DUP. for example, will just accept their seats potentially go down by 2 ?

I am still puzzled by your answer. Parliament has decided that there will be 600 MPs at the next election but not their boundaries. Is that correct ? So how does that work ?

The DUP may vote down the new boundaries (as Clegg basically did) but it won't be via an Act of Parliament that they are enacted or rejected.

Yes Parliament has decided that there will be 600 MPs but not their boundaries. Parliament doesn't define the boundaries, though it does ratify them. Parliament sets the law which sets how the boundary review is conducted. The 600 MPs rule has already been passed in an Act of Parliament so it is already the law. Until the new boundaries are ratified though (which barring a new Act of Parliament will be at 600 MPs) we are left with the old boundaries.

IanB2 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

surbiton said:

Since this QS is for two years, was Boundary Commission proposals mentioned in it ?

Boundary Commission law changes have already received royal assent in the 2010-15 Parliament. They're already the law now.

Only if they were planning to change the law (ie to go back to 650 constituencies) would it be mentioned in the Queen's Speech surely?

Parliament has to vote on the new boundaries but it won't be an Act of Parliament. It would take an Act of Parliament to have 650 new boundaries though.

Parliament also has to amend the BC review timetable to de-link it from the 2015-2020-2025 timetable hard-wired into the FTPA. When they do so, I expect the 2018 review will be dropped and the BC will be asked to start again, working to 650 seats and more sensible and more flexible review criteria.

Does Parliament need to de-link it? Surely if Parliament doesn't act then the 2018 review just continues uninterrupted.

If Parliament were going to do as you propose then that should be in the Queen's Speech.

Why didn't Shadsy do a Glasto Bingo today?

paulyork64 said:

Nigelb said:

If the market is voided, do I lose all my profits even though I'm cashed out ?
I would not be happy.

I'm pretty certain you keep your profits. With a bookie on the exchange.

If the market is voided you lose your profits. Just like if you green up both sides on a limited overs cricket match and its a tie

Happy slappy drivel.

Mr. B, yes

Hedging is proving much better this season than not hedging. So far, anyway.

The safety car odds, last time they were up, were 1.22 yes, 4 no. Neither tempts me.

Only a handful of markets up on Ladbrokes currently.

tlg86 said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

Happy slappy drivel.

I think I preferred Radiohead.

Is he really that bad?

HaroldO said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/878630083698843650

Jebus. He is the touch of death for political success though.

he has bought a new shirt.

Nigelb said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

CarlottaVance said:

Surely a 'minority' government is one which maintains the confidence of the house, passing budgets and legislation without having a majority of MPs?

In other news...how many guesses on how often the Guardian mentions which party runs Camden council (and has for all but four of the last 40 years...)

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/24/have-you-been-affected-by-the-camden-tower-block-evacuations?CMP=share_btn_tw

Funny how all those screaming that Grenfell must not be politicised change their tune when a Labour council hoves into view.

Surely the point is that this really isn't a party political issue ?

It's a political issue in that it's clearly a long standing problem which hasn't been addressed by various administrations, and needs sorting. The competition to assign blame on either side is pathetic.

Scrapheap_as_was said:

https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/878630083698843650

Mind altering drugs at glasto?

I am shocked I tell you..

tlg86 said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

Happy slappy drivel.

I think I preferred Radiohead.

Ed Sheeran another Yorkshire success.

DavidL said:

tlg86 said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

Happy slappy drivel.

I think I preferred Radiohead.

Is he really that bad?

He's sticking to his back catalogue instead of boring people with new material.

Philip_Thompson said:

IanB2 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

surbiton said:

Since this QS is for two years, was Boundary Commission proposals mentioned in it ?

Boundary Commission law changes have already received royal assent in the 2010-15 Parliament. They're already the law now.

Only if they were planning to change the law (ie to go back to 650 constituencies) would it be mentioned in the Queen's Speech surely?

Parliament has to vote on the new boundaries but it won't be an Act of Parliament. It would take an Act of Parliament to have 650 new boundaries though.

Parliament also has to amend the BC review timetable to de-link it from the 2015-2020-2025 timetable hard-wired into the FTPA. When they do so, I expect the 2018 review will be dropped and the BC will be asked to start again, working to 650 seats and more sensible and more flexible review criteria.

Does Parliament need to de-link it? Surely if Parliament doesn't act then the 2018 review just continues uninterrupted.

If Parliament were going to do as you propose then that should be in the Queen's Speech.

No, not at all.

If the existing review were to be implemented, it would come before Parliament in the normal way during 2018, and be agreed.

Parliament would also need, at the least, to adjust the timetable for future reviews, since this was hard-wired (the years being named in the Act) into legislation on the assumption that future GEs would be five years apart, starting in 2015.

What I expect to happen is that the latter will come before Parliament first, probably later this year, and provide the opportunity to suspend the existing review (before we ever get to see the final recommendations) and start again.