politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » PB Video Analaysis: The UK Economy – It’s Not About The Brexit

danielmawbs said:

Benpointer said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Benpointer said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Casino_Royale said:

ReggieCide said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/women4PV/status/1065293765034823683

were women excluded from the last people's vote?

I love these fake “I’ve changed my mind” pieces.

I have changed my mind. I previously thought a referendum should be avoided because it would be divisive and entrench opinions still further without building a consensus. All of that is still true but since Parliament seems likely to prove incapable of resolving the matter for itself, it should throw the decision back to the public. Britain should neither Remain nor Leave with no deal without someone making a conscious choice to do so. If Parliament can’t do so, the public should.

It will still be horrifically divisive and solve nothing in the long term, but it is the least awful option.

I think I’d abstain if asked.

So you want a vote but, er... don't want to vote?

I want a conscious choice to be made by the only group that seems capable of making one. I regard both choices as awful in different ways and so would prefer to let the decision play out rather than lend my support to either of them.

The country is in an awful place with no good options. The very worst option would be to sleepwalk into a decision that no one had made and that would be hugely damaging without a democratic mandate for doing so. If those advocating no deal Brexit can persuade a majority to go with it, as they well might, so be it.

I think that referendum will be Deal versus Remain and I'd expect Deal to win.

In the unlikely event it's Deal versus No Deal, I still expect Deal to win

What is remain? We’ve announced we’re leaving. Why should the EU just let us change our mind. It will be stay in eu, accept euro and lose rebate vs deal.

But then those leavers who feel real is really surrender will be mighty annoyed.

As I haven’t read all the deal does it allow us to
- stop charging vat on sanitary products?
- allow us to leave the cfp as the quote I saw said the eu would still decide the quotas but we would be allowed to have an input?

Not sure about your first, but on the second it looks as if control will return to the UK:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46264303

Roger said:

Foxy said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Pulpstar said:

I'm still not decided as to whether I'll support a people's vote or not. I'll carefully tot the counts from the crunch vote in parliament. If it's hard brexiteer intransigence then sure, and I'll probably vote to remain. If the hard remainers end up blocking it then I'll strongly consider a leave vote if there is a second ref.
In short, I will not reward whichever bunch of dickheads blocks the deal. I expect Tories to vote with the Gov't.

It seems likely that both bunches of dickheads will torpedo the deal.

I think May's deal (perhaps with some token fettling) will get through Parliament. Is there a market on this other than Brexit day? I am not sure that is straightforward, as a couple of weeks delay for ratification may be needed.

Interesting interview with Nick Boles. He thought it wouldn't. Neither did he think they would get rid of Mrs M. He though Labour would cook up their own deal and that wouldn't get through either. He thought there was a remote possibility Labour might change its mind on a second referendum but he also thought that unlikely.

Unfortunately I missed the end!

Not sure there is one !!!!!

Big_G_NorthWales said:

danielmawbs said:

Benpointer said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Benpointer said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Casino_Royale said:

ReggieCide said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/women4PV/status/1065293765034823683

were women excluded from the last people's vote?

I love these fake “I’ve changed my mind” pieces.

I have changed my mind. I previously thought a referendum should be avoided because it would be divisive and entrench opinions still further without building a consensus. All of that is still true but since Parliament seems likely to prove incapable of resolving the matter for itself, it should throw the decision back to the public. Britain should neither Remain nor Leave with no deal without someone making a conscious choice to do so. If Parliament can’t do so, the public should.

It will still be horrifically divisive and solve nothing in the long term, but it is the least awful option.

I think I’d abstain if asked.

So you want a vote but, er... don't want to vote?

I want a conscious choice to be made by the only group that seems capable of making one. I regard both choices as awful in different ways and so would prefer to let the decision play out rather than lend my support to either of them.

The country is in an awful place with no good options. The very worst option would be to sleepwalk into a decision that no one had made and that would be hugely damaging without a democratic mandate for doing so. If those advocating no deal Brexit can persuade a majority to go with it, as they well might, so be it.

I think that referendum will be Deal versus Remain and I'd expect Deal to win.

In the unlikely event it's Deal versus No Deal, I still expect Deal to win

What is remain? We’ve announced we’re leaving. Why should the EU just let us change our mind. It will be stay in eu, accept euro and lose rebate vs deal.

But then those leavers who feel real is really surrender will be mighty annoyed.

As I haven’t read all the deal does it allow us to
- stop charging vat on sanitary products?
- allow us to leave the cfp as the quote I saw said the eu would still decide the quotas but we would be allowed to have an input?

The EU have said tonight they would welcome us with open arms if we change our mind

They always say that. The question is what the terms would be.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

danielmawbs said:

Benpointer said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Benpointer said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Casino_Royale said:

ReggieCide said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/women4PV/status/1065293765034823683

were women excluded from the last people's vote?

I love these fake “I’ve changed my mind” pieces.

I have changed my mind. I previously thought a referendum should be avoided because it would be divisive and entrench opinions still further without building a consensus. All of that is still true but since Parliament seems likely to prove incapable of resolving the matter for itself, it should throw the decision back to the public. Britain should neither Remain nor Leave with no deal without someone making a conscious choice to do so. If Parliament can’t do so, the public should.

It will still be horrifically divisive and solve nothing in the long term, but it is the least awful option.

I think I’d abstain if asked.

So you want a vote but, er... don't want to vote?

I want a conscious choice to be made by the only group that seems capable of making one. I regard both choices as awful in different ways and so would prefer to let the decision play out rather than lend my support to either of them.

The country is in an awful place with no good options. The very worst option would be to sleepwalk into a decision that no one had made and that would be hugely damaging without a democratic mandate for doing so. If those advocating no deal Brexit can persuade a majority to go with it, as they well might, so be it.

I think that referendum will be Deal versus Remain and I'd expect Deal to win.

In the unlikely event it's Deal versus No Deal, I still expect Deal to win

What is remain? We’ve announced we’re leaving. Why should the EU just let us change our mind. It will be stay in eu, accept euro and lose rebate vs deal.

But then those leavers who feel real is really surrender will be mighty annoyed.

As I haven’t read all the deal does it allow us to
- stop charging vat on sanitary products?
- allow us to leave the cfp as the quote I saw said the eu would still decide the quotas but we would be allowed to have an input?

The EU have said tonight they would welcome us with open arms if we change our mind

They always say that. The question is what the terms would be.

I have little doubt it would be the same. Anything else and it will not happen

AlastairMeeks said:

Foxy said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Pulpstar said:

I'm still not decided as to whether I'll support a people's vote or not. I'll carefully tot the counts from the crunch vote in parliament. If it's hard brexiteer intransigence then sure, and I'll probably vote to remain. If the hard remainers end up blocking it then I'll strongly consider a leave vote if there is a second ref.
In short, I will not reward whichever bunch of dickheads blocks the deal. I expect Tories to vote with the Gov't.

It seems likely that both bunches of dickheads will torpedo the deal.

I think May's deal (perhaps with some token fettling) will get through Parliament. Is there a market on this other than Brexit day? I am not sure that is straightforward, as a couple of weeks delay for ratification may be needed.

So far 81 Conservative MPs already have said they can’t support this deal. If the majority against is big enough, there will be no second vote. For a second vote to take place, there is going to need to be a huge amount of word-eating before the first vote.

If it looks like going down by a 3 figure majority I wonder if there will even be a first vote. If a government was looking at a defeat like that the usual result would be to pull the proposal before it got to a vote. As you say, if it is lost by a big margin it will be impossible to bring it back with cosmetic alterations a few weeks later.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Roger said:

Foxy said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Pulpstar said:

I'm still not decided as to whether I'll support a people's vote or not. I'll carefully tot the counts from the crunch vote in parliament. If it's hard brexiteer intransigence then sure, and I'll probably vote to remain. If the hard remainers end up blocking it then I'll strongly consider a leave vote if there is a second ref.
In short, I will not reward whichever bunch of dickheads blocks the deal. I expect Tories to vote with the Gov't.

It seems likely that both bunches of dickheads will torpedo the deal.

I think May's deal (perhaps with some token fettling) will get through Parliament. Is there a market on this other than Brexit day? I am not sure that is straightforward, as a couple of weeks delay for ratification may be needed.

Interesting interview with Nick Boles. He thought it wouldn't. Neither did he think they would get rid of Mrs M. He though Labour would cook up their own deal and that wouldn't get through either. He thought there was a remote possibility Labour might change its mind on a second referendum but he also thought that unlikely.

Unfortunately I missed the end!

Not sure there is one !!!!!

At the end of the interview on R4 he seemed to forecast a deal giving similar terms to Norway but adding a CU, i.e. to solve the Irish border. I still don't quite see how the UK can be in EFTA = *Free Trade* and in a CU but no doubt there's a way.

It sounds like about 65% in, 35% out, i.e. based on Peter Hitchens' description of Norway's situation as half in, half out. I fail to see the point of being 35% out as it loses us control over EU decision-making. We don't have the wealth of Norway or Switzerland which can afford to loftily stand aside and chuck the EU a few billion S.Fr or N.Kr/yr.

rpjs said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

rpjs said:

I don't believe that the Germans bothered to formally terminate the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact before launching Operation Barbarossa.

I don't think that was a formal treaty anyway but I was wondering about that as an example. I am sure there must be countries that have breached treaties unilaterally but can't find any hard and fast examples dating to after 1969.

In 1990 Finland unilaterally announced it would no longer uphold the provisions of the 1947 Treaty of Paris which limited the size and equipment of its armed forces.

Probably because the USSR was just about finished in 1990, and the Treaty of Paris was to ensure Finnish neutrality as opposed to being just another Communist satellite of Russia?

AlastairMeeks said:

Foxy said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Foxy said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Pulpstar said:

I'm still not decided as to whether I'll support a people's vote or not. I'll carefully tot the counts from the crunch vote in parliament. If it's hard brexiteer intransigence then sure, and I'll probably vote to remain. If the hard remainers end up blocking it then I'll strongly consider a leave vote if there is a second ref.
In short, I will not reward whichever bunch of dickheads blocks the deal. I expect Tories to vote with the Gov't.

It seems likely that both bunches of dickheads will torpedo the deal.

I think May's deal (perhaps with some token fettling) will get through Parliament. Is there a market on this other than Brexit day? I am not sure that is straightforward, as a couple of weeks delay for ratification may be needed.

So far 81 Conservative MPs already have said they can’t support this deal. If the majority against is big enough, there will be no second vote. For a second vote to take place, there is going to need to be a huge amount of word-eating before the first vote.

I feel a bet coming on, provided we can agree what constitutes May's deal, and can come up with some odds. Any thoughts?

I’m afraid I think the difficulties in agreeing on what is substantially similar make a bet impractical. We will just have to settle for site kudos points.

Fair go.

I think the WA will be unchanged and pass the commons, the Future declaration is non-binding, so may change.

rural_voter said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Roger said:

Foxy said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Pulpstar said:

I'm still not decided as to whether I'll support a people's vote or not. I'll carefully tot the counts from the crunch vote in parliament. If it's hard brexiteer intransigence then sure, and I'll probably vote to remain. If the hard remainers end up blocking it then I'll strongly consider a leave vote if there is a second ref.
In short, I will not reward whichever bunch of dickheads blocks the deal. I expect Tories to vote with the Gov't.

It seems likely that both bunches of dickheads will torpedo the deal.

I think May's deal (perhaps with some token fettling) will get through Parliament. Is there a market on this other than Brexit day? I am not sure that is straightforward, as a couple of weeks delay for ratification may be needed.

Interesting interview with Nick Boles. He thought it wouldn't. Neither did he think they would get rid of Mrs M. He though Labour would cook up their own deal and that wouldn't get through either. He thought there was a remote possibility Labour might change its mind on a second referendum but he also thought that unlikely.

Unfortunately I missed the end!

Not sure there is one !!!!!

At the end of the interview on R4 he seemed to forecast a deal giving similar terms to Norway but adding a CU, i.e. to solve the Irish border. I still don't quite see how the UK can be in EFTA = *Free Trade* and in a CU but no doubt there's a way.

It sounds like about 65% in, 35% out, i.e. based on Peter Hitchens' description of Norway's situation as half in, half out. I fail to see the point of being 35% out as it loses us control over EU decision-making. We don't have the wealth of Norway or Switzerland which can afford to loftily stand aside and chuck the EU a few billion S.Fr or N.Kr/yr.

The political point is to fulfil the letter of the referendum vote whilst minimising the negative impact on the country.

Scott_P said:

David_Evershed said:

This needs the appointment of a leader who is good at negotiating. This means a new leader of the government

It rules out any member of the ERG, or any former cabinet member who endorsed the deal then quit

Does that include ruling out any former cabinet member who was prepared to endorse a deal he was responsible for only to find a different deal on the Cabinet table thanks to covert insertions guided by an utterly duplicitous PM?

Excellent video Robert but our BoP, whist still erratic, is slowly improving. How does that fit with our collapsing household saving ratio?

I have said for ages that a major part of the problem has been the government's deficit. As this falls excess demand in the economy is tempered. Although still borrowing our government is effectively saving for us compared with what it was doing a few years ago. This absolutely needs to continue.

Osborne managed to reduce the deficit substantially whilst keeping those negative GDP quarters to a minimum. He did that by basically encouraging private credit to take up the slack of reduced government debt. What we now need to do is somehow keep the economy growing without additional credit, specifically unsecured credit. Our obsession with new cars bought on the never never was a significant part of the problem and there are suggestions that has run its course. I think the Bank needs to find ways to put a gentle squeeze on the availability of credit. Increasing interest rates by 0.25% a time is unlikely to be enough.

Hello again everyone.

For what it's worth, I think BenPointer has got it about right. The path to Brexit has been a long list of times people said "This next bit can't be done" followed almost universally by it being done, the news cycle forgetting about the earlier insurmountable obstacle, and replacing it with another. Getting DEAL through Parliament will be another example.

It will pass. The ERG rebels will complain about it even as they are trooping into the Aye lobby alongside the DUP, and there will be about 40 LAB abstentions. The BBC News had a shot of Julian Smith being shot a question as he got out of a cab yesterday and he looked supremely confident, even for a chap who clearly has a bit of a resting smug face. He's got enough CON leavers and remainers onside and he knows it.

But let's say I'm wrong. If Parliament votes it down the choices are, in order of Govt preference, repeated Parliamentary vote on a tweaked deal, new PM, second Referendum and GE. If it gets as far as a second referendum, DEAL wins it easily. It is better than no deal and it's better than remain (which you will remember will not be a 'Cameron-reformed' remain, but a remain with further political integration, no migration brake and no red tape bonfire).

So why all the quitting cabinet and overworking Graham Brady's postie from the arch leavers? I think it's partly theatre to shape the political agreement that is part of DEAL, and partly positioning for the next CON leader. Whether May goes immediately after B-Day or later, there's going to be an opening for a dyed-in-the-wool Leaver to run to replace her. My book says they will lose to the Hunt/Gove dream ticket, of course, but you don't get a job you don't apply for.

And thank you all for your contributions over the past months. I have been reading occasionally, even if work, stuff and my new daughter have kept me from chipping in.

ydoethur said:

justin124 said:

prh47bridge said:

I'm afraid you are wrong regarding the LotO being called. We have to go back to 1924 to find a time when a government was no confidenced and the LotO WAS called. Governments have been no confidenced twice since then - later in 1924 and 1979. In both cases the LotO was NOT called and there was a general election.

Note that in 1974 there was no VONC. There had just been a general election. Heath initially remained as PM but resigned when he was unable to put a deal together that would allow him to continue.

In Autumn 1924 Macdonald's Government was not subject to a VONC but a vote of censure which it decided to treat as a confidence issue. On being defeated, Macdonald requested a Dissolution but George V only agreed after being assured by Baldwin and Asquith that they were unable to form a Government.

1924 is perhaps also not the best example as there had been a general election very shortly beforehand where the incumbent government had been, in the words of Lord Blake, 'slapped in the face.'

I would argue 1905 was the last genuine transfer of power to an opposition maugre an election. In many crucial ways of which that was one, the outgoing Balfour government was the last Victorian government.

Edit - I think I'm right in saying that Baldwin wasn't technically no-confidenced but had the King's Speech voted down.

It's interesting to consider that prior to 1924, the done thing on a vote of no confidence was to hand over the Government - in 18 out of 21 cases prior to that, you saw the Government resign; only in 3 did you get a dissolution, and in the first of those it was thanks to Pitt the Younger deciding to all but ignore it. It took a second and third vote on similar grounds before he ignored precedent anyway and asked for a dissolution). After 1924, we've had two, both of which caused dissolutions, and we now regard the dissolution as the standard outcome.