politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The great Betfair TMay resignation date row
Comments
-
Worse, because we actually had a deal with Budgens.Nigel_Foremain said:
It is like having a supplier deal with Sainsburys Tesco Morrisons and Waitrose and telling them to go and stuff themselves, because we now have a deal with Budgens.Philip_Thompson said:
Is that what the Conservatives have recorded with the Electoral Commission?MarqueeMark said:Theresa May is Prime Minister.
She is not leader of the Conservative Party. That position is currently vacant.0 -
What is the UK's united view on Brexit?Philip_Thompson said:
Yes. Though I've said before the Scots would be more agile and better off if they became independent.williamglenn said:
Does the UK display unity and agility in your view?Philip_Thompson said:
So long as that bargaining power is united and agile.TOPPING said:
Do you ascribe to the view that the larger your bargaining power the better the likely deal you achieve?MaxPB said:
The benefit is being able to open up the UK-SK deal without needing permission from 27 other nations. It's not some perceived benefit it is a real tangible gain. Overall the UK-SK trading relationship is better today than it was under the EU, something you said wasn't possible as we'd have to offer better terms to potential partners, we haven't.SouthamObserver said:Yep - status quo, so no additional benefits to the UK. While we make it harder and more expensive to trade with our biggest export market. So, overall, we are down.
I subscribe to the view that agility is more important than brute strength.
I'm consistent.0 -
If by "Faeroe Islands" you mean "Rest of the World" then yes.SouthamObserver said:
A more flexible trading relationship with the Faeroe Islands is more beneficial to us than being in the single market and customs union. It's a view, I guess.MaxPB said:
It depends on what you want to achieve and the EU, while big, has 28 different agendas so any bargaining power is diluted by that factor quite significantly.TOPPING said:
Do you ascribe to the view that the larger your bargaining power the better the likely deal you achieve?MaxPB said:
The benefit is being able to open up the UK-SK deal without needing permission from 27 other nations. It's not some perceived benefit it is a real tangible gain. Overall the UK-SK trading relationship is better today than it was under the EU, something you said wasn't possible as we'd have to offer better terms to potential partners, we haven't.SouthamObserver said:Yep - status quo, so no additional benefits to the UK. While we make it harder and more expensive to trade with our biggest export market. So, overall, we are down.
In the case of the US, yes it's clear that being the larger party helps in negotiations as Trump is showing wrt Mexico and China. But there aren't 27 other nations to contend with there so it's a bit easier to weild that power.
As I said, a bilateral deal works better for us as we don't need the permission of 27 other nations to open it up for changes. That's a tangible benefit.
Which of the European Union or "Faeroe Islands" [aka Rest of the World] represents most of our trade?
Which of the European Union or "Faeroe Islands" [aka Rest of the World] forms most of the world economy?
Which of the European Union or "Faeroe Islands" [aka Rest of the World] is growing faster?
Which of the European Union or "Faeroe Islands" [aka Rest of the World] is 93% of the global population?0 -
Please outline in specific words where I said that. Seriously, I dare you.SouthamObserver said:
A more flexible trading relationship with the Faeroe Islands is more beneficial to us than being in the single market and customs union. It's a view, I guess.MaxPB said:
It depends on what you want to achieve and the EU, while big, has 28 different agendas so any bargaining power is diluted by that factor quite significantly.TOPPING said:
Do you ascribe to the view that the larger your bargaining power the better the likely deal you achieve?MaxPB said:
The benefit is being able to open up the UK-SK deal without needing permission from 27 other nations. It's not some perceived benefit it is a real tangible gain. Overall the UK-SK trading relationship is better today than it was under the EU, something you said wasn't possible as we'd have to offer better terms to potential partners, we haven't.SouthamObserver said:Yep - status quo, so no additional benefits to the UK. While we make it harder and more expensive to trade with our biggest export market. So, overall, we are down.
In the case of the US, yes it's clear that being the larger party helps in negotiations as Trump is showing wrt Mexico and China. But there aren't 27 other nations to contend with there so it's a bit easier to weild that power.
As I said, a bilateral deal works better for us as we don't need the permission of 27 other nations to open it up for changes. That's a tangible benefit.0 -
Yes, of course. "Officially", if it means anything, means de jure rather than de facto. "Acting" means de facto, not de jure.kinabalu said:Difficult one for Betfair.
1. Assume that a hostile Martian lands today and says, "I will destroy your planet unless I can have a meeting right now with the leader of the Conservative Party". Who will be wheeled out? Theresa May. The 'Acting' neither adds nor subtracts anything. Of course she is acting. It goes without saying. She is 'acting' in her capacity as party leader to meet the Martian and save the planet. Ergo Theresa May is the leader of the Conservative Party.
2. The key date (per the Betfair rules) is the one on which "Theresa May OFFICIALLY ceases to be the leader of the Conservative Party". Note that it does not feel the need to say 'officially' twice. It does not say "officially ceases to be the official leader" of the party. OK. So last Friday it was announced that "Theresa May has OFFICIALLY stepped down as leader of the Conservative Party." Ergo, unless the word 'officially' was included in error in the Betfair rules, or it is being misused, Theresa May is NOT the leader of the Conservative Party.
When I started writing this, I was inclining towards agreeing with Betfair, i.e. judging (1) to be a superior argument to (2). However, the very act of going through it in such forensic detail has changed my mind - I now think (2) is the better argument and therefore, on balance, that Betfair have got this tricky call wrong.
Disclosure of personal interest - I made £15.71 either way.1 -
That we should leave the European Union. That was determined on 23/06/16williamglenn said:
What is the UK's united view on Brexit?Philip_Thompson said:
Yes. Though I've said before the Scots would be more agile and better off if they became independent.williamglenn said:
Does the UK display unity and agility in your view?Philip_Thompson said:
So long as that bargaining power is united and agile.TOPPING said:
Do you ascribe to the view that the larger your bargaining power the better the likely deal you achieve?MaxPB said:
The benefit is being able to open up the UK-SK deal without needing permission from 27 other nations. It's not some perceived benefit it is a real tangible gain. Overall the UK-SK trading relationship is better today than it was under the EU, something you said wasn't possible as we'd have to offer better terms to potential partners, we haven't.SouthamObserver said:Yep - status quo, so no additional benefits to the UK. While we make it harder and more expensive to trade with our biggest export market. So, overall, we are down.
I subscribe to the view that agility is more important than brute strength.
I'm consistent.2 -
That's not true. All we have are interim agreements to maintain continuity that have significant gaps. Switzerland has agreed to maintain existing cumulation rules for 3 years only. We are putting ourselves in a position where more countries will have ongoing leverage against us.MaxPB said:
It's not the same, it's now a two party agreement. It's completely different to a 29 party agreement.SouthamObserver said:
No, the UK-SK trading relationship is exactly the same. The UK-EU trading relationship is about to get a lot worse. Overall, we are significantly down.MaxPB said:
The benefit is being able to open up the UK-SK deal without needing permission from 27 other nations. It's not some perceived benefit it is a real tangible gain. Overall the UK-SK trading relationship is better today than it was under the EU, something you said wasn't possible as we'd have to offer better terms to potential partners, we haven't.SouthamObserver said:Yep - status quo, so no additional benefits to the UK. While we make it harder and more expensive to trade with our biggest export market. So, overall, we are down.
Again, speaking on the narrow point of third country deals, not the EU trade deal. We are clearly in a better position than we were in for the 10 or so that have been rolled into bilateral agreements and with SK coming to the party it probably paves the way for Canada, Japan and the other major ones to be pushed over the line before October 31st.
Whether you want to admit it or not isn't relevant because it is true.0 -
united != majorityPhilip_Thompson said:
That we should leave the European Union. That was determined on 23/06/16williamglenn said:
What is the UK's united view on Brexit?Philip_Thompson said:
Yes. Though I've said before the Scots would be more agile and better off if they became independent.williamglenn said:
Does the UK display unity and agility in your view?Philip_Thompson said:
So long as that bargaining power is united and agile.TOPPING said:
Do you ascribe to the view that the larger your bargaining power the better the likely deal you achieve?MaxPB said:
The benefit is being able to open up the UK-SK deal without needing permission from 27 other nations. It's not some perceived benefit it is a real tangible gain. Overall the UK-SK trading relationship is better today than it was under the EU, something you said wasn't possible as we'd have to offer better terms to potential partners, we haven't.SouthamObserver said:Yep - status quo, so no additional benefits to the UK. While we make it harder and more expensive to trade with our biggest export market. So, overall, we are down.
I subscribe to the view that agility is more important than brute strength.
I'm consistent.0 -
The fact that parliament voted against the government's withdrawal agreement suggests that we are far from united.Philip_Thompson said:
That we should leave the European Union. That was determined on 23/06/16williamglenn said:
What is the UK's united view on Brexit?Philip_Thompson said:
Yes. Though I've said before the Scots would be more agile and better off if they became independent.williamglenn said:
Does the UK display unity and agility in your view?Philip_Thompson said:
So long as that bargaining power is united and agile.TOPPING said:
Do you ascribe to the view that the larger your bargaining power the better the likely deal you achieve?MaxPB said:
The benefit is being able to open up the UK-SK deal without needing permission from 27 other nations. It's not some perceived benefit it is a real tangible gain. Overall the UK-SK trading relationship is better today than it was under the EU, something you said wasn't possible as we'd have to offer better terms to potential partners, we haven't.SouthamObserver said:Yep - status quo, so no additional benefits to the UK. While we make it harder and more expensive to trade with our biggest export market. So, overall, we are down.
I subscribe to the view that agility is more important than brute strength.
I'm consistent.0 -
De Jure the Leader is recorded here: http://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/English/Registrations/PP52Chris said:
Yes, of course. "Officially", if it means anything, means de jure rather than de facto. "Acting" means de facto, not de jure.kinabalu said:Difficult one for Betfair.
1. Assume that a hostile Martian lands today and says, "I will destroy your planet unless I can have a meeting right now with the leader of the Conservative Party". Who will be wheeled out? Theresa May. The 'Acting' neither adds nor subtracts anything. Of course she is acting. It goes without saying. She is 'acting' in her capacity as party leader to meet the Martian and save the planet. Ergo Theresa May is the leader of the Conservative Party.
2. The key date (per the Betfair rules) is the one on which "Theresa May OFFICIALLY ceases to be the leader of the Conservative Party". Note that it does not feel the need to say 'officially' twice. It does not say "officially ceases to be the official leader" of the party. OK. So last Friday it was announced that "Theresa May has OFFICIALLY stepped down as leader of the Conservative Party." Ergo, unless the word 'officially' was included in error in the Betfair rules, or it is being misused, Theresa May is NOT the leader of the Conservative Party.
When I started writing this, I was inclining towards agreeing with Betfair, i.e. judging (1) to be a superior argument to (2). However, the very act of going through it in such forensic detail has changed my mind - I now think (2) is the better argument and therefore, on balance, that Betfair have got this tricky call wrong.
Disclosure of personal interest - I made £15.71 either way.
Officers
Leader The Rt Hon Theresa May MP0 -
That's literally because no one knows whether we're going to stay in the customs union or not.williamglenn said:
That's not true. All we have are interim agreements to maintain continuity that have significant gaps. Switzerland has agreed to maintain existing cumulation rules for 3 years only. We are putting ourselves in a position where more countries will have ongoing leverage against us.MaxPB said:
It's not the same, it's now a two party agreement. It's completely different to a 29 party agreement.SouthamObserver said:
No, the UK-SK trading relationship is exactly the same. The UK-EU trading relationship is about to get a lot worse. Overall, we are significantly down.MaxPB said:
The benefit is being able to open up the UK-SK deal without needing permission from 27 other nations. It's not some perceived benefit it is a real tangible gain. Overall the UK-SK trading relationship is better today than it was under the EU, something you said wasn't possible as we'd have to offer better terms to potential partners, we haven't.SouthamObserver said:Yep - status quo, so no additional benefits to the UK. While we make it harder and more expensive to trade with our biggest export market. So, overall, we are down.
Again, speaking on the narrow point of third country deals, not the EU trade deal. We are clearly in a better position than we were in for the 10 or so that have been rolled into bilateral agreements and with SK coming to the party it probably paves the way for Canada, Japan and the other major ones to be pushed over the line before October 31st.
Whether you want to admit it or not isn't relevant because it is true.0 -
I believe they need to record it as they are obliged to inform the Electoral Commission of any changes by law. So if they are recording "The Rt Hon Theresa May MP" as "Leader" in an official capacity and she isn't leader then they are breaking the law.MarqueeMark said:
Why do they need to record it? I assume they will let the Electoral Commission know when the vacancy is filled.Philip_Thompson said:
Is that what the Conservatives have recorded with the Electoral Commission?MarqueeMark said:Theresa May is Prime Minister.
She is not leader of the Conservative Party. That position is currently vacant.
If there is no vacancy, how can there be a contest to fill it? May didn't resign as leader of the Conservative Party "pending the appointment of my successor". She is gone.
Not that I have a dog in this fight....0 -
united != majority != unanimousEl_Capitano said:
united != majorityPhilip_Thompson said:
That we should leave the European Union. That was determined on 23/06/16williamglenn said:
What is the UK's united view on Brexit?Philip_Thompson said:
Yes. Though I've said before the Scots would be more agile and better off if they became independent.williamglenn said:
Does the UK display unity and agility in your view?Philip_Thompson said:
So long as that bargaining power is united and agile.TOPPING said:
Do you ascribe to the view that the larger your bargaining power the better the likely deal you achieve?MaxPB said:
The benefit is being able to open up the UK-SK deal without needing permission from 27 other nations. It's not some perceived benefit it is a real tangible gain. Overall the UK-SK trading relationship is better today than it was under the EU, something you said wasn't possible as we'd have to offer better terms to potential partners, we haven't.SouthamObserver said:Yep - status quo, so no additional benefits to the UK. While we make it harder and more expensive to trade with our biggest export market. So, overall, we are down.
I subscribe to the view that agility is more important than brute strength.
I'm consistent.0 -
“Bilateral deals work better for us”. We have a bilateral deal with the Faeroe Islands, don’t we?MaxPB said:
Please outline in specific words where I said that. Seriously, I dare you.SouthamObserver said:
A more flexible trading relationship with the Faeroe Islands is more beneficial to us than being in the single market and customs union. It's a view, I guess.MaxPB said:
It depends on what you want to achieve and the EU, while big, has 28 different agendas so any bargaining power is diluted by that factor quite significantly.TOPPING said:
Do you ascribe to the view that the larger your bargaining power the better the likely deal you achieve?MaxPB said:
The benefit is being able to open up the UK-SK deal without needing permission from 27 other nations. It's not some perceived benefit it is a real tangible gain. Overall the UK-SK trading relationship is better today than it was under the EU, something you said wasn't possible as we'd have to offer better terms to potential partners, we haven't.SouthamObserver said:Yep - status quo, so no additional benefits to the UK. While we make it harder and more expensive to trade with our biggest export market. So, overall, we are down.
In the case of the US, yes it's clear that being the larger party helps in negotiations as Trump is showing wrt Mexico and China. But there aren't 27 other nations to contend with there so it's a bit easier to weild that power.
As I said, a bilateral deal works better for us as we don't need the permission of 27 other nations to open it up for changes. That's a tangible benefit.
0 -
United is an interesting interpretation of a split down the middle of 52/48%!Philip_Thompson said:
That we should leave the European Union. That was determined on 23/06/16williamglenn said:
What is the UK's united view on Brexit?Philip_Thompson said:
Yes. Though I've said before the Scots would be more agile and better off if they became independent.williamglenn said:
Does the UK display unity and agility in your view?Philip_Thompson said:
So long as that bargaining power is united and agile.TOPPING said:
Do you ascribe to the view that the larger your bargaining power the better the likely deal you achieve?MaxPB said:
The benefit is being able to open up the UK-SK deal without needing permission from 27 other nations. It's not some perceived benefit it is a real tangible gain. Overall the UK-SK trading relationship is better today than it was under the EU, something you said wasn't possible as we'd have to offer better terms to potential partners, we haven't.SouthamObserver said:Yep - status quo, so no additional benefits to the UK. While we make it harder and more expensive to trade with our biggest export market. So, overall, we are down.
I subscribe to the view that agility is more important than brute strength.
I'm consistent.0 -
You mean the Conservative Party constitution declares that the leader shall be the person identified on that web page?Philip_Thompson said:
De Jure the Leader is recorded here: http://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/English/Registrations/PP52Chris said:
Yes, of course. "Officially", if it means anything, means de jure rather than de facto. "Acting" means de facto, not de jure.kinabalu said:Difficult one for Betfair.
1. Assume that a hostile Martian lands today and says, "I will destroy your planet unless I can have a meeting right now with the leader of the Conservative Party". Who will be wheeled out? Theresa May. The 'Acting' neither adds nor subtracts anything. Of course she is acting. It goes without saying. She is 'acting' in her capacity as party leader to meet the Martian and save the planet. Ergo Theresa May is the leader of the Conservative Party.
2. The key date (per the Betfair rules) is the one on which "Theresa May OFFICIALLY ceases to be the leader of the Conservative Party". Note that it does not feel the need to say 'officially' twice. It does not say "officially ceases to be the official leader" of the party. OK. So last Friday it was announced that "Theresa May has OFFICIALLY stepped down as leader of the Conservative Party." Ergo, unless the word 'officially' was included in error in the Betfair rules, or it is being misused, Theresa May is NOT the leader of the Conservative Party.
When I started writing this, I was inclining towards agreeing with Betfair, i.e. judging (1) to be a superior argument to (2). However, the very act of going through it in such forensic detail has changed my mind - I now think (2) is the better argument and therefore, on balance, that Betfair have got this tricky call wrong.
Disclosure of personal interest - I made £15.71 either way.
Officers
Leader The Rt Hon Theresa May MP
If you say so, I bow to your superior knowledge, but I find it surprising.0 -
Does anyone have any idea why Leadsom is so short in the betting??0
-
No the law does.Chris said:
You mean the Conservative Party constitution declares that the leader shall be the person identified on that web page?Philip_Thompson said:
De Jure the Leader is recorded here: http://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/English/Registrations/PP52Chris said:
Yes, of course. "Officially", if it means anything, means de jure rather than de facto. "Acting" means de facto, not de jure.kinabalu said:Difficult one for Betfair.
1. Assume that a hostile Martian lands today and says, "I will destroy your planet unless I can have a meeting right now with the leader of the Conservative Party". Who will be wheeled out? Theresa May. The 'Acting' neither adds nor subtracts anything. Of course she is acting. It goes without saying. She is 'acting' in her capacity as party leader to meet the Martian and save the planet. Ergo Theresa May is the leader of the Conservative Party.
2. The key date (per the Betfair rules) is the one on which "Theresa May OFFICIALLY ceases to be the leader of the Conservative Party". Note that it does not feel the need to say 'officially' twice. It does not say "officially ceases to be the official leader" of the party. OK. So last Friday it was announced that "Theresa May has OFFICIALLY stepped down as leader of the Conservative Party." Ergo, unless the word 'officially' was included in error in the Betfair rules, or it is being misused, Theresa May is NOT the leader of the Conservative Party.
When I started writing this, I was inclining towards agreeing with Betfair, i.e. judging (1) to be a superior argument to (2). However, the very act of going through it in such forensic detail has changed my mind - I now think (2) is the better argument and therefore, on balance, that Betfair have got this tricky call wrong.
Disclosure of personal interest - I made £15.71 either way.
Officers
Leader The Rt Hon Theresa May MP
If you say so, I bow to your superior knowledge, but I find it surprising.0 -
Lol, reaching there a bit SO.SouthamObserver said:
“Bilateral deals work better for us”. We have a bilateral deal with the Faeroe Islands, don’t we?MaxPB said:
Please outline in specific words where I said that. Seriously, I dare you.SouthamObserver said:
A more flexible trading relationship with the Faeroe Islands is more beneficial to us than being in the single market and customs union. It's a view, I guess.MaxPB said:
It depends on what you want to achieve and the EU, while big, has 28 different agendas so any bargaining power is diluted by that factor quite significantly.TOPPING said:
Do you ascribe to the view that the larger your bargaining power the better the likely deal you achieve?MaxPB said:
The benefit is being able to open up the UK-SK deal without needing permission from 27 other nations. It's not some perceived benefit it is a real tangible gain. Overall the UK-SK trading relationship is better today than it was under the EU, something you said wasn't possible as we'd have to offer better terms to potential partners, we haven't.SouthamObserver said:Yep - status quo, so no additional benefits to the UK. While we make it harder and more expensive to trade with our biggest export market. So, overall, we are down.
In the case of the US, yes it's clear that being the larger party helps in negotiations as Trump is showing wrt Mexico and China. But there aren't 27 other nations to contend with there so it's a bit easier to weild that power.
As I said, a bilateral deal works better for us as we don't need the permission of 27 other nations to open it up for changes. That's a tangible benefit.0 -
It would have been more sensible for the rules to have specified the date of resignation. That is what punters were weighing up, months in advance.david_herdson said:On topic, I tend to agree with Betfair's opinion here but it's certainly an arguable case either way.
To me, it turns on whether there was any gap between May resigning as permanent leader and becoming acting leader. Had there been, I think the market should have been settled with May having ceased to be leader as at that point.
However, this isn't the case. With everything having been announced and arranged in advance, her leadership was continuous as her status changed from permanent to acting leader and as such, her leadership tenure won't end until she steps down following the conclusion of the election to succeed her (black swans permitting).0 -
Which is our single biggest export market? What deals do we need to do to compensate for the loss of access to that we are in the process of inflicting on ourselves?Philip_Thompson said:
If by "Faeroe Islands" you mean "Rest of the World" then yes.SouthamObserver said:
A more flexible trading relationship with the Faeroe Islands is more beneficial to us than being in the single market and customs union. It's a view, I guess.MaxPB said:
It depends on what you want to achieve and the EU, while big, has 28 different agendas so any bargaining power is diluted by that factor quite significantly.TOPPING said:
Do you ascribe to the view that the larger your bargaining power the better the likely deal you achieve?MaxPB said:
The benefit is being able to open up the UK-SK deal without needing permission from 27 other nations. It's not some perceived benefit it is a real tangible gain. Overall the UK-SK trading relationship is better today than it was under the EU, something you said wasn't possible as we'd have to offer better terms to potential partners, we haven't.SouthamObserver said:Yep - status quo, so no additional benefits to the UK. While we make it harder and more expensive to trade with our biggest export market. So, overall, we are down.
In the case of the US, yes it's clear that being the larger party helps in negotiations as Trump is showing wrt Mexico and China. But there aren't 27 other nations to contend with there so it's a bit easier to weild that power.
As I said, a bilateral deal works better for us as we don't need the permission of 27 other nations to open it up for changes. That's a tangible benefit.
Which of the European Union or "Faeroe Islands" [aka Rest of the World] represents most of our trade?
Which of the European Union or "Faeroe Islands" [aka Rest of the World] forms most of the world economy?
Which of the European Union or "Faeroe Islands" [aka Rest of the World] is growing faster?
Which of the European Union or "Faeroe Islands" [aka Rest of the World] is 93% of the global population?
0 -
Well done, Boris. You've just put Corbyn in No. 100
-
Looking at it another way, if the leader of the Tory party were temporarily incapacitated by illness, and an acting leader were appointed, who would "officially" be the leader?1
-
Out of curiosity, can you quote the wording of that law?Philip_Thompson said:
No the law does.Chris said:
You mean the Conservative Party constitution declares that the leader shall be the person identified on that web page?Philip_Thompson said:
De Jure the Leader is recorded here: http://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/English/Registrations/PP52Chris said:
Yes, of course. "Officially", if it means anything, means de jure rather than de facto. "Acting" means de facto, not de jure.kinabalu said:Difficult one for Betfair.
1. Assume that a hostile Martian lands today and says, "I will destroy your planet unless I can have a meeting right now with the leader of the Conservative Party". Who will be wheeled out? Theresa May. The 'Acting' neither adds nor subtracts anything. Of course she is acting. It goes without saying. She is 'acting' in her capacity as party leader to meet the Martian and save the planet. Ergo Theresa May is the leader of the Conservative Party.
2. The key date (per the Betfair rules) is the one on which "Theresa May OFFICIALLY ceases to be the leader of the Conservative Party". Note that it does not feel the need to say 'officially' twice. It does not say "officially ceases to be the official leader" of the party. OK. So last Friday it was announced that "Theresa May has OFFICIALLY stepped down as leader of the Conservative Party." Ergo, unless the word 'officially' was included in error in the Betfair rules, or it is being misused, Theresa May is NOT the leader of the Conservative Party.
When I started writing this, I was inclining towards agreeing with Betfair, i.e. judging (1) to be a superior argument to (2). However, the very act of going through it in such forensic detail has changed my mind - I now think (2) is the better argument and therefore, on balance, that Betfair have got this tricky call wrong.
Disclosure of personal interest - I made £15.71 either way.
Officers
Leader The Rt Hon Theresa May MP
If you say so, I bow to your superior knowledge, but I find it surprising.0 -
Interestingly the only recent period when Wikipedia thinks the post of leader was vacant was when John Major resigned to trigger the "put up or shut up" leadership contest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leader_of_the_Conservative_Party_(UK)0 -
Our single biggest export market depends upon how you define it. If you mean between the European Union and the Rest of the World then it is the Rest of the World. If you mean country, then it is the United States of America. If you mean by single market it is the European Union.SouthamObserver said:
Which is our single biggest export market? What deals do we need to do to compensate for the loss of access to that we are in the process of inflicting on ourselves?Philip_Thompson said:
If by "Faeroe Islands" you mean "Rest of the World" then yes.SouthamObserver said:
A more flexible trading relationship with the Faeroe Islands is more beneficial to us than being in the single market and customs union. It's a view, I guess.MaxPB said:
It depends on what you want to achieve and the EU, while big, has 28 different agendas so any bargaining power is diluted by that factor quite significantly.TOPPING said:
Do you ascribe to the view that the larger your bargaining power the better the likely deal you achieve?MaxPB said:
The benefit is being able to open up the UK-SK deal without needing permission from 27 other nations. It's not some perceived benefit it is a real tangible gain. Overall the UK-SK trading relationship is better today than it was under the EU, something you said wasn't possible as we'd have to offer better terms to potential partners, we haven't.SouthamObserver said:Yep - status quo, so no additional benefits to the UK. While we make it harder and more expensive to trade with our biggest export market. So, overall, we are down.
In the case of the US, yes it's clear that being the larger party helps in negotiations as Trump is showing wrt Mexico and China. But there aren't 27 other nations to contend with there so it's a bit easier to weild that power.
As I said, a bilateral deal works better for us as we don't need the permission of 27 other nations to open it up for changes. That's a tangible benefit.
Which of the European Union or "Faeroe Islands" [aka Rest of the World] represents most of our trade?
Which of the European Union or "Faeroe Islands" [aka Rest of the World] forms most of the world economy?
Which of the European Union or "Faeroe Islands" [aka Rest of the World] is growing faster?
Which of the European Union or "Faeroe Islands" [aka Rest of the World] is 93% of the global population?
We can do lots of deals to more than compensate just as other nations have. Of the CANZUK nations we have been compared to then we are the poorest and have the fewest trade deals with the worlds leading economies. Pre-EU we were the second richest behind only Canada.0 -
Well done for the bet on Verstappen to beat the Renaults. I’m pleased I didn’t bet on Ferrari beating Mercedes.Morris_Dancer said:FPT: F1: post-race ramble:
https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2019/06/canada-post-race-analysis-2019.html
0 -
I was just about to post the same thing. The tax cut makes the case for Corbynism better than Corbyn ever could.Fenman said:Well done, Boris. You've just put Corbyn in No. 10
0 -
Those earning up to £80k aren't the wealthiest, Dumbo.SouthamObserver said:Instead of sending £350 million to the EU every week, let's spend it on tax cuts for the wealthiest instead.
0 -
On topic: I think the electoral Commission point is decisive on this. The Conservative Party has a legal obligation to notify the Commission promptly if there is a change of leader. Therefore, if the party doesn't make such a notification, Nothing Has Changed, and Theresa May is still officially leader.1
-
IANAL but from the Electoral Commission website:Chris said:
Out of curiosity, can you quote the wording of that law?Philip_Thompson said:
No the law does.Chris said:
You mean the Conservative Party constitution declares that the leader shall be the person identified on that web page?Philip_Thompson said:
De Jure the Leader is recorded here: http://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/English/Registrations/PP52Chris said:Yes, of course. "Officially", if it means anything, means de jure rather than de facto. "Acting" means de facto, not de jure.
Officers
Leader The Rt Hon Theresa May MP
If you say so, I bow to your superior knowledge, but I find it surprising.
Registration requirements for political parties
When registering, parties need to provide us with some information about their party structure, including a financial scheme, their constitution and details of any branches of the party that manage their own finances (“accounting units”). They must also appoint people to the official roles of:
Party leader
Treasurer
Nominating officer
Registered parties must keep details of these roles up to date and inform us of any changes.
No update to the "official role" of "Party leader" has been done yet, despite the fact that the party "must keep details of these roles up to date and inform ... of any changes".1 -
I mean single market. Which deals will compensate?Philip_Thompson said:
Our single biggest export market depends upon how you define it. If you mean between the European Union and the Rest of the World then it is the Rest of the World. If you mean country, then it is the United States of America. If you mean by single market it is the European Union.SouthamObserver said:
Which is our single biggest export market? What deals do we need to do to compensate for the loss of access to that we are in the process of inflicting on ourselves?Philip_Thompson said:
If by "Faeroe Islands" you mean "Rest of the World" then yes.SouthamObserver said:
A more flexible trading relationship with the Faeroe Islands is more beneficial to us than being in the single market and customs union. It's a view, I guess.MaxPB said:
It depends on what you want to achieve and the EU, while big, has 28 different agendas so any bargaining power is diluted by that factor quite significantly.TOPPING said:
Do you ascribe to the view that the larger your bargaining power the better the likely deal you achieve?MaxPB said:
The benefit is being able to open up the UK-SK deal without needing permission from 27 other nations. It's not some perceived benefit it is a real tangible gain. Overall the UK-SK trading relationship is better today than it was under the EU, something you said wasn't possible as we'd have to offer better terms to potential partners, we haven't.SouthamObserver said:Yep - status quo, so no additional benefits to the UK. While we make it harder and more expensive to trade with our biggest export market. So, overall, we are down.
In the case of the hat power.
As I said, a bilateral deal works better for us as we don't need the permission of 27 other nations to open it up for changes. That's a tangible benefit.
Which of the European Union or "Faeroe Islands" [aka Rest of the World] represents most of our trade?
Which of the European Union or "Faeroe Islands" [aka Rest of the World] forms most of the world economy?
Which of the European Union or "Faeroe Islands" [aka Rest of the World] is growing faster?
Which of the European Union or "Faeroe Islands" [aka Rest of the World] is 93% of the global population?
We can do lots of deals to more than compensate just as other nations have. Of the CANZUK nations we have been compared to then we are the poorest and have the fewest trade deals with the worlds leading economies. Pre-EU we were the second richest behind only Canada.
0 -
Gone are the days where you could flash a tax cut to the electorate. The public, rightly, want decent public services.
You can get away with tax cuts where people have high confidence in public services, but we are far, far away from that.0 -
How?MaxPB said:
Lol, reaching there a bit SO.SouthamObserver said:
“Bilateral deals work better for us”. We have a bilateral deal with the Faeroe Islands, don’t we?MaxPB said:
Please outline in specific words where I said that. Seriously, I dare you.SouthamObserver said:
A more flexible trading relationship with the Faeroe Islands is more beneficial to us than being in the single market and customs union. It's a view, I guess.MaxPB said:
It depends on what you want to achieve and the EU, while big, has 28 different agendas so any bargaining power is diluted by that factor quite significantly.TOPPING said:
Do you ascribe to the view that the larger your bargaining power the better the likely deal you achieve?MaxPB said:
The benefit is being able to open up the UK-SK deal without needing permission from 27 other nations. It's not some perceived benefit it is a real tangible gain. Overall the UK-SK trading relationship is better today than it was under the EU, something you said wasn't possible as we'd have to offer better terms to potential partners, we haven't.SouthamObserver said:Yep - status quo, so no additional benefits to the UK. While we make it harder and more expensive to trade with our biggest export market. So, overall, we are down.
In the case of the US, yes it's clear that being the larger party helps in negotiations as Trump is showing wrt Mexico and China. But there aren't 27 other nations to contend with there so it's a bit easier to weild that power.
As I said, a bilateral deal works better for us as we don't need the permission of 27 other nations to open it up for changes. That's a tangible benefit.
0 -
This comes up a lot. Two possibilities are:Stocky said:Does anyone have any idea why Leadsom is so short in the betting??
1. A supporter is backing her to keep the price short in order to give the impression she is more popular than she is. This is a tactic sometimes used in politics, and usually credited to former Liberal MP Clement Freud.
2. Genuine backers think Leadsom can come through the middle as the last Leaver standing if Boris and Gove both implode. This is what happened in the last leadership election, and might have started again with yesterday's cocaine story.
Take your pick. Note also that from time to time it has been possible to arb Leadsom between the Next Leader and Next Prime Minister markets.0 -
The tax cut goes to everyone earning above the existing threshold, not just those earning up to £80k.Casino_Royale said:
Those earning up to £80k aren't the wealthiest, Dumbo.SouthamObserver said:Instead of sending £350 million to the EU every week, let's spend it on tax cuts for the wealthiest instead.
1 -
What it does show us is that most of the Tory candidates are idiots. They wouldn't make a shortlist for a sales job, never mind running the entire bloody country.Slackbladder said:Gone are the days where you could flash a tax cut to the electorate. The public, rightly, want decent public services.
You can get away with tax cuts where people have high confidence in public services, but we are far, far away from that.0 -
Off topic, PaddyPower have lost a £25 bet I placed with them in October 2017 on Jeremy Hunt as next Tory leader at 40/1. It's disappeared from my online open bets record.
Obviously, this is of concern to me at the present time. One of their help agents confirmed it was still active but I've just phoned another who said they couldn't find it on a quick look but would send me a full account statement for the last two years to be sure.
Any tips on how to handle this?0 -
It would have been more sensible to have been explicit about how the market would operate in the entirely predictable scenario of the departing leader continuing to act as leader, during the contest to replace them.IanB2 said:
It would have been more sensible for the rules to have specified the date of resignation. That is what punters were weighing up, months in advance.david_herdson said:On topic, I tend to agree with Betfair's opinion here but it's certainly an arguable case either way.
To me, it turns on whether there was any gap between May resigning as permanent leader and becoming acting leader. Had there been, I think the market should have been settled with May having ceased to be leader as at that point.
However, this isn't the case. With everything having been announced and arranged in advance, her leadership was continuous as her status changed from permanent to acting leader and as such, her leadership tenure won't end until she steps down following the conclusion of the election to succeed her (black swans permitting).0 -
"Talking!"Theuniondivvie said:
0 -
Marvellous. At least I am smart enough to understand that those earning over £80,000 a year also benefit. So what does that make you?Casino_Royale said:
Those earning up to £80k aren't the wealthiest, Dumbo.SouthamObserver said:Instead of sending £350 million to the EU every week, let's spend it on tax cuts for the wealthiest instead.
0 -
Like many bookies, they don't display old bets (Lord only know why!). It should be still on their books though. I wouldn't worry about it - the time to make a fuss is if it becomes a winner, otherwise why waste your time?Casino_Royale said:Off topic, PaddyPower have lost a £25 bet I placed with them in October 2017 on Jeremy Hunt as next Tory leader at 40/1. It's disappeared from my online open bets record.
Obviously, this is of concern to me at the present time. One of their help agents confirmed it was still active but I've just phoned another who said they couldn't find it on a quick look but would send me a full account statement for the last two years to be sure.
Any tips on how to handle this?0 -
I am not interested in just one single market alone that forms a minority and shrinking of our trade, I'm interested in the whole globe. Why be just a little European only bothered by 7% of the globes population?SouthamObserver said:
I mean single market. Which deals will compensate?Philip_Thompson said:Our single biggest export market depends upon how you define it. If you mean between the European Union and the Rest of the World then it is the Rest of the World. If you mean country, then it is the United States of America. If you mean by single market it is the European Union.
We can do lots of deals to more than compensate just as other nations have. Of the CANZUK nations we have been compared to then we are the poorest and have the fewest trade deals with the worlds leading economies. Pre-EU we were the second richest behind only Canada.
As for which deals will compensate, long-term lots will. In 1992 I moved to Australia, the UK was still in the EEC. Since then the UK has seen the EU become the European Union and Australia has signed trade deals with much of the globe.
Then the UK GDP/capita was 110.3% of Australia's.
Now the UK GDP/capita is 76.4% of Australia's.
We have declined from 10% bigger to 24% smaller. Just as Europe has declined as a share of the global economy while Australia has signed trade deals we lack with growing economies.0 -
On the 2.30 at Kempton?kinabalu said:Difficult one for Betfair.
1. Assume that a hostile Martian lands today and says, "I will destroy your planet unless I can have a meeting right now with the leader of the Conservative Party". Who will be wheeled out? Theresa May. The 'Acting' neither adds nor subtracts anything. Of course she is acting. It goes without saying. She is 'acting' in her capacity as party leader to meet the Martian and save the planet. Ergo Theresa May is the leader of the Conservative Party.
2. The key date (per the Betfair rules) is the one on which "Theresa May OFFICIALLY ceases to be the leader of the Conservative Party". Note that it does not feel the need to say 'officially' twice. It does not say "officially ceases to be the official leader" of the party. OK. So last Friday it was announced that "Theresa May has OFFICIALLY stepped down as leader of the Conservative Party." Ergo, unless the word 'officially' was included in error in the Betfair rules, or it is being misused, Theresa May is NOT the leader of the Conservative Party.
When I started writing this, I was inclining towards agreeing with Betfair, i.e. judging (1) to be a superior argument to (2). However, the very act of going through it in such forensic detail has changed my mind - I now think (2) is the better argument and therefore, on balance, that Betfair have got this tricky call wrong.
Disclosure of personal interest - I made £15.71 either way.0 -
Because I'm crapping my pants!Richard_Nabavi said:
Like many bookies, they don't display old bets (Lord only know why!). It should be still on their books though. I wouldn't worry about it - the time to make a fuss is if it becomes a winner, otherwise why waste your time?Casino_Royale said:Off topic, PaddyPower have lost a £25 bet I placed with them in October 2017 on Jeremy Hunt as next Tory leader at 40/1. It's disappeared from my online open bets record.
Obviously, this is of concern to me at the present time. One of their help agents confirmed it was still active but I've just phoned another who said they couldn't find it on a quick look but would send me a full account statement for the last two years to be sure.
Any tips on how to handle this?
That bet is the basis of me safely laying off Hunt at 6s and 7s on Betfair and it's making me feel insecure. If I'm not sure I'm going to be much more wary about that position.
Say what you like about Betfair but your cash and money is always 100% transparent.0 -
Why does trading with the rest of the world have to involve making it harder and more expensive to trade with our biggest export market?Philip_Thompson said:
I am not interested in just one single market alone that forms a minority and shrinking of our trade, I'm interested in the whole globe. Why be just a little European only bothered by 7% of the globes population?SouthamObserver said:
I mean single market. Which deals will compensate?Philip_Thompson said:Our single biggest export market depends upon how you define it. If you mean between the European Union and the Rest of the World then it is the Rest of the World. If you mean country, then it is the United States of America. If you mean by single market it is the European Union.
We can do lots of deals to more than compensate just as other nations have. Of the CANZUK nations we have been compared to then we are the poorest and have the fewest trade deals with the worlds leading economies. Pre-EU we were the second richest behind only Canada.
As for which deals will compensate, long-term lots will. In 1992 I moved to Australia, the UK was still in the EEC. Since then the UK has seen the EU become the European Union and Australia has signed trade deals with much of the globe.
Then the UK GDP/capita was 110.3% of Australia's.
Now the UK GDP/capita is 76.4% of Australia's.
We have declined from 10% bigger to 24% smaller. Just as Europe has declined as a share of the global economy while Australia has signed trade deals we lack with growing economies.
Will leaving the EU mean we magically get all the natural resources that Australia has and other countries want?
0 -
Short term: as you are doing, though when you next speak to someone who can find it, make a note of the bet number.Casino_Royale said:Off topic, PaddyPower have lost a £25 bet I placed with them in October 2017 on Jeremy Hunt as next Tory leader at 40/1. It's disappeared from my online open bets record.
Obviously, this is of concern to me at the present time. One of their help agents confirmed it was still active but I've just phoned another who said they couldn't find it on a quick look but would send me a full account statement for the last two years to be sure.
Any tips on how to handle this?
Medium term: make a note of the number whenever you place long-term ante-post bets.
Long term to when hell freezes over: lobby the entirely useless Gambling Commission to require bookmakers' sites to show all bets and not just those placed in the last six months, as is common.
0 -
Smarter and less partisan than you.SouthamObserver said:
Marvellous. At least I am smart enough to understand that those earning over £80,000 a year also benefit. So what does that make you?Casino_Royale said:
Those earning up to £80k aren't the wealthiest, Dumbo.SouthamObserver said:Instead of sending £350 million to the EU every week, let's spend it on tax cuts for the wealthiest instead.
1 -
-
Yes, exactly right. The simplest and most unflattering interpretation of Johnson is the correct one. He has, has only ever had, a single objective - to become PM.Harris_Tweed said:On Boris: he's clearly on a mission to impress his current electorate, without caring a jot for the next (possibly imminently so). It's probably not a bad short-term plan. But he's making difficult-to-deliver promises like No Deal Brexit by Oct 31 which will entirely alienate the 48%, and higher-rate income tax cuts which will alienate a different 48 (or whatever) per cent. The boundaries of those two groups are unlikely to be co-terminous. Team Boris may shrink more than he's predicting. (Although he may also gamble.. possibly rightly.. that Corbyn's even less attractive).
Unfortunately, it would appear that he is about to achieve it.
It saddens me very much.0 -
Ha, ha! Of course!!Casino_Royale said:
Smarter and less partisan than you.SouthamObserver said:
Marvellous. At least I am smart enough to understand that those earning over £80,000 a year also benefit. So what does that make you?Casino_Royale said:
Those earning up to £80k aren't the wealthiest, Dumbo.SouthamObserver said:Instead of sending £350 million to the EU every week, let's spend it on tax cuts for the wealthiest instead.
0 -
Thanks. Good advice!DecrepitJohnL said:
Short term: as you are doing, though when you next speak to someone who can find it, make a note of the bet number.Casino_Royale said:Off topic, PaddyPower have lost a £25 bet I placed with them in October 2017 on Jeremy Hunt as next Tory leader at 40/1. It's disappeared from my online open bets record.
Obviously, this is of concern to me at the present time. One of their help agents confirmed it was still active but I've just phoned another who said they couldn't find it on a quick look but would send me a full account statement for the last two years to be sure.
Any tips on how to handle this?
Medium term: make a note of the number whenever you place long-term ante-post bets.
Long term to when hell freezes over: lobby the entirely useless Gambling Commission to require bookmakers' sites to show all bets and not just those placed in the last six months, as is common.0 -
On topic, the real issue here is not as much which way the bet gets settled, but that their customer service team provided a number of ambiguous and contradictory responses to questions about it.
It also doesn’t help that all their markets about next party leaders say explicitly that acting leaders don’t count.
Going forward they need to be much more careful in their writing of terms for bets such as this, which are often more complicated to adjudicate than a football or cricket match.
A terrible cynic might suggest that if there was £3000 in this market rather than £3m, they’d have voided it over the ambiguity, but 5% of £3m is a not insignificant sum of commission.1 -
Pretty much. Stewart seems the only realistic pragmatist there. Although Hunt and Hancock seem good too to a lesser degree.glw said:
What it does show us is that most of the Tory candidates are idiots. They wouldn't make a shortlist for a sales job, never mind running the entire bloody country.Slackbladder said:Gone are the days where you could flash a tax cut to the electorate. The public, rightly, want decent public services.
You can get away with tax cuts where people have high confidence in public services, but we are far, far away from that.0 -
That's not completely impossible but it's very unlikely.Philip_Thompson said:
Someone would have got wind of such a plot by now.0 -
Any one ready to ask Theresa May to revoke her resignation yet? 0
-
Sky News - Ester McVey confirms she has put her nominations papers in with the requisite eight backers0
-
Australia has also had a 30 year commodity boom!Philip_Thompson said:
I am not interested in just one single market alone that forms a minority and shrinking of our trade, I'm interested in the whole globe. Why be just a little European only bothered by 7% of the globes population?SouthamObserver said:
I mean single market. Which deals will compensate?Philip_Thompson said:Our single biggest export market depends upon how you define it. If you mean between the European Union and the Rest of the World then it is the Rest of the World. If you mean country, then it is the United States of America. If you mean by single market it is the European Union.
We can do lots of deals to more than compensate just as other nations have. Of the CANZUK nations we have been compared to then we are the poorest and have the fewest trade deals with the worlds leading economies. Pre-EU we were the second richest behind only Canada.
As for which deals will compensate, long-term lots will. In 1992 I moved to Australia, the UK was still in the EEC. Since then the UK has seen the EU become the European Union and Australia has signed trade deals with much of the globe.
Then the UK GDP/capita was 110.3% of Australia's.
Now the UK GDP/capita is 76.4% of Australia's.
We have declined from 10% bigger to 24% smaller. Just as Europe has declined as a share of the global economy while Australia has signed trade deals we lack with growing economies.0 -
Indeed, after they do so - which would explain why people who know of the plan would have been piling on at the higher prices!Philip_Thompson said:0 -
Australia has also declined as a share of the global economy over the same period. That's just a function of globalisation and the rapid development of China.Philip_Thompson said:Just as Europe has declined as a share of the global economy while Australia has signed trade deals we lack with growing economies.
0 -
Alternative Leadsom theory - someone's bot is picking up on her 2016 leadership activity in twitter.0
-
The only way that Betfair could make the rules for the market worse would be by making Wikipedia the arbiter.williamglenn said:Interestingly the only recent period when Wikipedia thinks the post of leader was vacant was when John Major resigned to trigger the "put up or shut up" leadership contest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leader_of_the_Conservative_Party_(UK)0 -
But she's still Prime Minister. Saying she is "acting leader" of the Conservative Party satisfies the EC requirements - there's no "replacement" to inform the EC of yet.Philip_Thompson said:
I believe they need to record it as they are obliged to inform the Electoral Commission of any changes by law. So if they are recording "The Rt Hon Theresa May MP" as "Leader" in an official capacity and she isn't leader then they are breaking the law.MarqueeMark said:
Why do they need to record it? I assume they will let the Electoral Commission know when the vacancy is filled.Philip_Thompson said:
Is that what the Conservatives have recorded with the Electoral Commission?MarqueeMark said:Theresa May is Prime Minister.
She is not leader of the Conservative Party. That position is currently vacant.
If there is no vacancy, how can there be a contest to fill it? May didn't resign as leader of the Conservative Party "pending the appointment of my successor". She is gone.
Not that I have a dog in this fight....
0 -
1: Becase our biggest export market forbids us from signing trade deals with the rest of the world.SouthamObserver said:
Why does trading with the rest of the world have to involve making it harder and more expensive to trade with our biggest export market?Philip_Thompson said:
I am not interested in just one single market alone that forms a minority and shrinking of our trade, I'm interested in the whole globe. Why be just a little European only bothered by 7% of the globes population?SouthamObserver said:
I mean single market. Which deals will compensate?Philip_Thompson said:Our single biggest export market depends upon how you define it. If you mean between the European Union and the Rest of the World then it is the Rest of the World. If you mean country, then it is the United States of America. If you mean by single market it is the European Union.
We can do lots of deals to more than compensate just as other nations have. Of the CANZUK nations we have been compared to then we are the poorest and have the fewest trade deals with the worlds leading economies. Pre-EU we were the second richest behind only Canada.
As for which deals will compensate, long-term lots will. In 1992 I moved to Australia, the UK was still in the EEC. Since then the UK has seen the EU become the European Union and Australia has signed trade deals with much of the globe.
Then the UK GDP/capita was 110.3% of Australia's.
Now the UK GDP/capita is 76.4% of Australia's.
We have declined from 10% bigger to 24% smaller. Just as Europe has declined as a share of the global economy while Australia has signed trade deals we lack with growing economies.
Will leaving the EU mean we magically get all the natural resources that Australia has and other countries want?
2: No, but natural resources Australia had in 1992 too, unless they magically gained them in recent years and are not all that it trades. The same has happened with regards to other comparable countries too. Name any developed non-European English speaking nation that we have done better than please since 1992.0 -
I presume one MP can nominate one candidate.JackW said:Sky News - Ester McVey confirms she has put her nominations papers in with the requisite eight backers
0 -
Re: Leadsom`s ridiculously short odds - the "rich backer" theory doesn`t seem likely as 1) she is lowly priced across all bookies incuding the exchanges and 2) too much money has been placed on this market for her odds to be affected so much by one or a few backers. I`d say she has a 50/1 chance at best whereas she is top-priced 9/1 (and has been taking money today).
Might I suggest that we are all missing something?0 -
Prime Minister is moot, this is a party political matter not a matter of state.MarqueeMark said:
But she's still Prime Minister. Saying she is "acting leader" of the Conservative Party satisfies the EC requirements - there's no "replacement" to inform the EC of yet.Philip_Thompson said:
I believe they need to record it as they are obliged to inform the Electoral Commission of any changes by law. So if they are recording "The Rt Hon Theresa May MP" as "Leader" in an official capacity and she isn't leader then they are breaking the law.MarqueeMark said:
Why do they need to record it? I assume they will let the Electoral Commission know when the vacancy is filled.Philip_Thompson said:
Is that what the Conservatives have recorded with the Electoral Commission?MarqueeMark said:Theresa May is Prime Minister.
She is not leader of the Conservative Party. That position is currently vacant.
If there is no vacancy, how can there be a contest to fill it? May didn't resign as leader of the Conservative Party "pending the appointment of my successor". She is gone.
Not that I have a dog in this fight....
She is being recorded "officially" as "Leader" as per the terms of Betfair's bet. When she is no longer officially leader then the party is obliged by law to inform the Electoral Commission of that and they will update the website accordingly.0 -
Esther McVey's other half is well-connected to the betting industry, so she might be the ideal leader to sort out the old and missing bets problem, as well as Betfair's ambiguous market terms. Some think Philip Davies is a bit of an arse but he probably thinks the same about you.JackW said:Sky News - Ester McVey confirms she has put her nominations papers in with the requisite eight backers
https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/latest-news/philip-davies-interview-i-don-t-care-if-morons-on-social-media-want-to-hate-me-1-9112455
Esther for PM. Esther for Number 10.0 -
I don't think her price is obviously so false and have not joined the rush to lay at 10. With Gove gone and Raab not firing, if Johnson implodes, Leadsom is well placed as a Leaver vs Hunt. I think she could be considerably shorter than 10 in a couple of days - might lay her then.Stocky said:Does anyone have any idea why Leadsom is so short in the betting??
0 -
Speaking English doesn't make you part of some kind of magic circle that confers economic success. We have outperformed peer countries in our region, on average, over that period. If you're envious of the New World, move there and don't look back.Philip_Thompson said:
1: Becase our biggest export market forbids us from signing trade deals with the rest of the world.SouthamObserver said:
Why does trading with the rest of the world have to involve making it harder and more expensive to trade with our biggest export market?Philip_Thompson said:
I am not interested in just one single market alone that forms a minority and shrinking of our trade, I'm interested in the whole globe. Why be just a little European only bothered by 7% of the globes population?SouthamObserver said:
I mean single market. Which deals will compensate?Philip_Thompson said:Our single biggest export market depends upon how you define it. If you mean between the European Union and the Rest of the World then it is the Rest of the World. If you mean country, then it is the United States of America. If you mean by single market it is the European Union.
We can do lots of deals to more than compensate just as other nations have. Of the CANZUK nations we have been compared to then we are the poorest and have the fewest trade deals with the worlds leading economies. Pre-EU we were the second richest behind only Canada.
As for which deals will compensate, long-term lots will. In 1992 I moved to Australia, the UK was still in the EEC. Since then the UK has seen the EU become the European Union and Australia has signed trade deals with much of the globe.
Then the UK GDP/capita was 110.3% of Australia's.
Now the UK GDP/capita is 76.4% of Australia's.
We have declined from 10% bigger to 24% smaller. Just as Europe has declined as a share of the global economy while Australia has signed trade deals we lack with growing economies.
Will leaving the EU mean we magically get all the natural resources that Australia has and other countries want?
2: No, but natural resources Australia had in 1992 too, unless they magically gained them in recent years and are not all that it trades. The same has happened with regards to other comparable countries too. Name any developed non-European English speaking nation that we have done better than please since 1992.0 -
The bookies are just following Betfair.Stocky said:Re: Leadsom`s ridiculously short odds - the "rich backer" theory doesn`t seem likely as 1) she is lowly priced across all bookies incuding the exchanges and 2) too much money has been placed on this market for her odds to be affected so much by one or a few backers. I`d say she has a 50/1 chance at best whereas she is top-priced 9/1 (and has been taking money today).
Might I suggest that we are all missing something?0 -
Demand has increased since 1992. This is pretty basic stuff.Philip_Thompson said:
1: Becase our biggest export market forbids us from signing trade deals with the rest of the world.SouthamObserver said:
Why does trading with the rest of the world have to involve making it harder and more expensive to trade with our biggest export market?Philip_Thompson said:
I am not interested in just one single market alone that forms a minority and shrinking of our trade, I'm interested in the whole globe. Why be just a little European only bothered by 7% of the globes population?SouthamObserver said:
I mean single market. Which deals will compensate?Philip_Thompson said:Our single biggest export market depends upon how you define it. If you mean between the European Union and the Rest of the World then it is the Rest of the World. If you mean country, then it is the United States of America. If you mean by single market it is the European Union.
We can do lots of deals to more than compensate just as other nations have. Of the CANZUK nations we have been compared to then we are the poorest and have the fewest trade deals with the worlds leading economies. Pre-EU we were the second richest behind only Canada.
As for which deals will compensate, long-term lots will. In 1992 I moved to Australia, the UK was still in the EEC. Since then the UK has seen the EU become the European Union and Australia has signed trade deals with much of the globe.
Then the UK GDP/capita was 110.3% of Australia's.
Now the UK GDP/capita is 76.4% of Australia's.
We have declined from 10% bigger to 24% smaller. Just as Europe has declined as a share of the global economy while Australia has signed trade deals we lack with growing economies.
Will leaving the EU mean we magically get all the natural resources that Australia has and other countries want?
2: No, but natural resources Australia had in 1992 too, unless they magically gained them in recent years and are not all that it trades. The same has happened with regards to other comparable countries too. Name any developed non-European English speaking nation that we have done better than please since 1992.
Name any other non-European English speaking nation that has the UK’s economy. That said, I suspect we are faring significantly better than a number of non-European English speaking countries in, say, Africa and the Caribbean.
0 -
The betting markets seem distinctly underwhelmed.JackW said:Sky News - Ester McVey confirms she has put her nominations papers in with the requisite eight backers
0 -
Deja vu.Stocky said:Re: Leadsom`s ridiculously short odds - the "rich backer" theory doesn`t seem likely as 1) she is lowly priced across all bookies incuding the exchanges and 2) too much money has been placed on this market for her odds to be affected so much by one or a few backers. I`d say she has a 50/1 chance at best whereas she is top-priced 9/1 (and has been taking money today).
Might I suggest that we are all missing something?
She unexpectedly came through and reached the final two last time. People may be betting that the same will happen again.0 -
Cheers, Mr. Sandpit.0
-
The field was much much thinner last time round.Philip_Thompson said:
Deja vu.Stocky said:Re: Leadsom`s ridiculously short odds - the "rich backer" theory doesn`t seem likely as 1) she is lowly priced across all bookies incuding the exchanges and 2) too much money has been placed on this market for her odds to be affected so much by one or a few backers. I`d say she has a 50/1 chance at best whereas she is top-priced 9/1 (and has been taking money today).
Might I suggest that we are all missing something?
She unexpectedly came through and reached the final two last time. People may be betting that the same will happen again.0 -
That's not entirely true. She had comfortably the second most public backers before the first ballot in 2016. In fact all 5 candidates were in the same order before the first ballot as when May was elected (i.e. they were eliminated in the same order as they would have been if all votes had been on the day of the first ballot).Philip_Thompson said:
Deja vu.Stocky said:Re: Leadsom`s ridiculously short odds - the "rich backer" theory doesn`t seem likely as 1) she is lowly priced across all bookies incuding the exchanges and 2) too much money has been placed on this market for her odds to be affected so much by one or a few backers. I`d say she has a 50/1 chance at best whereas she is top-priced 9/1 (and has been taking money today).
Might I suggest that we are all missing something?
She unexpectedly came through and reached the final two last time. People may be betting that the same will happen again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Conservative_Party_(UK)_leadership_election#Timeline0 -
If Jeremy Hunt becomes PM, will the BBC keep on occasionally referring to him with a swear word?
https://youtu.be/zz1kc9cSHfI0 -
Agreed. I think Ladbrokes said a few days ago they were taking virtually no money on her, and only shortening the odds to avoid people arbing them with Betfair.Pulpstar said:
The bookies are just following Betfair.Stocky said:Re: Leadsom`s ridiculously short odds - the "rich backer" theory doesn`t seem likely as 1) she is lowly priced across all bookies incuding the exchanges and 2) too much money has been placed on this market for her odds to be affected so much by one or a few backers. I`d say she has a 50/1 chance at best whereas she is top-priced 9/1 (and has been taking money today).
Might I suggest that we are all missing something?0 -
I did theorise that her Betfair backer was the drug supplier to the rest of the cabinet...Stocky said:Re: Leadsom`s ridiculously short odds - the "rich backer" theory doesn`t seem likely as 1) she is lowly priced across all bookies incuding the exchanges and 2) too much money has been placed on this market for her odds to be affected so much by one or a few backers. I`d say she has a 50/1 chance at best whereas she is top-priced 9/1 (and has been taking money today).
Might I suggest that we are all missing something?0 -
The first ballot is still a long way away. Last time Johnson backed her after he pulled out of the race.Quincel said:
That's not entirely true. She had comfortably the second most public backers before the first ballot in 2016.Philip_Thompson said:
Deja vu.Stocky said:Re: Leadsom`s ridiculously short odds - the "rich backer" theory doesn`t seem likely as 1) she is lowly priced across all bookies incuding the exchanges and 2) too much money has been placed on this market for her odds to be affected so much by one or a few backers. I`d say she has a 50/1 chance at best whereas she is top-priced 9/1 (and has been taking money today).
Might I suggest that we are all missing something?
She unexpectedly came through and reached the final two last time. People may be betting that the same will happen again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Conservative_Party_(UK)_leadership_election#Timeline0 -
The other bookies are following to some extent Betfair’s lead on the prices, to avoid opening up an arb vs the exchange.Stocky said:Re: Leadsom`s ridiculously short odds - the "rich backer" theory doesn`t seem likely as 1) she is lowly priced across all bookies incuding the exchanges and 2) too much money has been placed on this market for her odds to be affected so much by one or a few backers. I`d say she has a 50/1 chance at best whereas she is top-priced 9/1 (and has been taking money today).
Might I suggest that we are all missing something?
Edit: @Pulpstar makes the same point (and he’s got way more cash than me laying Leadsom!), as does @Quincel0 -
That's an interesting thought, although you'd have thought that unless this is the bot's first outing, the problem would have shown itself before, perhaps when it tried to back last year's Derby winner last week, for instance.Pulpstar said:Alternative Leadsom theory - someone's bot is picking up on her 2016 leadership activity in twitter.
It is also possible that said dodgy bot is in a false feedback loop with the main bookmaking firms. The betting shops are blindly following Betfair, and Betfair's market is being set by a bot taking its cue (or at least some of its input) from the odds set by the bookies.
0 -
Betfair has over 3 million matched.DecrepitJohnL said:
That's an interesting thought, although you'd have thought that unless this is the bot's first outing, the problem would have shown itself before, perhaps when it tried to back last year's Derby winner last week, for instance.Pulpstar said:Alternative Leadsom theory - someone's bot is picking up on her 2016 leadership activity in twitter.
It is also possible that said dodgy bot is in a false feedback loop with the main bookmaking firms. The betting shops are blindly following Betfair, and Betfair's market is being set by a bot taking its cue (or at least some of its input) from the odds set by the bookies.
What 'extra' proportion do the bookies have?0 -
Firstly, it's three days away and while there is still time for intrigue nothing to boost Leadsom has happened yet.williamglenn said:
The first ballot is still a long way away. Last time Johnson backed her after he pulled out of the race.Quincel said:
That's not entirely true. She had comfortably the second most public backers before the first ballot in 2016.Philip_Thompson said:
Deja vu.Stocky said:Re: Leadsom`s ridiculously short odds - the "rich backer" theory doesn`t seem likely as 1) she is lowly priced across all bookies incuding the exchanges and 2) too much money has been placed on this market for her odds to be affected so much by one or a few backers. I`d say she has a 50/1 chance at best whereas she is top-priced 9/1 (and has been taking money today).
Might I suggest that we are all missing something?
She unexpectedly came through and reached the final two last time. People may be betting that the same will happen again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Conservative_Party_(UK)_leadership_election#Timeline
But secondly, my point is that her 2nd place last time wasn't unexpected once the candidates were known. If that holds this time, she isn't even near the running unless someone big drops out and endorses her. Her odds shouldn't be third favourite if she needs that to happen.0 -
Great so we're not third world, that is the bar you want to set? You want to compare us to third world economies rather than say Canada, Australia or New Zealand?SouthamObserver said:Demand has increased since 1992. This is pretty basic stuff.
Name any other non-European English speaking nation that has the UK’s economy. That said, I suspect we are faring significantly better than a number of non-European English speaking countries in, say, Africa and the Caribbean.
In 1992 New Zealand's GDP/capita was roughly half of ours. It is now roughly the same. Proportionately they have doubled relative to us.
In 1992 Canada's GDP/capita was roughly the same as ours. It is now over 25% bigger than ours.
In 1992 the EEC was 24% of the global economy (nearly 30% including nations that have since joined). Today it is 16%.
Stop turning your nose up at the rest of the world.0 -
If three days is a long way!williamglenn said:
The first ballot is still a long way away. Last time Johnson backed her after he pulled out of the race.Quincel said:
That's not entirely true. She had comfortably the second most public backers before the first ballot in 2016.Philip_Thompson said:
Deja vu.Stocky said:Re: Leadsom`s ridiculously short odds - the "rich backer" theory doesn`t seem likely as 1) she is lowly priced across all bookies incuding the exchanges and 2) too much money has been placed on this market for her odds to be affected so much by one or a few backers. I`d say she has a 50/1 chance at best whereas she is top-priced 9/1 (and has been taking money today).
Might I suggest that we are all missing something?
She unexpectedly came through and reached the final two last time. People may be betting that the same will happen again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Conservative_Party_(UK)_leadership_election#Timeline0 -
I mentioned before, I think it has taken ~£50k or so to keep Leadsom at 9/1. That's not so bad compared to other ways of marketing your candidate.Sandpit said:
The other bookies are following to some extent Betfair’s lead on the prices, to avoid opening up an arb vs the exchange.Stocky said:Re: Leadsom`s ridiculously short odds - the "rich backer" theory doesn`t seem likely as 1) she is lowly priced across all bookies incuding the exchanges and 2) too much money has been placed on this market for her odds to be affected so much by one or a few backers. I`d say she has a 50/1 chance at best whereas she is top-priced 9/1 (and has been taking money today).
Might I suggest that we are all missing something?
Edit: @Pulpstar makes the same point (and he’s got way more cash than me laying Leadsom!), as does @Quincel
it is definitely one or two actors in the market, though I cannot be sure what their motive is.
0 -
Boris drifiting slightly for no reason whatsoever.0
-
China's boom explains Australia's commodity exports.Philip_Thompson said:
1: Becase our biggest export market forbids us from signing trade deals with the rest of the world.SouthamObserver said:
Why does trading with the rest of the world have to involve making it harder and more expensive to trade with our biggest export market?Philip_Thompson said:
I am not interested in just one single market alone that forms a minority and shrinking of our trade, I'm interested in the whole globe. Why be just a little European only bothered by 7% of the globes population?SouthamObserver said:
I mean single market. Which deals will compensate?Philip_Thompson said:Our single biggest export market depends upon how you define it. If you mean between the European Union and the Rest of the World then it is the Rest of the World. If you mean country, then it is the United States of America. If you mean by single market it is the European Union.
We can do lots of deals to more than compensate just as other nations have. Of the CANZUK nations we have been compared to then we are the poorest and have the fewest trade deals with the worlds leading economies. Pre-EU we were the second richest behind only Canada.
As for which deals will compensate, long-term lots will. In 1992 I moved to Australia, the UK was still in the EEC. Since then the UK has seen the EU become the European Union and Australia has signed trade deals with much of the globe.
Then the UK GDP/capita was 110.3% of Australia's.
Now the UK GDP/capita is 76.4% of Australia's.
We have declined from 10% bigger to 24% smaller. Just as Europe has declined as a share of the global economy while Australia has signed trade deals we lack with growing economies.
Will leaving the EU mean we magically get all the natural resources that Australia has and other countries want?
2: No, but natural resources Australia had in 1992 too, unless they magically gained them in recent years and are not all that it trades. The same has happened with regards to other comparable countries too. Name any developed non-European English speaking nation that we have done better than please since 1992.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_trading_partners_of_Australia0 -
I don't understand this, can someone please explain. Surely if the Betfair odds are wrong and Ladbrokes are taking virtually no money on her surely they would make more money by lengthening the odds and permitting people to arb them with Betfair?Quincel said:
Agreed. I think Ladbrokes said a few days ago they were taking virtually no money on her, and only shortening the odds to avoid people arbing them with Betfair.Pulpstar said:
The bookies are just following Betfair.Stocky said:Re: Leadsom`s ridiculously short odds - the "rich backer" theory doesn`t seem likely as 1) she is lowly priced across all bookies incuding the exchanges and 2) too much money has been placed on this market for her odds to be affected so much by one or a few backers. I`d say she has a 50/1 chance at best whereas she is top-priced 9/1 (and has been taking money today).
Might I suggest that we are all missing something?
If Betfair says 9/1, but the true value should be say 30/1, then if Ladbrokes put odds of perhaps 20/1 up then punters could arb with Betfair but Ladbrokes are still getting good margins themselves.0 -
As little as that?TheWhiteRabbit said:
I mentioned before, I think it has taken ~£50k or so to keep Leadsom at 9/1. That's not so bad compared to other ways of marketing your candidate.Sandpit said:
The other bookies are following to some extent Betfair’s lead on the prices, to avoid opening up an arb vs the exchange.Stocky said:Re: Leadsom`s ridiculously short odds - the "rich backer" theory doesn`t seem likely as 1) she is lowly priced across all bookies incuding the exchanges and 2) too much money has been placed on this market for her odds to be affected so much by one or a few backers. I`d say she has a 50/1 chance at best whereas she is top-priced 9/1 (and has been taking money today).
Might I suggest that we are all missing something?
Edit: @Pulpstar makes the same point (and he’s got way more cash than me laying Leadsom!), as does @Quincel
it is definitely one or two actors in the market, though I cannot be sure what their motive is.0 -
They never had trouble with Tristram...Sandpit said:If Jeremy Hunt becomes PM, will the BBC keep on occasionally referring to him with a swear word?
https://youtu.be/zz1kc9cSHfI0 -
Raab's joke would have been good if he'd told it better. His son couldn't decide whether to support England or Brazil in the World Cup, so went for a 50/50 approach: England in the first half of the tournament, and Brazil in the second.0
-
Why would the major bookies follow Betfair? Perhaps i`m naive, but I thought that each bookies` odds were a reflection of their own liablities to each possible outcome. Why would Ladbrokes care if there is an arb with Betfair?
This is making me want to lay Leadsom too (don`t misinterpret).0
