politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The money goes on an early exit for Corbyn

Yorkshire's Adil Rashid works his magic.

I am not convinced, either. If there is an election in the wind, he’ll want one more go, and we won’t be clear of possible electoral imminence until Bozo has settled in and until after halloween, and with a likely further extension, probably not until early 2020.

Corbyn isn't going anywhere.

Why would he? There is no evidence that he would lose another membership ballot. It would be closer than last time - but I can't see him losing.

If there is a snap election and he loses, then he might step down. But I can't see him losing a direct challenge at the moment

williamglenn said:

CarlottaVance said:

But have the faithful lost faith? Not if TheJezziah is anything to go by.....

He’s not alone.

https://twitter.com/edwinmandella/status/1149236853876383744

What a thoroughly delightful chap he seems to be. Any chance to smear - particularly with something anti-semitic - he is right on it.

https://twitter.com/rosskempsell/status/1149278399032188928?s=21

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/rosskempsell/status/1149278399032188928?s=21

Did he really think anyone wouldn't see through his cunning ruse?

Pathetic.

IanB2 said:

I am not convinced, either. If there is an election in the wind, he’ll want one more go, and we won’t be clear of possible electoral imminence until Bozo has settled in and until after halloween, and with a likely further extension, probably not until early 2020.

There will be no further extension under Boris, he will refuse to request another one so we Brexit Deal or No Deal on October 31st unless Parliament first tries to force one and Macron does not veto it anyway

No, Corbyn will lead Labour into the next general election, even if he leads Labour to Foot 1983 levels of MPs and loses seats to a Boris led Tory Party and the LDs as Comres predicts Corbynism now so dominates the party and membership from the NEC down it is hard to see it being replaced.
While Unite writes the checks and McCluskey still backs him.
Indeed the next centre left PM may come from the LDs not Labour, Umunna or even Swinson look more credible future PMs than Corbyn

HYUFD said:

No, Corbyn will lead Labour into the next general election, even if he leads Labour to Foot 1983 levels of MPs and loses seats to a Boris led Tory Party and the LDs as Comres predicts Corbynism now so dominates the party and membership from the NEC down it is hard to see it being replaced.
While Unite writes the checks and McCluskey still backs him.
Indeed the next centre left PM may come from the LDs not Labour, Umunna or even Swinson look more credible future PMs than Corbyn

Checks???

Are you even British?

Googly again !

Here's the thing that I do not know the answer to.

Will Corbyn and Labour MPs agree to an early election when the polls have them in fourth place?

Pretty clear what the true Brexiteer agenda is now. As they all start calling for an ambassador who is pro-business and wants to get a quick and dirty trade deal done with Trump.

Get us out of Europe, away from that world of social safety net support, regulated markets and environmental protection, and into the US orbit, as a virtual off-shore state.

They will not rest until social and health protections are torn up, the jobs market completely deregulated, the welfare state reduced to american levels and everything privatised.

williamglenn said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Here's the thing that I do not know the answer to.

Will Corbyn and Labour MPs agree to an early election when the polls have them in fourth place?

They agreed to one last time when polls said they faced wipeout.

That's the point Keiran's made to me, but they were second then, but now they are fourth, there's a difference between a hiding and an ELE.

https://twitter.com/peterwalker99/status/1149288125727936515

https://twitter.com/LordTobySays/status/1149293031457267717

https://twitter.com/Banxcartoons/status/1149292666770919424

HYUFD said:

IanB2 said:

I am not convinced, either. If there is an election in the wind, he’ll want one more go, and we won’t be clear of possible electoral imminence until Bozo has settled in and until after halloween, and with a likely further extension, probably not until early 2020.

There will be no further extension under Boris, he will refuse to request another one so we Brexit Deal or No Deal on October 31st unless Parliament first tries to force one and Macron does not veto it anyway

What is it like to be absolutely certain on every subject? Not to see shades of grey and branching possibilities, but only absolutes.

rottenborough said:

Pretty clear what the true Brexiteer agenda is now. As they all start calling for an ambassador who is pro-business and wants to get a quick and dirty trade deal done with Trump.

Get us out of Europe, away from that world of social safety net support, regulated markets and environmental protection, and into the US orbit, as a virtual off-shore state.

They will not rest until social and health protections are torn up, the jobs market completely deregulated, the welfare state reduced to american levels and everything privatised.

You've only just worked that out???

SandyRentool said:

Jezza will only step down if and when he has a high degree of confidence that his successor will be in his image.

Surely they can find another useless septuagenarian ?

TheScreamingEagles said:

Here's the thing that I do not know the answer to.

Will Corbyn and Labour MPs agree to an early election when the polls have them in fourth place?

I'm sure they will.

As we speak they are 2.8 to win - i.e. a very good chance.

Last time they were rank outsiders.

Richard_Nabavi said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

williamglenn said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Here's the thing that I do not know the answer to.

Will Corbyn and Labour MPs agree to an early election when the polls have them in fourth place?

They agreed to one last time when polls said they faced wipeout.

That's the point Keiran's made to me, but they were second then, but now they are fourth, there's a difference between a hiding and an ELE.

It would be a real delight for connoisseurs of hypocrisy to see how Labour would attempt to spin not agreeing to an election when they've spent the last year saying they wanted one.

It would depend on the timing but they will do anything to push brexit impact onto the Tory’s

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

No, Corbyn will lead Labour into the next general election, even if he leads Labour to Foot 1983 levels of MPs and loses seats to a Boris led Tory Party and the LDs as Comres predicts Corbynism now so dominates the party and membership from the NEC down it is hard to see it being replaced.
While Unite writes the checks and McCluskey still backs him.
Indeed the next centre left PM may come from the LDs not Labour, Umunna or even Swinson look more credible future PMs than Corbyn

Checks???

Are you even British?

Born and raised, though with some French Huguenot ancestry a few centuries back

https://tinyurl.com/yx9fogvq

HS2 has been forced to cancel the current bidding process to construct the new Curzon Street station in Birmingham, and restart the process later this year.

The rail body had hoped to attract at least four bidders for the contract, but a lack of interest means they will restart the process in September.

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/rosskempsell/status/1149278399032188928?s=21

What a leader he is....compare with Cameron when all the expense scandal blew up, he stood there in the street and gave a clear response.

Andy_Cooke said:

I noticed some in the last thread using the Laffer Curve as an excuse to support their preconceptions rather than as an argument.

The giveaway is when they seem unaware that the same Laffer Curve also says that raising taxes can increase revenue and lowering them can reduce revenue.

The key variable is where we are on the curve; those who try to cite it as an excuse for a tax cut automatically seem to assume that we are, no matter the conditions or the current tax level, always on the right hand side of the peak, with not even the slightest attempt to justify that position.

"It can increase revenue by reducing taxes" instantly mutates into "It will increase revenue by reducing taxes." It is just as fallacious as the opposite automatic assumption; that raising taxes automatically increases revenue. It's very rare for either type of advocate to try to make the case legitimately.

Spot on.

One interesting question is what Labour would do if Boris were to ask for a GE at a time when the election campaigns (with parliament dissolved) would straddle October 31st.

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

No, Corbyn will lead Labour into the next general election, even if he leads Labour to Foot 1983 levels of MPs and loses seats to a Boris led Tory Party and the LDs as Comres predicts Corbynism now so dominates the party and membership from the NEC down it is hard to see it being replaced.
While Unite writes the checks and McCluskey still backs him.
Indeed the next centre left PM may come from the LDs not Labour, Umunna or even Swinson look more credible future PMs than Corbyn

Checks???

Are you even British?

Born and raised, though with some French Huguenot ancestry a few centuries back

Are you and Charles distant cousins?

rottenborough said:

Pretty clear what the true Brexiteer agenda is now. As they all start calling for an ambassador who is pro-business and wants to get a quick and dirty trade deal done with Trump.

Get us out of Europe, away from that world of social safety net support, regulated markets and environmental protection, and into the US orbit, as a virtual off-shore state.

They will not rest until social and health protections are torn up, the jobs market completely deregulated, the welfare state reduced to american levels and everything privatised.

Some EU nations like Poland and Italy have no more welfare system than the US and also an almost entirely contributory one.

Some non EU states like Norway have higher welfare protection than the EU average, our welfare and health care system is actually closer to Australia and New Zealand than it is to either the EU or USA

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

No, Corbyn will lead Labour into the next general election, even if he leads Labour to Foot 1983 levels of MPs and loses seats to a Boris led Tory Party and the LDs as Comres predicts Corbynism now so dominates the party and membership from the NEC down it is hard to see it being replaced.
While Unite writes the checks and McCluskey still backs him.
Indeed the next centre left PM may come from the LDs not Labour, Umunna or even Swinson look more credible future PMs than Corbyn

Checks???
Are you even British?

Mr HY may be British - I have no reason to thin otherwise - but I am starting to suspect that his posts are scripted in the USA, not too far away from the White House. This would explain why he fawns over that Mr Johnson.

Andy_Cooke said:

I noticed some in the last thread using the Laffer Curve as an excuse to support their preconceptions rather than as an argument.

The giveaway is when they seem unaware that the same Laffer Curve also says that raising taxes can increase revenue and lowering them can reduce revenue.

The key variable is where we are on the curve; those who try to cite it as an excuse for a tax cut automatically seem to assume that we are, no matter the conditions or the current tax level, always on the right hand side of the peak, with not even the slightest attempt to justify that position.

"It can increase revenue by reducing taxes" instantly mutates into "It will increase revenue by reducing taxes." It is just as fallacious as the opposite automatic assumption; that raising taxes automatically increases revenue. It's very rare for either type of advocate to try to make the case legitimately.

"The key variable is where we are on the curve..."
Pretty well right, except there is no empirical evidence for the existence of such a thing.
One might posit the existence of numerous curves, for every different economy at different points in time - but as a useful predictor of economic responses to policy, such a thing just does not exist.

AlastairMeeks said:

tpfkar said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

One interesting question is what Labour would do if Boris were to ask for a GE at a time when the election campaigns (with parliament dissolved) would straddle October 31st.

Presumably agree dependent on an extension agreement for the purpose of holding the GE. Not sure it would be all that complicated - surely no one really believes an unmanaged crash-out mid-campaign with no ability for even emergency legislation is a runner?

Labour has the opportunity to extract a pound of flesh in return for its agreement to an early election. I expect that it would insist on it.

One gambit for Labour might be to refuse to vote for an early election and to insist on voting instead for no confidence, to give it the opportunity to form a government on the existing numbers.

Let's assume Boris becomes PM in two weeks or so. Does Corbyn start the next PM market as favourite, and at what price?

tpfkar said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

One interesting question is what Labour would do if Boris were to ask for a GE at a time when the election campaigns (with parliament dissolved) would straddle October 31st.

Presumably agree dependent on an extension agreement for the purpose of holding the GE. Not sure it would be all that complicated - surely no one really believes an unmanaged crash-out mid-campaign with no ability for even emergency legislation is a runner?

Our friend @HYUFD seems to think it would be a runner, as well as Boris and half or more of the Conservative Party.

One gotcha though is that the parliamentary vote calling for an election is divorced from the decision on the date of the election, which would be made by the PM.

Australia could get 250 here, which is a defendable total.

Recidivist said:

Andy_Cooke said:

I noticed some in the last thread using the Laffer Curve as an excuse to support their preconceptions rather than as an argument.

The giveaway is when they seem unaware that the same Laffer Curve also says that raising taxes can increase revenue and lowering them can reduce revenue.

The key variable is where we are on the curve; those who try to cite it as an excuse for a tax cut automatically seem to assume that we are, no matter the conditions or the current tax level, always on the right hand side of the peak, with not even the slightest attempt to justify that position.

"It can increase revenue by reducing taxes" instantly mutates into "It will increase revenue by reducing taxes." It is just as fallacious as the opposite automatic assumption; that raising taxes automatically increases revenue. It's very rare for either type of advocate to try to make the case legitimately.

Very good points.

Also worth pointing out that the Laffer curve is simply a pictorial representation of a conjecture. It hasn't been plotted using data. It's just a thought experiment.

There's a plot of it with empirical data in the wikipedia article describing it!

https://twitter.com/TheEconomist/status/1149298564666990598

IanB2 said:

I am not convinced, either. If there is an election in the wind, he’ll want one more go, and we won’t be clear of possible electoral imminence until Bozo has settled in and until after halloween, and with a likely further extension, probably not until early 2020.

The election may be *this* year though, so he could fight it and still step down before 31/12 if he loses.

That said, 6/4 is rotten odds. I'd want at least double that: 4/1 or above.

RobD said:

Nigelb said:

Andy_Cooke said:

I noticed some in the last thread using the Laffer Curve as an excuse to support their preconceptions rather than as an argument.

The giveaway is when they seem unaware that the same Laffer Curve also says that raising taxes can increase revenue and lowering them can reduce revenue.

The key variable is where we are on the curve; those who try to cite it as an excuse for a tax cut automatically seem to assume that we are, no matter the conditions or the current tax level, always on the right hand side of the peak, with not even the slightest attempt to justify that position.

"It can increase revenue by reducing taxes" instantly mutates into "It will increase revenue by reducing taxes." It is just as fallacious as the opposite automatic assumption; that raising taxes automatically increases revenue. It's very rare for either type of advocate to try to make the case legitimately.

"The key variable is where we are on the curve..."
Pretty well right, except there is no empirical evidence for the existence of such a thing.
One might posit the existence of numerous curves, for every different economy at different points in time - but as a useful predictor of economic responses to policy, such a thing just does not exist.

There's an example of it for the top tax band in the US on wikipedia -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

There are plenty of pretty pictures, and precious little empirical evidence.

The watchdog showed the changes in students awarded first-class degrees between 2010-11 and 2017-18, including:

Imperial College London from 31% to 46%
University of Huddersfield: 15% to 40%
University College London: 24% to 40%
Durham University: 18% to 38%
University of East Anglia: 14% to 39%
University of Northumbria: 16% to 35%
University of West London: 13% to 34%
Staffordshire University: 14% to 34%

https://www.bbc.com/news/education-48951653

RobD said:

Recidivist said:

Andy_Cooke said:

I noticed some in the last thread using the Laffer Curve as an excuse to support their preconceptions rather than as an argument.

The giveaway is when they seem unaware that the same Laffer Curve also says that raising taxes can increase revenue and lowering them can reduce revenue.

The key variable is where we are on the curve; those who try to cite it as an excuse for a tax cut automatically seem to assume that we are, no matter the conditions or the current tax level, always on the right hand side of the peak, with not even the slightest attempt to justify that position.

"It can increase revenue by reducing taxes" instantly mutates into "It will increase revenue by reducing taxes." It is just as fallacious as the opposite automatic assumption; that raising taxes automatically increases revenue. It's very rare for either type of advocate to try to make the case legitimately.

Very good points.

Also worth pointing out that the Laffer curve is simply a pictorial representation of a conjecture. It hasn't been plotted using data. It's just a thought experiment.

There's a plot of it with empirical data in the wikipedia article describing it!

I've just looked and I can't see it. Which plot are you referring to?

Captain's innings from Steve Smith.

Pulpstar said:

Captain's innings from Steve Smith.

Please, he's the disgraced cheat Steve Smith.

Edit - and he's now OUT.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Here's the thing that I do not know the answer to.

Will Corbyn and Labour MPs agree to an early election when the polls have them in fourth place?

Turn that question round.

Will Labour NC a Boris-led govt intent on a No Deal Brexit?

Let's assume they do. The next questions are:
- will the Commons back Corbyn to be PM?
- will the Commons back anyone else to be PM?

If not, then we head to a GE anyway (and quite possibly No Deal into the bargain).

If they will back Corbyn in principle, the question becomes what conditions the SNP, Lib Dems and others would place on that Labour government. Probably, these would involve rapid action to at the least kick the can on Brexit but that done, the incentive for the LDs and SNP to continue to back a Labour party committed to its own Brexit deal (whether achievable or not), drops of markedly, so we either have an early dissolution built into the deal or else Corbyn gets No Confidenced in turn.

Whichever way the marble rolls, I think we end up at 'General Election' sooner or later, and by next Spring by the latest.

Nigelb said:

RobD said:

Nigelb said:

RobD said:

Nigelb said:

Andy_Cooke said:

I noticed some in the last thread using the Laffer Curve as an excuse to support their preconceptions rather than as an argument.

The giveaway is when they seem unaware that the same Laffer Curve also says that raising taxes can increase revenue and lowering them can reduce revenue.

The key variable is where we are on the curve; those who try to cite it as an excuse for a tax cut automatically seem to assume that we are, no matter the conditions or the current tax level, always on the right hand side of the peak, with not even the slightest attempt to justify that position.

"It can increase revenue by reducing taxes" instantly mutates into "It will increase revenue by reducing taxes." It is just as fallacious as the opposite automatic assumption; that raising taxes automatically increases revenue. It's very rare for either type of advocate to try to make the case legitimately.

"The key variable is where we are on the curve..."
Pretty well right, except there is no empirical evidence for the existence of such a thing.
One might posit the existence of numerous curves, for every different economy at different points in time - but as a useful predictor of economic responses to policy, such a thing just does not exist.

There's an example of it for the top tax band in the US on wikipedia -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

There are plenty of pretty pictures, and precious little empirical evidence.

The first plot in the Empirical analysis section is, not surprisingly, based on empirical data.

And would you care to explain just how that works, other than the bald assertion ?

Tax rate goes up, effective tax rate goes down.

Theuniondivvie said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Can @DavidL please comment on what a good innings Smith is having?

Smith'll get his century.

There ye go, ye can have that one for free from north o' the border..

Oh no he won't

Nigelb said:

SandyRentool said:

Jezza will only step down if and when he has a high degree of confidence that his successor will be in his image.

Surely they can find another useless septuagenarian ?

Not necessarily

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/02/02/labours-next-leader-dawn-butler-at-100-1/

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

No, Corbyn will lead Labour into the next general election, even if he leads Labour to Foot 1983 levels of MPs and loses seats to a Boris led Tory Party and the LDs as Comres predicts Corbynism now so dominates the party and membership from the NEC down it is hard to see it being replaced.
While Unite writes the checks and McCluskey still backs him.
Indeed the next centre left PM may come from the LDs not Labour, Umunna or even Swinson look more credible future PMs than Corbyn

Checks???

Are you even British?

Born and raised, though with some French Huguenot ancestry a few centuries back

Are you and Charles distant cousins?

I doubt it, the highest my family goes is landed gentry, Charles seems to be minor aristocracy

FrancisUrquhart said:

The watchdog showed the changes in students awarded first-class degrees between 2010-11 and 2017-18, including:

Imperial College London from 31% to 46%
University of Huddersfield: 15% to 40%
University College London: 24% to 40%
Durham University: 18% to 38%
University of East Anglia: 14% to 39%
University of Northumbria: 16% to 35%
University of West London: 13% to 34%
Staffordshire University: 14% to 34%

https://www.bbc.com/news/education-48951653

So Jeremy Corbyn's CSE in metalwork from 1960 is now worth a Nobel Prize in physics. No wonder Theresa May lost her majority in 2017. Speaking of which, I gather some Oxbridge colleges hand out firsts like icing sugar at one of Michael Gove's parties.

DecrepitJohnL said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

The watchdog showed the changes in students awarded first-class degrees between 2010-11 and 2017-18, including:

Imperial College London from 31% to 46%
University of Huddersfield: 15% to 40%
University College London: 24% to 40%
Durham University: 18% to 38%
University of East Anglia: 14% to 39%
University of Northumbria: 16% to 35%
University of West London: 13% to 34%
Staffordshire University: 14% to 34%

https://www.bbc.com/news/education-48951653

So Jeremy Corbyn's CSE in metalwork from 1960 is now worth a Nobel Prize in physics. No wonder Theresa May lost her majority in 2017. Speaking of which, I gather some Oxbridge colleges hand out firsts like icing sugar at one of Michael Gove's parties.

I think even with all the grade inflation Uncle Thickie would be struggling to get more than a Desmond at the University of Huddersfield.

RobD said:

Nigelb said:

RobD said:

Nigelb said:

RobD said:

Nigelb said:

Andy_Cooke said:

I noticed some in the last thread using the Laffer Curve as an excuse to support their preconceptions rather than as an argument.

The giveaway is when they seem unaware that the same Laffer Curve also says that raising taxes can increase revenue and lowering them can reduce revenue.

The key variable is where we are on the curve; those who try to cite it as an excuse for a tax cut automatically seem to assume that we are, no matter the conditions or the current tax level, always on the right hand side of the peak, with not even the slightest attempt to justify that position.

"It can increase revenue by reducing taxes" instantly mutates into "It will increase revenue by reducing taxes." It is just as fallacious as the opposite automatic assumption; that raising taxes automatically increases revenue. It's very rare for either type of advocate to try to make the case legitimately.

"The key variable is where we are on the curve..."
Pretty well right, except there is no empirical evidence for the existence of such a thing.
One might posit the existence of numerous curves, for every different economy at different points in time - but as a useful predictor of economic responses to policy, such a thing just does not exist.

There's an example of it for the top tax band in the US on wikipedia -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

There are plenty of pretty pictures, and precious little empirical evidence.

The first plot in the Empirical analysis section is, not surprisingly, based on empirical data.

And would you care to explain just how that works, other than the bald assertion ?

Tax rate goes up, effective tax rate goes down.

But as a predictive tool, that is utterly useless - it appears to be comparing results from the 1960s with those of recent years. How is that in any way useful, other than to demonstrate that the change in receipts might not be directly proportionate to changes in tax rates, over time ?

I acknowledge that for any given economy at any particular time, there is likely to exist an optimum rate for any particular tax (though this would, naturally, be impacted by rates for other taxes).
One can even model the impact of changes in taxes - though of course models are subject to uncertainties.

Beyond that, the idea that there is any theoretical curve which is useful as a predictive toll is simply nonsense for the rhetorical use of right wing politicians.

HYUFD said:

TOPPING said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

No, Corbyn will lead Labour into the next general election, even if he leads Labour to Foot 1983 levels of MPs and loses seats to a Boris led Tory Party and the LDs as Comres predicts Corbynism now so dominates the party and membership from the NEC down it is hard to see it being replaced.
While Unite writes the checks and McCluskey still backs him.
Indeed the next centre left PM may come from the LDs not Labour, Umunna or even Swinson look more credible future PMs than Corbyn

Checks???

Are you even British?

Born and raised, though with some French Huguenot ancestry a few centuries back

Are you and Charles distant cousins?

I doubt it, the highest my family goes is landed gentry, Charles seems to be minor aristocracy

Where did it all go wrong for you?

TheScreamingEagles said:

williamglenn said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Here's the thing that I do not know the answer to.

Will Corbyn and Labour MPs agree to an early election when the polls have them in fourth place?

They agreed to one last time when polls said they faced wipeout.

That's the point Keiran's made to me, but they were second then, but now they are fourth, there's a difference between a hiding and an ELE.

The faithful seem to actively prefer being behind. Means no one looks too closely at their manifesto because it's assumed it won't happen, and the core voters who don't actually like Corbyn can be persuaded to vote to save their local MP and help mitigate the Tory/BXP majority. Ie what happened last time. If they're ahead they get scrutiny.