Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The betting markets think a no deal Brexit is getting likelier
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The betting markets think a no deal Brexit is getting likelier and likelier
Chart of Betfair prices from Betdata.io
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Boris has the bottle, the question is does Parliament and do the Europeans. I think crossover should have been ages ago, like on the referendum night the signs are there but the market doesn't believe it yet.
If A.J.P Taylor was still with us i'm sure he could find material in the Brexit timeline.
I suggested a topic of conversation on the previous thread but I got caught by The Curse Of The New Thread.
It was the Fourth Crusade I was thinking of which was against Christians - and a massive aid to the Muslims in conquering the Byzantines.
ydoethur said:
' In 2001 the gaps ranged everywhere from 5 points to about 25 points. The simple fact is the Tories were expected to show a modest recovery from 1997 and didn't, which was partly blamed on a campaign that banged on about Europe and switched a number of potential voters to the Liberal Democrats or abstention.'
I have the 2001 polls in front of me now. The smallest Labour lead recorded was 10% from Yougov on eve of poll. A month earlier at the outset of the campaign Labour's poll lead ranged from 15% to 24%. The final outcome of a 9.5% Labour lead ,therefore, did represent some recovery by the Tory Opposition which at least avoided a further weakening from its 1997 result. There was no 5% Labour lead during that election - unlike in 1997 when a rogue ICM poll for Guardian a week before polling day caused heart flutters in the Labour campaign team
Has anyone else remarked that a no-deal Brexit and a Trump re-election could take place within four or five days of each other? Tempted to take a few days off with my own weight in popcorn.
Of course, if we're going by polls alone it depends on your start date. The previous September the Tories led the polls briefly following the fuel blockades.
But that doesn't alter the basic fact that by no reasonable metric could a campaign that saw an opposition make a net gain of one seat be considered a 'beneficial' campaign for the opposition.
Coral's claim to have had the Conservatives as favourites for the 1992 GE...
http://home.bt.com/news/news-extra/can-the-bookies-really-predict-the-outcome-of-the-general-election-11363974673622
https://twitter.com/anthonyjwells/status/1161009083585089541?s=21
It was in fact the Norman Conquest of England. William asked the Pope to give his invasion papal sanction which the Pope - rather pissed off at the Saxons ignoring him and appointing their own bishops and archbishops - did. As a result, the Normans were entitled to march under Papal banners and it became the first Papally-sanctioned war, or 'crusade.'
It was part of a wider eleventh century move to centralise the structure of the Catholic Church, of which what we might call the 'classic' crusades against the Saracens played an important part.
What changed very dramatically was the Labour share. This was mostly put in the high forties and it didn't get anywhere near that in the end.
So don't confuse 'a campaign not favouring the government' with 'a campaign that favours the opposition.'
Bluntly, the simple truth is that to win power, even in a coalition, Labour needs to be a long way ahead of the Tories right now. And it isn't. A campaign is not likely to make a meaningful difference to that. I realise that's not what you want to hear, as the issues with the Labour vote over Brecon and Radnor were not, but facts are not less facts for being inconvenient as you and I both know.
Good night.
Says it has very interesting results re Brexit.
Either we get one of the most dramatic election calls ever, or you win the bet at 2.5x your stake.
Easy!
https://twitter.com/anthonyjwells/status/1161016061334118401
edit - The Tory GB share was 32%.
Who are these wazzocks?
https://twitter.com/AGKD123/status/1161018408332402688
When in the future are we going to face a scenario like this? The situation is absurd.
We have in Parliament MPs like Hilary Benn ranting on Brexit how awful a No Deal Brexit is but when we look at his voting record:
He voted to have the EU referendum
He voted to give the PM authority to invoke Article 50
He voted to reject the deal
He voted to reject the deal again
He voted to reject the deal again
If there is no deal it won't be just because Parliament was shut down, it will be due to the votes of people like Benn. His crocodile tears that NDB is awful, when he voted to have the referendum, vote to invoke A50 and 3 times voted to reject a deal are a bit much.
I'd be curious to know by party how many MPs there are who voted to reject the deal all 3 times and voted to give the PM authority to invoke Article 50.
And give it to Johnson.
Our Parliament voted to leave the EU, proroguing Parliament to stop Parliament from changing its mind ensures that when Parliament returns it is in full control.
It may be too early to say but maybe there are enough in this country who are relieved this could soon be over and done with. Dragging this out past Hallowe'en may not be a popular notion.
- "Your opinion polls can deceive you - don't trust them!"
So does that mean there are significant numbers of people who believe we shouldn't leave, but think parliament should be bypassed anyway? Really?
https://twitter.com/FrankLuntz/status/1160970531472072704
MPs who oppose no deal but voted to invoke Article 50 and reject the deal have absolutely no excuse though. It is like an amateur removing a safety net beneath a high wire, putting on a blind fold then stepping out without any safety harness.
An early vonc could play straight into Boris's hand
Indeed these poll findings, if they solidify in other polls, could see many mps not wanting to be seen supporting no brexit
Three times.
Looks for many MPs like it is going to be three strikes - and you're out......
Arguing for a Deal when you have no intention for voting for one seems duplicitous too, perhaps?