politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The betting markets respond to Johnson’s Charles the First Mov

Pulpstar said:

Some cosmetic changes to the deal, and parliament can finally finally choose whether we leave with a deal or without one.

I'd like to see it, but Bozo has painted himself into a corner - doubtful he can get anything that can be dressed up as acceptable to the backbenchers, and even a good chunk of his ministers.

And, of course, Corbyn will whip against any deal regardless of content. Even when he was offered WA + customs union, ie his own party policy, he refused it.

Andrew said:

Pulpstar said:

Some cosmetic changes to the deal, and parliament can finally finally choose whether we leave with a deal or without one.

I'd like to see it, but Bozo has painted himself into a corner - doubtful he can get anything that can be dressed up as acceptable to the backbenchers, and even a good chunk of his ministers.

And, of course, Corbyn will whip against any deal regardless of content. Even when he was offered WA + customs union, ie his own party policy, he refused it.

Isn’t the whole point of this to force the choice between the deal and no deal?

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Nigelb said:

RobD said:

Cicero said:

I wonder how many members Republic may get as it becomes clear that the monarchy can not defend us against a constitutional coup...

https://www.republic.org.uk/join

Losing four days of parliamentary time is a coup?

Shuttering Parliament for a month, just before the Brexit deadline, goes some way towards that, yes.

In fairness the HOC was going into recess for the conference season and therefore it is only 4 days

However, if it was the intention of those who want to remain to cancel the conference season why has no conference been cancelled

Because either of the following is true:

a) Parliament doesn't have to be in recess for the conferences to take place.
b) The logical sequence might have been: cancel the recess then cancel the conferences.

AlastairMeeks said:

eek said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Just a thought: might the Palace have had some involvement in the shape of the prorogation? You can easily imagine that it would prefer MPs to have the opportunity to have a say on the idea beforehand and to take action afterwards.

It's not beyond the realms of possibility that this was a compromise between Number 10 and Buckingham Palace.

Even if it was (and remember it seems legal advice was that other approaches wouldn't stand scrutiny) it has brought the Monarchy into the equation.

And that will probably do it no favours in the medium term.

I agree. Ironic that Boris Johnson has done more to jeopardise the medium term future of the monarchy than Jeremy Corbyn ever has.

How will Leavers view their project in years to come once it has led to the demise of both the UK and the monarchy?

eek said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

The unelected Queen has confirmed that she is mandateless Boris Johnson’s parrot.

We need to take back control from our unelected rulers.

This is why the Queen will do whatever she can to stay above this very dangerous political fray.

Sadly Boris has introduced the monarchy into this mess. I don't see a problem while the Queen is alive but I suspect republican tendencies are going to increase as Charles takes over.

I've suspected that for a long time anyway.

HMQ has tried for a long time to stay above this mess. But she has to do what she is constitutionally obliged to do.

Charles, by contrast, would get stuck in by choice. Bercow style.

Casino_Royale said:

surbiton19 said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

The unelected Queen has confirmed that she is mandateless Boris Johnson’s parrot.

We need to take back control from our unelected rulers.

This is why the Queen will do whatever she can to stay above this very dangerous political fray.

And she is doing it by openly supporting one side. Let's face it, she is supporting this Tory government.

She isn't doing any such thing.

HMQ always acts on the advice of her PM. Always.

You can make a case the PM has advised her very badly, for which I have some sympathy, but she had no choice.

So if, say, a future PM Corbyn advised her to prorogue parliament indefinitely, would she do so?

Benpointer said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Nigelb said:

RobD said:

Cicero said:

I wonder how many members Republic may get as it becomes clear that the monarchy can not defend us against a constitutional coup...

https://www.republic.org.uk/join

Losing four days of parliamentary time is a coup?

Shuttering Parliament for a month, just before the Brexit deadline, goes some way towards that, yes.

In fairness the HOC was going into recess for the conference season and therefore it is only 4 days

However, if it was the intention of those who want to remain to cancel the conference season why has no conference been cancelled

Because either of the following is true:

a) Parliament doesn't have to be in recess for the conferences to take place.
b) The logical sequence might have been: cancel the recess then cancel the conferences.

Parliament is going round and round in circles declaring that it opposes the most fundamental Government policy, but won’ttake The one step open to them as a consequence ie. bring down the Government. Ultimately if Parliament won’t bring down the Government then at the end of the day they can do what they damned well want that doesn’t require passing legislation.

AlastairMeeks said:

Just a thought: might the Palace have had some involvement in the shape of the prorogation? You can easily imagine that it would prefer MPs to have the opportunity to have a say on the idea beforehand and to take action afterwards.

It's not beyond the realms of possibility that this was a compromise between Number 10 and Buckingham Palace.

Yes. The private secretary to HMQ will have certainly been party to inner circle discussions.

Casino_Royale said:

eek said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

The unelected Queen has confirmed that she is mandateless Boris Johnson’s parrot.

We need to take back control from our unelected rulers.

This is why the Queen will do whatever she can to stay above this very dangerous political fray.

Sadly Boris has introduced the monarchy into this mess. I don't see a problem while the Queen is alive but I suspect republican tendencies are going to increase as Charles takes over.

I've suspected that for a long time anyway.

HMQ has tried for a long time to stay above this mess. But she has to do what she is constitutionally obliged to do.

Charles, by contrast, would get stuck in by choice. Bercow style.

And Charles reaction would have been the correct one under these circumstances...

In a battle you can't win keep well away from it.

surbiton19 said:

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1166717448118296576

Even Leave voters barely support this suspension. But HYUFD will ignore this poll.

Responses would have been very different had YouGov added in the additional wording: "Standard procedure is for parliament not to meet during the party conference period from mid-September to early October."

surbiton19 said:

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1166717448118296576

Even Leave voters barely support this suspension. But HYUFD will ignore this poll.

So opinion has barely shifted on this since June.

So much for the 'mandate' for No Deal.

justin124 said:

eek said:

Another worthwhile what is happening thread for those who may not have seen it

https://twitter.com/robfordmancs/status/1166712433970503680

I would have thought that Johnson's action will now make it very difficult for Labour MPs such as Caroline Flint and Gareth Snell to be seen to do anything but oppose him in the Division Lobbies. His contempt for Parliamentary scrutiny will surely override other considerations.

Hoey will still support Johnson. But she is really a DUP MP.

justin124 said:

eek said:

Another worthwhile what is happening thread for those who may not have seen it

https://twitter.com/robfordmancs/status/1166712433970503680

I would have thought that Johnson's action will now make it very difficult for Labour MPs such as Caroline Flint and Gareth Snell to be seen to do anything but oppose him in the Division Lobbies. His contempt for Parliamentary scrutiny will surely override other considerations.

https://twitter.com/CarolineFlintMP/status/1160191121433214976

For the moment Flint is still voting for a deal put forward to parliament. No tweets from her thus far wrt prorogation.

The Royal family really are cretins.

The DoE is a bona fide racist

The heir to the throne is a man who wished he was a tampon inside Camilla Parker-Bowles. If he can betray his wife for a quick shag then he’ll do the same to the country.

Andrew is a man who hangs around with convicted nonces.

Edward is a coward who couldn’t hack it with the water soldiers but wears a fucktonne of medals.

How do we take back control from this unelected mob?

At least North Korea’s Kim family have elections.

Benpointer said:

Casino_Royale said:

surbiton19 said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

The unelected Queen has confirmed that she is mandateless Boris Johnson’s parrot.

We need to take back control from our unelected rulers.

This is why the Queen will do whatever she can to stay above this very dangerous political fray.

And she is doing it by openly supporting one side. Let's face it, she is supporting this Tory government.

She isn't doing any such thing.

HMQ always acts on the advice of her PM. Always.

You can make a case the PM has advised her very badly, for which I have some sympathy, but she had no choice.

So if, say, a future PM Corbyn advised her to prorogue parliament indefinitely, would she do so?

No. Next question.

dixiedean said:

Casino_Royale said:

surbiton19 said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

The unelected Queen has confirmed that she is mandateless Boris Johnson’s parrot.

We need to take back control from our unelected rulers.

This is why the Queen will do whatever she can to stay above this very dangerous political fray.

And she is doing it by openly supporting one side. Let's face it, she is supporting this Tory government.

She isn't doing any such thing.

HMQ always acts on the advice of her PM. Always.

You can make a case the PM has advised her very badly, for which I have some sympathy, but she had no choice.

In which case, the question may well arise as to what is the point of a constitutional Head of State with absolutely no power whatsoever other than theoretical?

To avoid having one with actual power, obviously.

alex. said:

Casino_Royale said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Just a thought: might the Palace have had some involvement in the shape of the prorogation? You can easily imagine that it would prefer MPs to have the opportunity to have a say on the idea beforehand and to take action afterwards.

It's not beyond the realms of possibility that this was a compromise between Number 10 and Buckingham Palace.

Yes. The private secretary to HMQ will have certainly been party to inner circle discussions.

Quite - for weeks we’ve had speculation that Johnson will do one of two things to force through (no deal) Brexit and deny Parliament a say. 1) call an election and set the polling date for post Oct 31st 2) prorogue Parliament until November. Both have now effectively been ruled out by this move, but needless to say the critics are piling in anyway because they’ve been completely wrong footed.

People don't follow detail. A lot of people are just going to see the headline "The Queen agrees to Boris Prorouging Parliament" and that will be enough to knock the monarchy down a few pegs.

eek said:

alex. said:

Casino_Royale said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Just a thought: might the Palace have had some involvement in the shape of the prorogation? You can easily imagine that it would prefer MPs to have the opportunity to have a say on the idea beforehand and to take action afterwards.

It's not beyond the realms of possibility that this was a compromise between Number 10 and Buckingham Palace.

Yes. The private secretary to HMQ will have certainly been party to inner circle discussions.

Quite - for weeks we’ve had speculation that Johnson will do one of two things to force through (no deal) Brexit and deny Parliament a say. 1) call an election and set the polling date for post Oct 31st 2) prorogue Parliament until November. Both have now effectively been ruled out by this move, but needless to say the critics are piling in anyway because they’ve been completely wrong footed.

People don't follow detail. A lot of people are just going to see the headline "The Queen agrees to Boris Prorouging Parliament" and that will be enough to knock the monarchy down a few pegs.

The Queen was always going to follow convention though, unlike say Bercow

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1166683482854166529

Did this get explained yet?

TheScreamingEagles said:

The Royal family really are cretins.

The DoE is a bona fide racist

The heir to the throne is a man who wished he was a tampon inside Camilla Parker-Bowles. If he can betray his wife for a quick shag then he’ll do the same to the country.

Andrew is a man who hangs around with convicted nonces.

Edward is a coward who couldn’t hack it with the water soldiers but wears a fucktonne of medals.

How do we take back control from this unelected mob?

At least North Korea’s Kim family have elections.

Your not convincing when you try to troll so obviously.

eek said:

alex. said:

Casino_Royale said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Just a thought: might the Palace have had some involvement in the shape of the prorogation? You can easily imagine that it would prefer MPs to have the opportunity to have a say on the idea beforehand and to take action afterwards.

It's not beyond the realms of possibility that this was a compromise between Number 10 and Buckingham Palace.

Yes. The private secretary to HMQ will have certainly been party to inner circle discussions.

Quite - for weeks we’ve had speculation that Johnson will do one of two things to force through (no deal) Brexit and deny Parliament a say. 1) call an election and set the polling date for post Oct 31st 2) prorogue Parliament until November. Both have now effectively been ruled out by this move, but needless to say the critics are piling in anyway because they’ve been completely wrong footed.

People don't follow detail. A lot of people are just going to see the headline "The Queen agrees to Boris Prorouging Parliament" and that will be enough to knock the monarchy down a few pegs.

'Queen Pro Rogue' might be the tabloid headline.

400k on the petition.

justin124 said:

PeterMannion said:

justin124 said:

eek said:

Another worthwhile what is happening thread for those who may not have seen it

https://twitter.com/robfordmancs/status/1166712433970503680

I would have thought that Johnson's action will now make it very difficult for Labour MPs such as Caroline Flint and Gareth Snell to be seen to do anything but oppose him in the Division Lobbies. His contempt for Parliamentary scrutiny will surely override other considerations.

Not for Flint, she's a Brexit thickie

Not so - She voted Remain but feels an obligation to honour how her constituency voted in 2016. Now she has a good excuse not to do so - on the basis of Johnson's threat to due pariamentary process and scrutiny.Indeed I suspect there will now be Tory MPs more determined to scupper any he Deal he might come back with - simply to deny Johnson any sense of triumph.

I'll have a charity fiver if you like that Flint will vote in favour of any MV4 proposed.

Obviously void if no further MVs take place.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Love him or hate him Boris has taken the single most important step to bring this disaster to a conclusion

I have no idea how this pans out but brexit has to be lanced

The wound will continue to fester whatever the outcome of the current shenanigans.

eek said:

Casino_Royale said:

eek said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

The unelected Queen has confirmed that she is mandateless Boris Johnson’s parrot.

We need to take back control from our unelected rulers.

This is why the Queen will do whatever she can to stay above this very dangerous political fray.

Sadly Boris has introduced the monarchy into this mess. I don't see a problem while the Queen is alive but I suspect republican tendencies are going to increase as Charles takes over.

I've suspected that for a long time anyway.

HMQ has tried for a long time to stay above this mess. But she has to do what she is constitutionally obliged to do.

Charles, by contrast, would get stuck in by choice. Bercow style.

And Charles reaction would have been the correct one under these circumstances...

In a battle you can't win keep well away from it.

If we're choosing our opinions on what the monarchy should or should not have done based upon our opinion on the politics of the situation then the battle has already been lost.

The head of state must be strictly neutral on political matters at all times.

Both sides should be hanging their heads in shame at the moment.

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1166705711751028737

TheScreamingEagles said:

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

The Royal family really are cretins.

The DoE is a bona fide racist

The heir to the throne is a man who wished he was a tampon inside Camilla Parker-Bowles. If he can betray his wife for a quick shag then he’ll do the same to the country.

Andrew is a man who hangs around with convicted nonces.

Edward is a coward who couldn’t hack it with the water soldiers but wears a fucktonne of medals.

How do we take back control from this unelected mob?

At least North Korea’s Kim family have elections.

Your not convincing when you try to troll so obviously.

It’s all true. Not one of those facts is untrue.

The trying too hard tone is the unconvincing troll bit. Donald Trump could pull it off, as could other trolls.

Pulpstar said:

eek said:

alex. said:

Casino_Royale said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Just a thought: might the Palace have had some involvement in the shape of the prorogation? You can easily imagine that it would prefer MPs to have the opportunity to have a say on the idea beforehand and to take action afterwards.

It's not beyond the realms of possibility that this was a compromise between Number 10 and Buckingham Palace.

Yes. The private secretary to HMQ will have certainly been party to inner circle discussions.

Quite - for weeks we’ve had speculation that Johnson will do one of two things to force through (no deal) Brexit and deny Parliament a say. 1) call an election and set the polling date for post Oct 31st 2) prorogue Parliament until November. Both have now effectively been ruled out by this move, but needless to say the critics are piling in anyway because they’ve been completely wrong footed.

People don't follow detail. A lot of people are just going to see the headline "The Queen agrees to Boris Prorouging Parliament" and that will be enough to knock the monarchy down a few pegs.

The Queen was always going to follow convention though, unlike say Bercow

The Queen has acted far better than Bercow throughout, IMHO.

eek said:

The deadline won't have changed on the project as December 2020 is stupidly short anyway and changing a date means restarting the entire process.

Yes, he seemed sceptical that Dec 2020 was a realistic deadline, but his contract is for the initial stages and he expects to have returned to his home country by then. "My approach. Get paid and leave."

TheScreamingEagles said:

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

The Royal family really are cretins.

The DoE is a bona fide racist

The heir to the throne is a man who wished he was a tampon inside Camilla Parker-Bowles. If he can betray his wife for a quick shag then he’ll do the same to the country.

Andrew is a man who hangs around with convicted nonces.

Edward is a coward who couldn’t hack it with the water soldiers but wears a fucktonne of medals.

How do we take back control from this unelected mob?

At least North Korea’s Kim family have elections.

Your not convincing when you try to troll so obviously.

It’s all true. Not one of those facts is untrue.

Well, unless you know either that Andrew still "hangs around with convicted nonces" (present tense), or that a certain high-profile "suicide" has been faked and he is hiding in Andrew's cellar, that one ain't true.....

https://twitter.com/DKagiaros/status/1166637974647398401

Pulpstar said:

Alistair said:

Pulpstar said:

Some utterly dreadful numbers for Trump in Quinnipiac's latest H2H polls.

Aug 21-26, 2019

A-
Quinnipiac University

Trump Buttigieg +9
Trump Harris +11
Trump Warren +12
Trump Sanders +14
Trump Biden +16

Now I know it's early, and we shouldn't read too much etc etc but there is no way the two party vote should be near Even money the pair.

Those are astoundingly dreadful numbers.

They've got Biden on 32, Warren 19, Sanders 15.

I think Sanders is ahead of Warren given ALL the polls we have right now but it's harder to tell than the fact Biden is likely still out ahead by at least 9 points or so.

Please do not talk down my girl Lizzie Warren.

Casino_Royale said:

eek said:

Casino_Royale said:

eek said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

The unelected Queen has confirmed that she is mandateless Boris Johnson’s parrot.

We need to take back control from our unelected rulers.

This is why the Queen will do whatever she can to stay above this very dangerous political fray.

Sadly Boris has introduced the monarchy into this mess. I don't see a problem while the Queen is alive but I suspect republican tendencies are going to increase as Charles takes over.

I've suspected that for a long time anyway.

HMQ has tried for a long time to stay above this mess. But she has to do what she is constitutionally obliged to do.

Charles, by contrast, would get stuck in by choice. Bercow style.

And Charles reaction would have been the correct one under these circumstances...

In a battle you can't win keep well away from it.

If we're choosing our opinions on what the monarchy should or should not have done based upon our opinion on the politics of the situation then the battle has already been lost.

The head of state must be strictly neutral on political matters at all times.

Both sides should be hanging their heads in shame at the moment.

The head of state needs to be both strictly neutral and to be seen to be neutral. The issue here is that monarchy has ended up failing on the latter point here

While constitutionally it's unlikely that things could have played out differently, the way its occurred has given Republicans an open goal.

https://twitter.com/carolinenokes/status/1166726601830277120

Is anyone keeping a list?

dixiedean said:

Casino_Royale said:

surbiton19 said:

Casino_Royale said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

The unelected Queen has confirmed that she is mandateless Boris Johnson’s parrot.

We need to take back control from our unelected rulers.

This is why the Queen will do whatever she can to stay above this very dangerous political fray.

And she is doing it by openly supporting one side. Let's face it, she is supporting this Tory government.

She isn't doing any such thing.

HMQ always acts on the advice of her PM. Always.

You can make a case the PM has advised her very badly, for which I have some sympathy, but she had no choice.

In which case, the question may well arise as to what is the point of a constitutional Head of State with absolutely no power whatsoever other than theoretical?

(a) She is a non-political unifying figure that the majority of people can support regardless of party political preference. If you want a non-partisan President you either end up with a superannuated failed politician or someone like the Queen.

(b) It prevents the creation of an alternative power source with a democratic mandate. Let's say - for example - that Blair had been elected President in 2005 (instead of running for PM in the GE). Again let's suppose that he had a 7 year term. Do you think he would have co-existed comfortably with Brown and Cameron?

Will those deeply engaged in politics shift a bit towards republicanism? Yes.

Will the public in any great numbers? No, and any politician talking of getting rid of the Queen will still be committing electoral suicide.

It may all look different when the Queen is gone, but that’s a question for another day.

AlastairMeeks said:

https://twitter.com/DKagiaros/status/1166637974647398401

A good start might be a quick spelling lesson...

eek said:

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1166705711751028737

We can believe him because of how Boris has trashed the WA so much despite voting for it. He will not bring it back for all some still hope.

surbiton19 said:

351,207 signatures and rising by 1300 every minute.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/269157?fbclid=IwAR0xZDEcMTEMXUJ6Ipm10EOt8SkWZL5IuEK8rceZPhuoRtyqvOCk-C-vbnA

I expect it to exceed 6 million but it will not change anything

RobD said:

Andrew said:

Pulpstar said:

Some cosmetic changes to the deal, and parliament can finally finally choose whether we leave with a deal or without one.

I'd like to see it, but Bozo has painted himself into a corner - doubtful he can get anything that can be dressed up as acceptable to the backbenchers, and even a good chunk of his ministers.

And, of course, Corbyn will whip against any deal regardless of content. Even when he was offered WA + customs union, ie his own party policy, he refused it.

Isn’t the whole point of this to force the choice between the deal and no deal?

I think you may be right but if Johnson/Cummings use what is seen to be fairly outrageous (but legal) manoeuvring in order to push through a form of Brexit that appears to be opposed by 70% of voters and which a lot of people do not see as having a mandate (given the assurances given bt the leave campaigns) then I don't see how there is a happy ending for the Johnson government.

If it is all designed to get Parliament to accept May's deal with a tiny fig leaf then surely Farage and the BXP go into full battle mode and put a huge dent in Johnson's election prospects.

Much gloating today by the Brexiteers but I am struggling to see how this works out well for Johnson in the medium to long term.

justin124 said:

Pulpstar said:

justin124 said:

eek said:

Another worthwhile what is happening thread for those who may not have seen it

https://twitter.com/robfordmancs/status/1166712433970503680

I would have thought that Johnson's action will now make it very difficult for Labour MPs such as Caroline Flint and Gareth Snell to be seen to do anything but oppose him in the Division Lobbies. His contempt for Parliamentary scrutiny will surely override other considerations.

https://twitter.com/CarolineFlintMP/status/1160191121433214976

For the moment Flint is still voting for a deal put forward to parliament. No tweets from her thus far wrt prorogation.

I will be surprised if today's news has no effect on her. The issue now goes way beyond Brexit per se - much more to do with abuse of process and failing to adhere to convention.

Agreed. That's why we've been calling for Bercow to be sacked for years. The man's unfit to be Speaker

Big_G_NorthWales said:

surbiton19 said:

351,207 signatures and rising by 1300 every minute.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/269157?fbclid=IwAR0xZDEcMTEMXUJ6Ipm10EOt8SkWZL5IuEK8rceZPhuoRtyqvOCk-C-vbnA

I expect it to exceed 6 million but it will not change anything

It's a handy map for the Lib Dems to work out potential stretch targets.

AlastairMeeks said:

Well:

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1166717448118296576

Looks as though Curry's office doesn't really speak for the nation. Quelle surprise.

CarlottaVance said:

And that's the issue:

https://twitter.com/TomMcTague/status/1166727017041207297?s=20

Simples. As someone once said.

surbiton19 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. eek, disagree. The Queen could've done no better.

Had she refused to prorogue that would've been refusing her own Government and interfering in politics.

Her Private Secretary should have killed this stone dead. Now she is totally interfering in politics and supporting one side - the Leavers.
Unelected, costly and one member of the firm up to no good in another country.

She acted on advice of her Prime Minister. Would you be saying the same thing if she had refused Corbyn's advice?