Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Corbyn’s reported negativity on a second referendum sends the
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Corbyn’s reported negativity on a second referendum sends the betting odds down to a 29% chance
Betting continues to be running at a high level on all aspects relating to Brexit. Mostly of the markets have stayed pretty consistent over the past few days days. The only one to buck this trend has been the second referendum betting.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
77 ALL OUT.
T'was doomed.
Referendum doomed
What next?
Us?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/13/tory-brexit-rebels-inflict-major-defeat-on-theresa-may
Didn't you use to complain about pointless gesture politics...
As for "what members want", the 2016 leadership contest goes against the idea that they're desperate to remain in the EU above all else.
Corbyn didn’t seem to have this problem when he called for a motion of no confidence.
This is bullshit and you know it. Corbyn doesn’t want a vote and is overriding party policy. The question is why.
An unrelated question: despite the claimed changes in mood music, how many MPs have so far said that they’re going to vote for the deal when they didn’t last time?
I'm asking why it should be the policy, when it's both unachievable and a massive electoral liability.
Equally you might suggest some possible markets here. People might quote some odds, or more likely take you up on anything you cared to quote. There's settlement risk and all that of course.
Perhaps MeeksBetClearing PLC needs to be established!?
Prove that they're afraid. Back it in parliament.
But there is another unicorn to be dealt with - No Deal - the bizarre notion of flouncing off without the transition period that is needed to negotiate the future relationship, i.e. the arrangement which is going to replace frictionless trade with our biggest overseas market.
Once this one dies too - which surely it will - we can ratify the WA and officially leave the European Union.
It will be a sad day (for me) but I have a great bunch of friends and a good family. They'll see me through.
It's just this time the soft left have been stupid and spineless enough to fall for it.
As for the idea that Labour should only support things some Tory MPs would vote into law, well then I guess Labour can stop being anti-austerity and scrap all its policies then. There maybe a case against a People's Vote - the best one, I think, is that we're now so late in the day and so fucked that something like Norway+ would be a better way of stopping chaos, but that ain't it - and the Labour leadership are being worse than useless with their constant lies and fantasies.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/01/mps-get-cold-feet-about-the-cooper-no-deal-amendment/
Agree with this, though more sympathetic to the outcome. A much more fruitful discussion than the various unicorns that have wasted so much energy is that of the many different possible directions of a post Brexit future; these in practice will still include on the one hand a very hard exit, and on the other hand a rapid rejoining. If this stage has been difficult, with a marked absence of grown up politics, it does make you wonder what the difficult stage will be like.
Indeed. It would also make a lie of their fears of no deal. Bit of an unnecessary scorched earth strategy, I think they're well placed if they focus. People are vaguely softening on various options, but don't actually appear that close to a decision yet, which means it is all to play for for PV.
https://twitter.com/tompeck/status/1088457792988446722
https://twitter.com/tompeck/status/1088458083574018048
(I have no involvement in any of this, financial or otherwise by the way)
To use the vernacular, nothing really honestly truthfully has changed.
A second vote or a GE are and always have been distractions.
The basic options are, as they have been since before Christmas, the WA, leaving without a Deal or revoking A50 completely. I imagine a small extension to A50 if it were a question of allowing extra time to allow full legislation to pass Parliament, remains a possibility.
Now, we can probably assume neither May nor any other Conservative will voluntarily revoke A50 as that would mean signing the party's electoral death warrant enticing though that prospect is on a dark January evening.
Getting the WA through Parliament remains (so to speak), May's only serious option. To close down a deficit of 230 votes, she had effectively two options, tack hard or tack soft. The latter meant trying to get Labour MPs primarily but the SNP and a few of her own dissidents plus anybody else to accept the WA was really BINO and she would soften it even further with the assistance of the EU.
However, the Labour leadership, which seems determined to honour the 23/6/16 vote, wouldn't play ball so May is forced to tack hard which means trying to convince the ERG and the DUP the WA isn't the sell out and betrayal they think it is. One approach is to speak softly on the Backstop and go all Project Fear on a No Deal in the hope enough of her own side will be compelled/cajoled/persuaded/told by their local Associations (delete as appropriate) to vote for the WA when it comes back. Unfortunately, the parliamentary numbers mean convincing only some of them won't work - she probably needs all the ERG and ideally the DUP too.
That leaves No Deal which is where we are tonight with 7 weeks to go. Undoubtedly, May is hoping all the other options will die either on the Commons floor or by dint of their own contradictions, to leave the WA standing alone on the battlefield to face No Deal. She no doubt believes that with a few healthy dollops of Project Fear (thank you Airbus) the WA will be passed by a frightened cowed Commons.
That's how I see it, I may be entirely wrong and It won't be the first or the last time.
The one other factor might be the EU and the degree to which they are willing to prevent a No Deal. if we get down to close to the wire, the EU may seek to extend A50 and it may be the WA isn't as non-negotiable as we might think.
If the EU blinks, it's possible May can get enough concession to make the WA acceptable to either the "tack hard" or "tack soft" camp. I wonder which way she'll go.
Not after the screwing Kemar Roach has just given them.
They certainly showed a big swing to Labour among Conservative Remainers. But a slightly bigger swing to the Conservatives with Labour leavers, plus some votes from UKIP supporters.
Potentially, the Conservatives would lose places like Westminster, Putney, St. alban's, and see their leads slashed along the M3/M4 corridors, while gaining seats like Ashfield, Stoke North, Wakefield, Penistone.
(This may slightly be a betting post under false colours though, as given my previous lacklustre performance in US political betting I'd hardly recommend you follow my ideas)
I've been backing Gabbard as next President.
Pros:
- Not Trump
- Looks good
- Sounds good
- Female
- Totally on message with Bernie
- Has shown commitment
- Served in the Military
- Pro gun lobby
Cons arguably, but are mainly pros now:
- Hindu religion
- Odd ancestory
- from Hawaii
- expressed some anti-gayetc views, and now trying to over-compensate
- has engaged with Trump
- has engaged with Assad
- not quite with the programme
Actual Cons:
(as far as I can see it, none)
There's a chance Bernie if he didn't run might lend support along the way too.
Anyway, we don't get many betting posts now on PB, so I thought I'd do one. As said above my history betting in US politics is abysmal, and also I am most definitely talking my position.
As for wait and see, she has used up the reasonable allotment of giving her the benefit of the doubt.
On top of that he says he doesn't have a clear legal answer to the difficulty of the European elections.
The prime minister of Lithuania has actually been quoted as saying she thinks No Deal may be preferable to an extension, though the EU will try to help if a request is made.
Maybe but I'm not sure I would be relying on it and IF the Prime Minister goes back to the EU she might have to do a fair b it of compromise as well. I think the EU and the UK could live with a permanent CU which would, I imagine, get through Parliament albeit with a considerable Conservative rebellion.
Just as Heath needed Labour MPs like Jenkins to get the accession bill through in the early 70s so May might be reliant on moderate Labour MPs to get any amended deal through.
For my own sanity I have to believe in a deal, no deal is unimaginable
You're basically adopting the no deal brexiteer strategy of all we have to do is talk tough, and we will get what we want just because.
Thierry Henry: Monaco sack manager after three months in charge
However, all that said the final victory of the Corbyn-Bridgen-Dodds-Hollobone alliance is very, very close now. Since MPs seem wholly incapable of taking the necessary action to revoke, delay, attempt to negotiate a new deal, call a plebiscite or do anything else, the only obvious barrier to No Deal is a total climbdown by at least 115 of the Remainers and Soft Brexiteers who previously rejected the Withdrawal Agreement in a fresh vote at some point during the next two months.
The 85% of punters whom, according to OGH, believe that there won't be a Hard Brexit on schedule on March 29th could well find out that they are very much mistaken.
So I went to a fantastic exhibition of Ruskin and Turner instead. Strongly recommended. Even the Guardian likes it
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2019/jan/24/john-ruskin-the-power-of-seeing-review-critic-social-reformer-two-temple-place
'No deal' is a deal too - its just a minimal one. It'd much more likely if it came to it to be a NoDeal+++++ (with pluses almost ad infinitum). There would be a clear domino effect for Whitehall and Brussels departments to be falling over themselves in trying to get their + on the map. That dynamic has its attractions, but overall an all-encompassing deal is better.
May's deal has to be the deal.