Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Johnson edges back to favourite on the day that TMay’s future
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Johnson edges back to favourite on the day that TMay’s future could be decided
Betdata.io chart of movement on the Betfair exchange
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Tory Brexiters want May resignation date in order to back deal
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/26/tory-brexiters-want-may-resignation-date-in-order-to-back-deal
One backbencher said: “She can’t stand up there and just say the same thing about backing her deal.” Good luck with that one.
That means May has to go, and fast. The only question is whether she stays on whilst her successor is elected. If Gove stepped up and said he would take over as interm PM, but would not be standing for leader himself (letting it be known he'd quite like to be, say, moving to Number 11 afterwards), that would add very considerable pressure on May to leave pronto.
As to who takes over full time, however..... That will partly depend on whether the members are only offered two candidates. I would prefer that range to be broadened. The membership are already going to be pissed off at watching MPs stitching things up between them. Give them a decent choice of candidates, covering both experience and youth, Remain and Brexit. That way it may not be the shoo-in for Boris that some fear.
I am not convinced that going to the country on a platform of wanting to leave the customs union - which is what an election in the timescale you are envisaging would amount to - is the safest ground to fight an election?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnKdFVP3Ezc
A number of highly ambitious souls within Cabinet lost out. Their time at the top table will be coming to an end. I do wonder whether some might flounce to the TIGs.
*This presumes we do actually Brexit. An incoming PM after May has revoked would have far, far bigger worries.....
I wonder if ayone can help me? I’m likely to be missing something blindingly obvious, but...
These are the betfair rules for “UK to leave the EU by the 29/03/2019?“ market;
Will the United Kingdom officially leave the European Union on or before the 30/03/2019 - 00:00:00 CET/29/03/2019 - 23:00:00 London Time? For the purposes of this market leaving the EU is defined as the date when the treaties of the EU cease to apply to the UK. Examples of when this might occur include, but are not limited, to: the date specified in a withdrawal agreement between the UK and the EU; the end of the two year negotiating period (29/03/2019) as set out by Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty (or any extension to this time period); or the date of the repeal of the 1972 European Communities Act. If more than one of these events were to occur, this market will be settled on the first of these events to occur. In the case of the two year time period in Article 50 being extended, via a unanimous vote by all EU Member States, we will settle this market on the extended date. This market will settle when the UK leaves the EU even if parts of the UK (e.g. Scotland, Northern Ireland) leave the UK or receive special status within the EU. In the event of any ambiguity over an announcement, Betfair may determine, using its reasonable discretion, how to settle the market based on all the information available to it at the relevant time. Betfair reserves the right to wait for further official announcements before the market is settled.
Betfair will not be responsible for suspending the market when an official announcement is made. However, Betfair will suspend the market as soon as it becomes aware of an official announcement. Betfair expressly reserves the right to suspend and/or void any and all bets on this market at any time in the event that Betfair is not satisfied (in its absolute discretion) with the certainty of the outcome.
For clarity if the UK leaves the EU at 30/03/2019 - 00:00:00 CET/29/03/2019 - 23:00:00 London Time, as per the terms of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, then Yes will be settled as a winner.
**For purpose of clarification rules updated on the 25/01/2019
—
The 29/3/19 date has been extended, right? Is *no* really a 1.01/1.02 shot?
.....and no one's talking about Brexit.
A few hard Brexiters are likely to pursue this legal point until the end, which is where the money is coming from for the other side of the bet.
Surely the key bit is ;
“In the case of the two year time period in Article 50 being extended, via a unanimous vote by all EU Member States, we will settle this market on the extended date.”
Has that date not already been extended?
What does bf do with this market on 30/3?
The rule is to lay the favourite. By installing him as favourite his failure is all but certain.
At this stage it is no more than name recognition.
As an aside, Boris has been favourite (5, last I checked) on Ladbrokes for a week or two now.
https://twitter.com/adamfleming/status/1110798025503449088?s=20
Leadsom has already said in the Commons that the EU treaty and EU law holds the field and so the date is already changed. The Regulations will sail through the Commons and if you look at the small print of Benn's programme motion you'll see he has taken the trouble to further close off scope for filibuster during today's proceedings.
The mystery backer's strategy only makes sense if there is a so-far secret plan to filibuster the Regulations in the Lords AND an intent to pursue some sort of legal action on the point. The latter could take ages, so there is a risk I guess that BF may not resolve these markets for quite some time - or a risk that BF pays out early and then faces the exposure.
Alternatively and more likely, of course, the mystery backer is a Brexiter carried away with his all-too-clever strategy and has just wasted thousands of £.
If the strategy gets put into action, it's going to be big in the news before long. If it doesn't, quite what he or she was up to will always be a mystery.
Even if he does stand I do not expect him to make the final two.
In some cases the same MPs have signed mutually incompatible options.
And, to answer Carlotta's point, the government has NOT put its own deal into the mix.
Some of the options are options, some are unicorns, and some aren't options but assertions (such as the well supported one simply restating that we are leaving the EU). Bercow is in an invidious position sorting out that lot.
https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/george-osborne-theresa-may-interview
I still don’t think she has the numbers.
Unfortunately that muddies the water for when there are real issues that need to be addressed.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School#Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory
Though it’s entirely possible that Braverman, who is not exactly the sharpest mind, was unaware of the fact.
Thereby just making themselves look ridiculous for havingtwice overwhelmingly rejected the WA in the first place...
Ha. Bottas is 3.75 to be fastest qualifier, which is a bit shorter than last time. Hmm. Was going to say I'm not tempted, but Hamilton's evens for pole. A split stake, two-thirds on Hamilton, *might* make sense.
Hmm. I went to check the stats, and Hamilton got pole in Australia in 2018 by a similar large margin yet the Ferraris beat him in Bahrain qualifying that year. Going to read my old blog posts and see if there's an explicit reason for that.
Having done so, it seems the Mercedes, in 2018, was just outpaced in Bahrain qualifying. Vettel's just 4.33, value would seem to lie more with Leclerc each way (fifth the odds top 3) at 11, *if* one believes history will repeat itself.
Mind you, there's 13 on the same basis for him to 'win' first practice.
I've backed that last one with a tiny stake (14 with boost, incidentally).
It reads to me like the bf market date itself has changed with the a50 extension.
It is no longer “UK to leave the EU by the 29/03/2019?” It’s “UK to leave the EU by the end of the a50 extension?”
If Ferrari are poor again, it’s going to be a fairly boring season.
I'll be paying attention to how close Verstappen gets in qualifying. He was a long way off in Australia but very similar on pace (I think he was faster than Hamilton but passing there is difficult even when you don't take your car off-roading).
Personally, I see Lidington as May redux with far too many of the same failings but if the bigger beasts wanted a nominee fall guy who was to hold the reins until this interminable Brexit is concluded (and there's the rub, that could take years yet) he is a possibility.
The real challenge for the next leader is going to be holding the party together. How do Grieve and JRM remain on the same platform? It is going to need someone who is a very good people person, not an ideologue and not someone who has taken fixed positions. For me that rules out the likes of Gove, Raab and Johnson. It means that we are looking at people who have been more pragmatic such as Hunt and Javid or even, dare I say it, Hammond.
Depending on how this turns out keeping the Tories together may not be possible or desirable but it seems to me that faced with the threat of PM Corbyn they will want to try. Gove's backing may well be key but I can't see him as the front man.
A - A Brexiter proposal objecting to the whole process and seeking to change SOs to prevent it happening again
B - No Deal exit on 12 April
C - May's Deal exit on 22 May but with the UK able unilaterally to leave the backstop
D - Common Market 2.0
E - Reaffirm the referendum and commit to leave the EU (doesn't say how or when)
F - Leave but try to stay in a Customs Union
G - Revoke if a deal isn't agreed
H - EFTA and EEA
I - Only leave with a deal agreed with both Scottish and Welsh devolved bodies
J - Any deal must include commitment to stay in a Customs Union
K - Labour's Plan (new WA with customs union, alignment to SM, alignment on rights etc)
L - Revoke unless Parliament approves no deal exit
M - WA subject to confirmatory referendum (Kyle-Wilson)
N - Malthouse: WA with new agreement on NI backstop
O - A Brexiter one that looks like a so-called managed no deal if we cant agree a WA
P - A Brexiter one that looks like no deal but without anything nasty happening please, if we cant agree a WA
If I were Speaker, I would consider:
A is out of order;
C and N are unicorns (and perhaps K also - see below)
E and I are political posturing;
G and L are negative not positive choices (although perhaps simply cover for a Revoke preference)
with the genuine options being B, D, H, F/ J, M and perhaps K provided they already know the EU will agree, and perhaps G/L if you treat them as Revoke after MV3 falls.
O and P are variants of B intended to ensure that MV3 fails.
How are they going to get 30 million existing cars to have speed limiters fitted. It would take years??
To be voted on by the EU in September but expected to be adopted throughout the EU
Apparently HMG has promised to follow all EU regulation on cars so brexit will not stop it
It is also to apply to all commercial vehicles
(Did it have its roots in Vienna?)
No Deal /
CM2 /
EFTA+EEA /
WA+CU /
WA+referendum /
Labour's Deal /
Revoke
Seven choices!
What will Bercow do?!
How it might happen is as follows. Theresa May addresses the 1922 Committee. Some ERGonaut with an eye to history decides to speak for England and tell her in the name of God to go. In one of those That Didn't Happen moments, the entire room spontaneously cheers and she realises the game is up. She agrees tonight to step down as Prime Minister straight away, but to stay on as party leader for continuity purposes. The grey suits want a compromise candidate who doesn't threaten any of them to be crowned. David Lidington is dragged to the chair.
He takes over and immediately gets that new leader bounce that most new leaders get, particularly because he deals with Parliament in an inclusive manner and helps guide them to a Brexit solution that almost functions even if everyone hates it. After the crucial moment has passed, the Conservatives have their leadership election. The public having taken to Mr L, a Lidingtonian faction has formed. He sweeps all before him.
There is a whole chain of weak links in that account, but none are utterly ridiculous.
It's also possible that they've completely lost all sense of perspective.
It's a lot harder to be awake and attentive whilst doing nothing but watching than it is to persistently do an actual task. A self-driving car requires someone qualified to drive, constantly behind the wheel, and constantly ready to take control at a moment's notice. It's an expensive addition to make driving more difficult.
Even if it doesn't often go wrong, when it does the consequences will be as bad or worse than when someone drives now.
It's possible that self-driving vehicles in a more rail-road sense could work better, perhaps transporting goods on specific self-driving-only roads. But as a general approach to transport I think it's nuts.
Plus, hackers can already make brakes fail. Between self-driving cars and speed limiters, we're heading for a situation where a mischief-maker or terrorist could bugger things up promptly. Hmm. I wonder if the emergency services will also have limited vehicles.
I would also not be surprised to see a Trump v Sanders contest in the US in 2020 too and it would mirror the rise of populist parties of left and right across Europe as well
'Let me be clear' needs to be banned in use by all mps and journalist
...oh you said the EU? Ah that’s a problem. I guess we should leave so we can make our own decisions then
Most of the time it works just fine. Occasionally it misses a sign and has the wrong speed limit set (easy to override with a single steering wheel button press). Occasionally it decides the limit is now 20 instead of 30 and the first you know of it is the car braking.
And this becomes the problem. We all know how unsafe SPECS roadworks are where there are several lanes of densely packed traffic all doing the same speed. Unless there is a "push to pass" mode allowing a few mph variance you will get a whole load of vehicles doing broadly the same speed with minimal gaps - and then big multi-vehicle collisions when someone gets it wrong.
I do use the adaptive limiter round town - its very useful on that front. Less so on motorways, where the usual drive mode is pilot assist (car manages speed and steering autonomously)
https://twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/1110794539239919616
It's a phrase I first heard nearly twenty years ago, at uni, from a hardened leftie, in relation to Gramsci's theories about cultural hegemony (they were encouraging me to read Gramsci). Said leftie thought it was was a very good thing, as it was a better way to achieve socialism than revolution.
In terms of whether or not it's anti semitic, if it is, it appears to have developed as a conspiracy theory in *very* recent years, after the phrase entered common usage.
Consider this article published in the Guardian in 2007 for example, the headline being about the "BBC's cultural marxism".
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/jan/24/comment.comment
What's interesting is that there are over 300 comments on that article, all from Guardian readers. I've scrolled the first ten pages of comments and not a single one references the phrase as an anti-semitic conspiracy theory. You would think if it was, Guardian readers would be the first to call it out?
So evidently it was a term in common enough usage to make the headline of a newspaper article as recently as a decade ago without anyone linking the phrase to anti semitism. Which would suggest it's perfectly possible to have heard of the term without knowing about the conspiracy theory that's become attached to it.
Don’t you know there’s a Brexit on?
https://twitter.com/ChrisJames_90/status/1110798640132620288