Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The betting markets think a no deal Brexit is getting likelier

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited August 12 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The betting markets think a no deal Brexit is getting likelier and likelier

Chart of Betfair prices from Betdata.io

Read the full story here


«13456

Comments

  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 5,883
    First? Like the clue I don't have about Boris' preferred intention. Other than continuing to be PM.
  • adamandcatadamandcat Posts: 49
    edited August 12
    I agree, I think it will happen and it is his only albeit high risk strategy
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 22,743
    Crossover coming.

    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.
  • I find it hard to see a pathway to avoiding ND now.

    If A.J.P Taylor was still with us i'm sure he could find material in the Brexit timeline.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 9,584
    @CaptainBuzzkill

    I suggested a topic of conversation on the previous thread but I got caught by The Curse Of The New Thread.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 22,743
    FPT and for once its not Brexit.
    ydoethur said:

    Zephyr said:

    tlg86 said:

    How nasty of the MSM to use Farage's own words against him.

    “Terrifying! Here was Harry, here he was this young, brave, boisterous, all male, getting into trouble, turning up at stag parties inappropriately dressed, drinking too much and causing all sorts of mayhem. And then, a brave British officer who did his bit in Afghanistan. He was the most popular royal of a younger generation that we’ve seen for 100 years......

    .....Farage’s reference to “dressing up inappropriately” is an allusion to photographs of Harry at a 2005 party dressed in a Nazi uniform.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/12/nigel-farage-prince-harry-meghan-markle-overweight-queen-mother-cpac-brexit
    Far worse, of course, was Harry daring to support the country of his birth...
    Indeed. It was positively medieval of a European Prince to go on a crusade to the Middle East and kill Muslims.
    I thought crusaders slaughtered Jews. 🤔
    Why?

    Though in one crusade they killed Christians.
    Only one? I think you'll find there were several. For example, the very first crusade ever declared was against a Western European country, which was Christian but not under the direct control of Rome. Anyone care to guess which one?
    I thought the First Crusade was against the Seljurk Turks? To reconquer Anatolia and then conquered the Holy Lands. It was also the only example of a successful crusade I can think of.

    It was the Fourth Crusade I was thinking of which was against Christians - and a massive aid to the Muslims in conquering the Byzantines.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 9,584

    Crossover coming.

    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.

    Indeed. What's the liquidity like on Betfair? I'm entrain and on the tablet so can't look for myself.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 25,861
    QTWTAIY
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 20,514

    FPT and for once its not Brexit.

    ydoethur said:

    Zephyr said:

    tlg86 said:

    How nasty of the MSM to use Farage's own words against him.

    “Terrifying! Here was Harry, here he was this young, brave, boisterous, all male, getting into trouble, turning up at stag parties inappropriately dressed, drinking too much and causing all sorts of mayhem. And then, a brave British officer who did his bit in Afghanistan. He was the most popular royal of a younger generation that we’ve seen for 100 years......

    .....Farage’s reference to “dressing up inappropriately” is an allusion to photographs of Harry at a 2005 party dressed in a Nazi uniform.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/12/nigel-farage-prince-harry-meghan-markle-overweight-queen-mother-cpac-brexit
    Far worse, of course, was Harry daring to support the country of his birth...
    Indeed. It was positively medieval of a European Prince to go on a crusade to the Middle East and kill Muslims.
    I thought crusaders slaughtered Jews. 🤔
    Why?

    Though in one crusade they killed Christians.
    Only one? I think you'll find there were several. For example, the very first crusade ever declared was against a Western European country, which was Christian but not under the direct control of Rome. Anyone care to guess which one?
    I thought the First Crusade was against the Seljurk Turks? To reconquer Anatolia and then conquered the Holy Lands. It was also the only example of a successful crusade I can think of.

    It was the Fourth Crusade I was thinking of which was against Christians - and a massive aid to the Muslims in conquering the Byzantines.
    It isn't usually called a crusade. It's normally called something else.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 7,980
    edited August 12
    FPT
    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
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 9,584
    Anyhoo, about to swap trains. Laters, alligators.
  • dodradedodrade Posts: 279

    Crossover coming.

    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.

    Boris has lashed himself to the mast but could secretly be counting on Parliament seizing the wheel. It might actually be better for remainers in the medium term not to do so.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 22,743
    ydoethur said:

    FPT and for once its not Brexit.

    ydoethur said:

    Zephyr said:

    tlg86 said:

    How nasty of the MSM to use Farage's own words against him.

    “Terrifying! Here was Harry, here he was this young, brave, boisterous, all male, getting into trouble, turning up at stag parties inappropriately dressed, drinking too much and causing all sorts of mayhem. And then, a brave British officer who did his bit in Afghanistan. He was the most popular royal of a younger generation that we’ve seen for 100 years......

    .....Farage’s reference to “dressing up inappropriately” is an allusion to photographs of Harry at a 2005 party dressed in a Nazi uniform.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/12/nigel-farage-prince-harry-meghan-markle-overweight-queen-mother-cpac-brexit
    Far worse, of course, was Harry daring to support the country of his birth...
    Indeed. It was positively medieval of a European Prince to go on a crusade to the Middle East and kill Muslims.
    I thought crusaders slaughtered Jews. 🤔
    Why?

    Though in one crusade they killed Christians.
    Only one? I think you'll find there were several. For example, the very first crusade ever declared was against a Western European country, which was Christian but not under the direct control of Rome. Anyone care to guess which one?
    I thought the First Crusade was against the Seljurk Turks? To reconquer Anatolia and then conquered the Holy Lands. It was also the only example of a successful crusade I can think of.

    It was the Fourth Crusade I was thinking of which was against Christians - and a massive aid to the Muslims in conquering the Byzantines.
    It isn't usually called a crusade. It's normally called something else.
    Is this some sort of riddle? Its a crusade but not called a crusade, that wasn't targetting the crusaders targets?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 20,536
    dodrade said:

    Crossover coming.

    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.

    Boris has lashed himself to the mast but could secretly be counting on Parliament seizing the wheel. It might actually be better for remainers in the medium term not to do so.
    So we’re all Corbynites now?
  • DruttDrutt Posts: 487
    If you read the IFG paper out today, it looks like this is value at evens.

    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.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 22,743
    Drutt said:

    If you read the IFG paper out today, it looks like this is value at evens.

    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.

    How? You expecting a 12 month delay and then a no-deal Brexit?
  • ChrisChris Posts: 3,622
    ydoethur said:

    FPT and for once its not Brexit.

    ydoethur said:

    Zephyr said:

    tlg86 said:

    How nasty of the MSM to use Farage's own words against him.

    “Terrifying! Here was Harry, here he was this young, brave, boisterous, all male, getting into trouble, turning up at stag parties inappropriately dressed, drinking too much and causing all sorts of mayhem. And then, a brave British officer who did his bit in Afghanistan. He was the most popular royal of a younger generation that we’ve seen for 100 years......

    .....Farage’s reference to “dressing up inappropriately” is an allusion to photographs of Harry at a 2005 party dressed in a Nazi uniform.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/12/nigel-farage-prince-harry-meghan-markle-overweight-queen-mother-cpac-brexit
    Far worse, of course, was Harry daring to support the country of his birth...
    Indeed. It was positively medieval of a European Prince to go on a crusade to the Middle East and kill Muslims.
    I thought crusaders slaughtered Jews. 🤔
    Why?

    Though in one crusade they killed Christians.
    Only one? I think you'll find there were several. For example, the very first crusade ever declared was against a Western European country, which was Christian but not under the direct control of Rome. Anyone care to guess which one?
    I thought the First Crusade was against the Seljurk Turks? To reconquer Anatolia and then conquered the Holy Lands. It was also the only example of a successful crusade I can think of.

    It was the Fourth Crusade I was thinking of which was against Christians - and a massive aid to the Muslims in conquering the Byzantines.
    It isn't usually called a crusade. It's normally called something else.
    Does it concern Ireland, by any chance?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 20,514
    justin124 said:

    FPT
    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

    I had them in front of me too, but I only looked quickly and in fact on a more careful check I find the smallest gap was 9 points, in March.

    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.
  • viewcode said:

    @CaptainBuzzkill

    I suggested a topic of conversation on the previous thread but I got caught by The Curse Of The New Thread.

    I've seen it happen too many times over the years on here...it must be infuriating.

    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

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 20,514
    Chris said:

    ydoethur said:

    FPT and for once its not Brexit.

    ydoethur said:

    Zephyr said:

    tlg86 said:

    How nasty of the MSM to use Farage's own words against him.

    “Terrifying! Here was Harry, here he was this young, brave, boisterous, all male, getting into trouble, turning up at stag parties inappropriately dressed, drinking too much and causing all sorts of mayhem. And then, a brave British officer who did his bit in Afghanistan. He was the most popular royal of a younger generation that we’ve seen for 100 years......

    .....Farage’s reference to “dressing up inappropriately” is an allusion to photographs of Harry at a 2005 party dressed in a Nazi uniform.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/12/nigel-farage-prince-harry-meghan-markle-overweight-queen-mother-cpac-brexit
    Far worse, of course, was Harry daring to support the country of his birth...
    Indeed. It was positively medieval of a European Prince to go on a crusade to the Middle East and kill Muslims.
    I thought crusaders slaughtered Jews. 🤔
    Why?

    Though in one crusade they killed Christians.
    Only one? I think you'll find there were several. For example, the very first crusade ever declared was against a Western European country, which was Christian but not under the direct control of Rome. Anyone care to guess which one?
    I thought the First Crusade was against the Seljurk Turks? To reconquer Anatolia and then conquered the Holy Lands. It was also the only example of a successful crusade I can think of.

    It was the Fourth Crusade I was thinking of which was against Christians - and a massive aid to the Muslims in conquering the Byzantines.
    It isn't usually called a crusade. It's normally called something else.
    Does it concern Ireland, by any chance?
    Later on, and passim ad nauseam, the target of it went on to concern Ireland.
  • CatManCatMan Posts: 215
    Argh, the wait always kills me. Can't they keep it a secret until it's actually out!
  • DruttDrutt Posts: 487

    Drutt said:

    If you read the IFG paper out today, it looks like this is value at evens.

    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.

    How? You expecting a 12 month delay and then a no-deal Brexit?
    Yes, embarrassing mistake. I literally don't know what year it is. Sorry if that made anyone think they'd been in a 12-month coma.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 3,622
    ydoethur said:

    Chris said:

    ydoethur said:

    FPT and for once its not Brexit.

    ydoethur said:

    Zephyr said:

    tlg86 said:

    How nasty of the MSM to use Farage's own words against him.

    “Terrifying! Here was Harry, here he was this young, brave, boisterous, all male, getting into trouble, turning up at stag parties inappropriately dressed, drinking too much and causing all sorts of mayhem. And then, a brave British officer who did his bit in Afghanistan. He was the most popular royal of a younger generation that we’ve seen for 100 years......

    .....Farage’s reference to “dressing up inappropriately” is an allusion to photographs of Harry at a 2005 party dressed in a Nazi uniform.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/12/nigel-farage-prince-harry-meghan-markle-overweight-queen-mother-cpac-brexit
    Far worse, of course, was Harry daring to support the country of his birth...
    Indeed. It was positively medieval of a European Prince to go on a crusade to the Middle East and kill Muslims.
    I thought crusaders slaughtered Jews. 🤔
    Why?

    Though in one crusade they killed Christians.
    Only one? I think you'll find there were several. For example, the very first crusade ever declared was against a Western European country, which was Christian but not under the direct control of Rome. Anyone care to guess which one?
    I thought the First Crusade was against the Seljurk Turks? To reconquer Anatolia and then conquered the Holy Lands. It was also the only example of a successful crusade I can think of.

    It was the Fourth Crusade I was thinking of which was against Christians - and a massive aid to the Muslims in conquering the Byzantines.
    It isn't usually called a crusade. It's normally called something else.
    Does it concern Ireland, by any chance?
    Later on, and passim ad nauseam, the target of it went on to concern Ireland.
    Oh. Maybe the Pelagian heresy, then?
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 7,980
    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:

    FPT
    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

    I had them in front of me too, but I only looked quickly and in fact on a more careful check I find the smallest gap was 9 points, in March.

    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.
    I have been specifically referring to the campaign period - and seeking to compare the result on Polling Day with the likely result had people voted at the outset of the campaign. On that basis, the Tories did recover in the course of the 2001 campaign - as did Labour in 1959 - despite the heavy defeat!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 20,514
    Chris said:

    ydoethur said:

    Chris said:

    Does it concern Ireland, by any chance?

    Later on, and passim ad nauseam, the target of it went on to concern Ireland.
    Oh. Maybe the Pelagian heresy, then?
    I'm going to have to give you this, I think.

    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.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 25,861

    viewcode said:

    @CaptainBuzzkill

    I suggested a topic of conversation on the previous thread but I got caught by The Curse Of The New Thread.

    I've seen it happen too many times over the years on here...it must be infuriating.

    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

    I got the 1992 election Tory seats to within 2.....
  • ChrisChris Posts: 3,622
    ydoethur said:

    Chris said:

    ydoethur said:

    Chris said:

    Does it concern Ireland, by any chance?

    Later on, and passim ad nauseam, the target of it went on to concern Ireland.
    Oh. Maybe the Pelagian heresy, then?
    I'm going to have to give you this, I think.

    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.
    I think you made it obvious enough the target was England, so no need to give me it!
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 25,227
    CatMan said:

    Argh, the wait always kills me. Can't they keep it a secret until it's actually out!
    Johnson in landslide territory?
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,368
    Has the Boris bounce arrived? Tories up to 45% at the expense of the Brexit Party?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 20,514
    edited August 12
    justin124 said:

    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:

    FPT
    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

    I had them in front of me too, but I only looked quickly and in fact on a more careful check I find the smallest gap was 9 points, in March.

    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.
    I have been specifically referring to the campaign period - and seeking to compare the result on Polling Day with the likely result had people voted at the outset of the campaign. On that basis, the Tories did recover in the course of the 2001 campaign - as did Labour in 1959 - despite the heavy defeat!
    I can't agree, even on those paramaeters. Look at the polls and the prediction for the Tory share is pretty good - they put it around 30% and it was.

    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.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 20,514
    Chris said:

    ydoethur said:

    Chris said:

    ydoethur said:

    Chris said:

    Does it concern Ireland, by any chance?

    Later on, and passim ad nauseam, the target of it went on to concern Ireland.
    Oh. Maybe the Pelagian heresy, then?
    I'm going to have to give you this, I think.

    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.
    I think you made it obvious enough the target was England, so no need to give me it!
    Well, it's nice to be told I've got my hints right!

    Good night.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 9,584

    viewcode said:

    @CaptainBuzzkill

    I suggested a topic of conversation on the previous thread but I got caught by The Curse Of The New Thread.

    I've seen it happen too many times over the years on here...it must be infuriating.

    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

    Thank you. I am now on the next train (think a looooong relay) so will view it later tonight. Capturing odds as they were on the day is difficult: we have modern reports of what was said then, and bookmakers' claims of what was said then, but reports of the time often yield a different picture. If you ever have a few moments look at the Times reportage of the days before the 1970 election day: totally different to the view we have now.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 4,974
    edited August 12
    Iain Dale: Poll embargoed until 10pm.

    Says it has very interesting results re Brexit.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 9,923
    The obvious arb for PBers is to bet against an election.

    Either we get one of the most dramatic election calls ever, or you win the bet at 2.5x your stake.

    Easy!
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 25,227
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 7,980
    edited August 12
    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:

    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:

    FPT
    ydoethur said:


    '

    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

    I had them in front of me too, but I only looked quickly and in fact on a more careful check I find the smallest gap was 9 points, in March.

    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.
    I have been specifically referring to the campaign period - and seeking to compare the result on Polling Day with the likely result had people voted at the outset of the campaign. On that basis, the Tories did recover in the course of the 2001 campaign - as did Labour in 1959 - despite the heavy defeat!
    I can't agree, even on those paramaeters. Look at the polls and the prediction for the Tory share is pretty good - they put it around 30% and it was.

    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.
    In terms of psephological swing calculation , a fall in the Government's vote share with the Opposition share unchanged amounts to a swing to the Opposition. If the Labour vote falls 6% with the Tory vote unchanged , the result is a 3% swing to the Tories!
    edit - The Tory GB share was 32%.
  • IanB2 said:

    dodrade said:

    Crossover coming.

    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.

    Boris has lashed himself to the mast but could secretly be counting on Parliament seizing the wheel. It might actually be better for remainers in the medium term not to do so.
    So we’re all Corbynites now?
    Good Lord No
  • Its so obvious. The best way to win back sovereignty for the British Parliament is to shut it down. That's what they meant by "bring back control".
  • glwglw Posts: 5,251
    Scott_P said:
    I suspect that the idiots who support that ploy won't be so keen if it's used again by people they don't like to do things they don't want done.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 22,743

    Its so obvious. The best way to win back sovereignty for the British Parliament is to shut it down. That's what they meant by "bring back control".

    Yes.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 5,522
    A majority can be defined as the largest group of people wrong about any given issue at any given time.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 9,584
    Alex Wickham is BuzzFeed. But the poll was ComRes/Telegraph. Who leaked it to him?
  • Its so obvious. The best way to win back sovereignty for the British Parliament is to shut it down. That's what they meant by "bring back control".

    Yes.
    Only by having no parliament does our parliament finally take control. Only by issuing no laws does our parliament make laws.

    Who are these wazzocks?
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 9,584

    Its so obvious. The best way to win back sovereignty for the British Parliament is to shut it down. That's what they meant by "bring back control".

    Yes.
    Only by having no parliament does our parliament finally take control. Only by issuing no laws does our parliament make laws.

    Who are these wazzocks?
    The Government.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 22,743
    edited August 12
    glw said:

    Scott_P said:
    I suspect that the idiots who support that ploy won't be so keen if it's used again by people they don't like to do things they don't want done.
    How is it going to be?

    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.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 9,988

    Its so obvious. The best way to win back sovereignty for the British Parliament is to shut it down. That's what they meant by "bring back control".

    Ein Reich, Ein Volk, Ein Fuhrer!
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 22,743
    Anyone who voted to give the PM authority to invoke Article 50 and simultaneously voted to reject the deal is directly responsible for there being no deal.

    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.
  • viewcode said:

    Alex Wickham is BuzzFeed. But the poll was ComRes/Telegraph. Who leaked it to him?

    It was sent by the pollster under strict embargo conditions to various media organisations.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 25,227

    Its so obvious. The best way to win back sovereignty for the British Parliament is to shut it down. That's what they meant by "bring back control".

    Yes.
    Only by having no parliament does our parliament finally take control. Only by issuing no laws does our parliament make laws.

    Who are these wazzocks?
    I am afraid all this speaks volumes about the appalling lack of any civic education as to how our system works and blows out of the water once and for all the misty eyed myth that UK is a special place that could never entertain dictators.
  • glwglw Posts: 5,251

    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 totally agree that Parliament has made a mess of things, but it doesn't follow that supsending Parliament is the answer. Quite the opposite in my opinion.

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 25,227
    Take Back Control.

    And give it to Johnson.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 5,522

    Anyone who voted to give the PM authority to invoke Article 50 and simultaneously voted to reject the deal is directly responsible for there being no deal.

    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.

    Some will be Conservatives too of course. Had May been able to rely on the support of her own party, she'd have got the WA through.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 25,861
    How is the Brexit Party still going up whilst the Tories do too? Labour voters going to both?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 22,743

    Its so obvious. The best way to win back sovereignty for the British Parliament is to shut it down. That's what they meant by "bring back control".

    Yes.
    Only by having no parliament does our parliament finally take control. Only by issuing no laws does our parliament make laws.

    Who are these wazzocks?
    No, only by leaving the EU does our Parliament finally take control.

    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.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 16,749
    VI nowhere near majority territory. Boris needs to add another 5-7% at the expense of Nige. Let's see how well the law and order stuff cuts through over next week or so.
  • glwglw Posts: 5,251

    I am afraid all this speaks volumes about the appalling lack of any civic education as to how our system works and blows out of the water once and for all the misty eyed myth that UK is a special place that could never entertain dictators.

    Anyone who ever thought that was an idiot. It's only circumstances that made the UK any different, send us down the same sort of paths and we would have made similarly bad decisions.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 22,743

    How is the Brexit Party still going up whilst the Tories do too? Labour voters going to both?
    This is the second poll in a few days that has had both Tories and BXP up. Last one was Lib Dems down while Tories and BXP were up.

    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.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 31,034

    viewcode said:

    Alex Wickham is BuzzFeed. But the poll was ComRes/Telegraph. Who leaked it to him?

    It was sent by the pollster under strict embargo conditions to various media organisations.
    - "With the past vote filter down, I can't even see! How am I supposed to fight?"
    - "Your opinion polls can deceive you - don't trust them!"
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 48,427
    What are the "54%" going to think when even after we leave Brexit is not "done" for the next 10 years?
  • nielhnielh Posts: 1,301

    Its so obvious. The best way to win back sovereignty for the British Parliament is to shut it down. That's what they meant by "bring back control".

    Yes.
    Only by having no parliament does our parliament finally take control. Only by issuing no laws does our parliament make laws.

    Who are these wazzocks?
    I am afraid all this speaks volumes about the appalling lack of any civic education as to how our system works and blows out of the water once and for all the misty eyed myth that UK is a special place that could never entertain dictators.
    Or evidence of the general, accelerating, decline of civilisation.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 3,622

    How is the Brexit Party still going up whilst the Tories do too? Labour voters going to both?
    Margin of error for the Brexit Party change.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 20,536

    How is the Brexit Party still going up whilst the Tories do too? Labour voters going to both?
    The dip in Labour support is the only figure that *might* be beyond normal margin of error. The other changes are all random noise.
  • MaxPB said:

    VI nowhere near majority territory. Boris needs to add another 5-7% at the expense of Nige. Let's see how well the law and order stuff cuts through over next week or so.

    ComRes are quite volatile, they've gone from saying Boris Johnson would win a 150 seat majority to a Labour lead within a few weeks.
  • glwglw Posts: 5,251
    Scott_P said:

    What are the "54%" going to think when even after we leave Brexit is not "done" for the next 10 years?

    I'm fairly certain most of them wouldn't even have understood the point of your question, and that applies just as much for any Remainer who thinks a referendum or revoke would end the issue.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 9,111
    Scott_P said:
    Fewer than half of people want to leave now according to most polls. There are presumably people who want to leave but not if it means bypassing parliament. Maybe not many, but there will be some Leavers who believe in constitutional democracy.

    So does that mean there are significant numbers of people who believe we shouldn't leave, but think parliament should be bypassed anyway? Really?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 16,749

    MaxPB said:

    VI nowhere near majority territory. Boris needs to add another 5-7% at the expense of Nige. Let's see how well the law and order stuff cuts through over next week or so.

    ComRes are quite volatile, they've gone from saying Boris Johnson would win a 150 seat majority to a Labour lead within a few weeks.
    Tbh, I haven't paid a lot of attention to politics for a while, bit those sort of polls aren't surprising. No one really knows what they want.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 2,954

    Anyone who voted to give the PM authority to invoke Article 50 and simultaneously voted to reject the deal is directly responsible for there being no deal.

    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.

    Not this nonsense again.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 25,861

    MaxPB said:

    VI nowhere near majority territory. Boris needs to add another 5-7% at the expense of Nige. Let's see how well the law and order stuff cuts through over next week or so.

    ComRes are quite volatile, they've gone from saying Boris Johnson would win a 150 seat majority to a Labour lead within a few weeks.
    They had gone. Past tense. No Labour lead now.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 25,227
    Not a single day goes by when the destruction wrought by Cameron's referendum doesn't get worse.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 22,743
    stodge said:

    Anyone who voted to give the PM authority to invoke Article 50 and simultaneously voted to reject the deal is directly responsible for there being no deal.

    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.

    Some will be Conservatives too of course. Had May been able to rely on the support of her own party, she'd have got the WA through.
    Indeed, but many in her own party didn't want the WA through and were happy with the existing law that Parliament had passed (that we leave without one if nothing is agreed).

    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.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 25,520
    Seems that the mps need to take care in trying to stop brexit as Boris will clearly make a GE the people v the remainer HOC and unelected HOL

    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
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 2,954
    But as a Remainer I would agree with that so its meaningless in a Brexit context.
  • glwglw Posts: 5,251
    Scott_P said:
    The Borisgraph is certainly laying it on thick.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 25,861
    edited August 12

    Seems that the mps need to take care in trying to stop brexit as Boris will clearly make a GE the people v the remainer HOC and unelected HOL

    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

    They had their chance with May's deal.

    Three times.

    Looks for many MPs like it is going to be three strikes - and you're out......
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 2,954

    Seems that the mps need to take care in trying to stop brexit as Boris will clearly make a GE the people v the remainer HOC and unelected HOL

    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

    They had their chance with May's deal.

    Three times.

    Looks for many MPs like it is going to be three strikes - and you're out......
    Yes. Rees Mogg could very well lose his seat.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 25,227
    Scott_P said:

    What are the "54%" going to think when even after we leave Brexit is not "done" for the next 10 years?

    They'll be too busy looking for a job to be worried about that.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 53,576
    FF43 said:

    Scott_P said:
    Fewer than half of people want to leave now according to most polls. There are presumably people who want to leave but not if it means bypassing parliament. Maybe not many, but there will be some Leavers who believe in constitutional democracy.

    So does that mean there are significant numbers of people who believe we shouldn't leave, but think parliament should be bypassed anyway? Really?
    There'll be remainers who just want the whole shit show over with. Also there are multiple negatives in the phrasing of that question so some people answering will mean the opposite of their given answer. If it is question 7 or so people are just skipping through trying to get the points for their survey...
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 25,861

    Not a single day goes by when the destruction wrought by Cameron's referendum doesn't get worse.

    Not a single day goes by when the Remainer panic that we are really leaving doesn't get worse.
  • CatManCatMan Posts: 215

    Not a single day goes by when the destruction wrought by Cameron's referendum doesn't get worse.

    Yep. And the thing is, if Remain had won, I don't think things would be much better.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,368

    Not a single day goes by when the destruction wrought by Cameron's referendum doesn't get worse.

    Not a single day goes by when the Remainer panic that we are really leaving doesn't get worse.
    Every day that goes by makes actually leaving less likely. Leavers should have backed May's deal when they had the chance.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 5,522



    Indeed, but many in her own party didn't want the WA through and were happy with the existing law that Parliament had passed (that we leave without one if nothing is agreed).

    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.

    As you said, indeed. I wonder how many back in March 2017 would have argued for a No Deal - it doesn't seem publicly that many did.

    Arguing for a Deal when you have no intention for voting for one seems duplicitous too, perhaps?
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 3,009

    Seems that the mps need to take care in trying to stop brexit as Boris will clearly make a GE the people v the remainer HOC and unelected HOL

    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

    They had their chance with May's deal.

    Three times.

    Looks for many MPs like it is going to be three strikes - and you're out......
    Yes. Rees Mogg could very well lose his seat.
    IDS is pretty likely to go as well. Even a certain B Johnson is not invulnerable in Uxbridge, where his antics over the third runway will be added to Brexit on the charge sheet.
  • steve_garnersteve_garner Posts: 896
    edited August 12
    Must be that all the wealthy intelligent voters who support Remain are basking in the sunshine in some European hotspot or other and could not be contacted by the pollsters. Oh the irony!
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 9,584

    Not a single day goes by when the destruction wrought by Cameron's referendum doesn't get worse.

    Not a single day goes by when the Remainer panic that we are really leaving doesn't get worse.
    Horribly true... :(
This discussion has been closed.