"What else did the betting markets sucessfully predict in the last five years? Remind me."
Betting markets in general? Pretty much everything. They're beautifully efficient at predicting outcomes.
Politics and current affairs markets are pretty wonky on that measure though, i'd agree. It's why I generally restrict my betting to markets such as elections where I can convince myself I have an edge.
The idea that the madder Leavers would have accepted David Cameron as Prime Minister after the referendum result is among the crazier ideas that are floating around.
It's quite astonishing how many Leave supporters blame the grown-ups for not clearing up after they've trashed the joint.
The betting markets failed to predict the outcome of the 2015 general election, failed to predict the Trump presidency, failed to predict the 2017 hung parliament, failed to predict the Miliband Labour leadership, failed to predict the EU referendum result They got it wrong on all of those. The betting markets are very very bad at predicting outcomes. Now they are predicting that May will go soon after failing to get a deal. The latter will probably be proved wrong within a week.
Anyway, it's nice to see all the obsessive Leavers break off from their customary two minutes' hate of Angela Merkel to start a new vendetta against her main domestic opponent.
"The betting markets failed to predict the outcome of the 2015 general election, failed to predict the Trump presidency, failed to predict the 2017 hung parliament, failed to predict the Miliband Labour leadership, failed to predict the EU referendum result They got it wrong on all of those. The betting markets are very very bad at predicting outcomes. Now they are predicting that May will go soon after failing to get a deal. The latter will probably be proved wrong within a week."
In your view...;
a) What odds should those outcomes have been?
b) Does the favourite always have to win in order for the market to correctly predict outcomes?
c) Do recent past failures in political betting markets indicate the inevitability of future failures?
Betting is about probability, not certainty. having a 1/2 favourite means that they will lose a third of the time. There have also been cases where the betting markets were right (Macron for example).
May may linger on, but it is not an edifying sight. We are not ready for phase 1, let alone phase 2. We are so unpreared that signing a trade deal without preparation is signing off disaster.
At present the only options are: default cliff edge WTO Brexit, Capitulation to the EU27 position, or A50 extension. The last is the only sane option.
To those who are against a US of E; do you think California, Florida or Texas would be better off outside of the USA and as individual countries? If so on what criteria?
I feel natives of those states would point to things they federally dislike (Cali would say it's too right wing, Texans too left-wing and depending on the Floridians you ask, the answer will change) but I'm sure most still want to be part of the union. US of E could easily rival USA economically and politically, and just as the USA helps promote the interests of Californians, the US of E would help promote the interests of its citizens.
A fully democratic federalist state would allow for a great opportunity to work together, would not destroy member states' individual identity (Texans , Floridians and Californians all have distinct identities within the union) and would give Europe a much bigger say on the international stage.
Clearly, the leader of a party that got around 20% of the vote in the last German election is now framing official EU policy. I wonder what the Turks will make of it when they join up next year!!
Betting markets are wrong most of the time when the outcome is in doubt. In the case of Macron, the polls overwhelmingly pointed to his victory, so of course they can claim to have got it right. The betting markets would be right to predict that the sun will rise tomorrow at dawn.
But where the outcome is in doubt, where there is an element of unpredictability, betting markets are very wrong. They said that David Miliband would be Labour leader, that Ed miliband would be prime minister, that Hillary Clinton would be president, that Remain would win the referendum, that the Tories would get a comfortable majority in 2017. Now they are telling us that May will be overthrown, that Corbyn will be PM etc etc.
On the issue of the EU, what you are saying is that the EU is so powerful that we dare not defy its might.
A deal will probably be done in 7 days or less, May will struggle on as PM until 2019, we shall leave the EU with a deal, the Remoaners will carry on presenting their opposition to democracy as common sense -and the betting markets will continue to get things specttacularly wrong -especially on election night next time.
On Martin Schulz, isn't the context to this that he's at a party conference, with party morale at rock-bottom, and where there's even an outside chance that he could be thrown out of his job? It seems to me that this stuff today is just some "red meat" thrown out to them to cheer them up, rather than a realistic plan.
Betting markets are like polls, indicators not certainties.
I actually agree with @Richard_Tyndall. Brexit could have been accomplished by better politicians, but the current cabinet are divided and incompetent, as well as lazy and mendacious.
David Davis has himself to blame for not doing his homework, May has the blame for allowing him to fart about for 18 months doing bugger all.
@foxinsoxuk For Brexit to have been accomplished, there would need to be early agreement on the priorities and the acceptable trade-offs. Whatever the opposite of a consensus is (a dissensus?), that's what exists on these subjects among Leavers, never mind the electorate as a whole. That dissensus was irresolvable. Theresa May has simply failed in her task by one of the more obvious routes to failure.
@148grss - I'd argue that Americans have more in common than Europeans. A shared language for starters. I'm not sure why you need to be in a political union in order to work together.
This gradual rehabilitation of Cameron seems very odd to me. He made mistake after mistake the most idiotic of which was crucifying the Lib Dems making a majority and hence a referendum inevitable. The coalition could have lasted a generation and protected us from Corbynism. But no, the public school chancers had to play silly games and we will suffer for it.
Polls -wrong as they sometimes are -are at least based on some kind of scientific methodology. Betting markets are based entirely on random and unscientific opinion -and as such are almost always wrong -except when, as in the case of Macron or Blair in 1997, they coincide with overwhelming scientific polling evidence.
Indeed, if betting markets were mostly right, then bookies would go out of business. Their profits are based entirely on the fact that what the markets think will happen rarely does.
Observe this in practice in the next few days, months and years. Contrary to the markets, a deal will probably be done, the UK will probably do well out of the EU, May will last longer than predicted, Corbyn will lose the next election.
As for Cameron staying on after the referendum, never an option.
The Leadbangers wouldn't have allowed it, they would have launched a Vote of No Confidence in his leadership.
Hell those Leadbangers were planning to trigger a Vote of No Confidence on June 24th even if Remain had won.
Dave took the view apart from it being a matter of honour that he had to resign, it was better for the Tory party if another Tory Leader/PM wasn't removed over the EU but went of his own volition.
I see Mr Schultz has just added to the chaos by calling for United States of Europe, and for those who don't want it to leave. Perhaps some of the Remain leaders here might be willing to add some clarity on what they want.
@RobD "I'd argue that Americans have more in common than Europeans. A shared language for starters. I'm not sure why you need to be in a political union in order to work together. "
Of course Europe has a shared language too - only trouble is it's English.
Labour has been 50% in the polls before, such as in 1996, falling back at the real election. Remember that since WW2, Labour has only taken power from the Tories four times. And on each occasion Labour was at least 15 points ahead in the polls between elections. Twice out of those 4 times (64/74) that double digit lead was cut back to a knife-edge on election day.
Corbyn's failure to achieve a double digit lead now, even when the Tories are at the weakest and most vulnerable should worry him.
What's the main fear of being a constituent of the United States of Europe?
Is there something specific, or just a general dislike of being told what to do by a non-Brit? Is it about preserving a sense of Britishness, or a fear that we'd be impoverished by bureaucracy and socialist giveaways? A worry that NATO would collapse, or that that handwringing and indecision in the EU would give Putin and Erdogan free reign? Etc, etc.
Genuinely curious as to the answers, from remainers and leavers alike.
Why do I believe that the Tories will not become more weak? For the simple reason that Corbyn keeps them strong. If Labour were led by a credible leader with credible economic policies, I believe the Tories would collapse in the polls. But a very large number of people in this country, even though they would dearly love to see the back of the Tories, will cling to nurse for fear of finding something worse. This is why the Tory vote is holding up despite everything. The Tories will maintain support by default, because people are alienated by Corbyn. Most people cling to the Tory raft, even though it is threadbare because they fear the rocks of Corbyn.
Comments
USE-less?
"What else did the betting markets sucessfully predict in the last five years? Remind me."
Betting markets in general? Pretty much everything. They're beautifully efficient at predicting outcomes.
Politics and current affairs markets are pretty wonky on that measure though, i'd agree. It's why I generally restrict my betting to markets such as elections where I can convince myself I have an edge.
Martin Schultz is a bit bold. Not sure how much support he has for a United States of Europe.
Like the DUP back in June, and Ireland recently, Schultz is taking advantage of a (small) window of opportunity.
It's quite astonishing how many Leave supporters blame the grown-ups for not clearing up after they've trashed the joint.
https://twitter.com/pbergsen/status/938757992136265728
The betting markets failed to predict the outcome of the 2015 general election, failed to predict the Trump presidency, failed to predict the 2017 hung parliament, failed to predict the Miliband Labour leadership, failed to predict the EU referendum result They got it wrong on all of those. The betting markets are very very bad at predicting outcomes. Now they are predicting that May will go soon after failing to get a deal. The latter will probably be proved wrong within a week.
"The betting markets failed to predict the outcome of the 2015 general election, failed to predict the Trump presidency, failed to predict the 2017 hung parliament, failed to predict the Miliband Labour leadership, failed to predict the EU referendum result They got it wrong on all of those. The betting markets are very very bad at predicting outcomes. Now they are predicting that May will go soon after failing to get a deal. The latter will probably be proved wrong within a week."
In your view...;
a) What odds should those outcomes have been?
b) Does the favourite always have to win in order for the market to correctly predict outcomes?
c) Do recent past failures in political betting markets indicate the inevitability of future failures?
Betting is about probability, not certainty. having a 1/2 favourite means that they will lose a third of the time. There have also been cases where the betting markets were right (Macron for example).
May may linger on, but it is not an edifying sight. We are not ready for phase 1, let alone phase 2. We are so unpreared that signing a trade deal without preparation is signing off disaster.
At present the only options are: default cliff edge WTO Brexit, Capitulation to the EU27 position, or A50 extension. The last is the only sane option.
http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/
Not much happening - Greens, SPD and Left and possibly CDU marginally up, FDP marginally down, AfD stationary.
I feel natives of those states would point to things they federally dislike (Cali would say it's too right wing, Texans too left-wing and depending on the Floridians you ask, the answer will change) but I'm sure most still want to be part of the union. US of E could easily rival USA economically and politically, and just as the USA helps promote the interests of Californians, the US of E would help promote the interests of its citizens.
A fully democratic federalist state would allow for a great opportunity to work together, would not destroy member states' individual identity (Texans , Floridians and Californians all have distinct identities within the union) and would give Europe a much bigger say on the international stage.
Prince Charles admits he lobbied Alex Salmond over Teach First
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/dec/07/prince-charles-admits-he-lobbied-alex-salmond-over-teach-first
Betting markets are wrong most of the time when the outcome is in doubt. In the case of Macron, the polls overwhelmingly pointed to his victory, so of course they can claim to have got it right. The betting markets would be right to predict that the sun will rise tomorrow at dawn.
But where the outcome is in doubt, where there is an element of unpredictability, betting markets are very wrong. They said that David Miliband would be Labour leader, that Ed miliband would be prime minister, that Hillary Clinton would be president, that Remain would win the referendum, that the Tories would get a comfortable majority in 2017. Now they are telling us that May will be overthrown, that Corbyn will be PM etc etc.
On the issue of the EU, what you are saying is that the EU is so powerful that we dare not defy its might.
A deal will probably be done in 7 days or less, May will struggle on as PM until 2019, we shall leave the EU with a deal, the Remoaners will carry on presenting their opposition to democracy as common sense -and the betting markets will continue to get things specttacularly wrong -especially on election night next time.
And why isn't he subject to the benefit cap?
https://www.politico.eu/article/the-two-faces-of-emmanuel-macron/
Betting markets are like polls, indicators not certainties.
I actually agree with @Richard_Tyndall. Brexit could have been accomplished by better politicians, but the current cabinet are divided and incompetent, as well as lazy and mendacious.
David Davis has himself to blame for not doing his homework, May has the blame for allowing him to fart about for 18 months doing bugger all.
Polls -wrong as they sometimes are -are at least based on some kind of scientific methodology. Betting markets are based entirely on random and unscientific opinion -and as such are almost always wrong -except when, as in the case of Macron or Blair in 1997, they coincide with overwhelming scientific polling evidence.
Indeed, if betting markets were mostly right, then bookies would go out of business. Their profits are based entirely on the fact that what the markets think will happen rarely does.
Observe this in practice in the next few days, months and years. Contrary to the markets, a deal will probably be done, the UK will probably do well out of the EU, May will last longer than predicted, Corbyn will lose the next election.
The Leadbangers wouldn't have allowed it, they would have launched a Vote of No Confidence in his leadership.
Hell those Leadbangers were planning to trigger a Vote of No Confidence on June 24th even if Remain had won.
Dave took the view apart from it being a matter of honour that he had to resign, it was better for the Tory party if another Tory Leader/PM wasn't removed over the EU but went of his own volition.
An elected politician getting a majority in the House of Commons so they could remain PM was a mistake?
Well, its a view I suppose.
"I'd argue that Americans have more in common than Europeans. A shared language for starters. I'm not sure why you need to be in a political union in order to work together. "
Of course Europe has a shared language too - only trouble is it's English.
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/how-global-britain-is-helping-to-win-the-struggle-against-islamist-terror
Labour has been 50% in the polls before, such as in 1996, falling back at the real election. Remember that since WW2, Labour has only taken power from the Tories four times. And on each occasion Labour was at least 15 points ahead in the polls between elections. Twice out of those 4 times (64/74) that double digit lead was cut back to a knife-edge on election day.
Corbyn's failure to achieve a double digit lead now, even when the Tories are at the weakest and most vulnerable should worry him.
What's the main fear of being a constituent of the United States of Europe?
Is there something specific, or just a general dislike of being told what to do by a non-Brit? Is it about preserving a sense of Britishness, or a fear that we'd be impoverished by bureaucracy and socialist giveaways? A worry that NATO would collapse, or that that handwringing and indecision in the EU would give Putin and Erdogan free reign? Etc, etc.
Genuinely curious as to the answers, from remainers and leavers alike.
NEW THREAD
Why do I believe that the Tories will not become more weak? For the simple reason that Corbyn keeps them strong. If Labour were led by a credible leader with credible economic policies, I believe the Tories would collapse in the polls. But a very large number of people in this country, even though they would dearly love to see the back of the Tories, will cling to nurse for fear of finding something worse. This is why the Tory vote is holding up despite everything. The Tories will maintain support by default, because people are alienated by Corbyn. Most people cling to the Tory raft, even though it is threadbare because they fear the rocks of Corbyn.