Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Once again political gamblers have been overstating the chance
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Once again political gamblers have been overstating the chances of an early general election
Chart via the betdata.io
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
That sounds rather biblical...
And I like the idea of referring to inexperienced gamblers as puntets.
Does that go for the rest of us, as well as politicians?
I think a caligula was a small military sandal, a caliga was a medium, and a caligone was a big one (I stand to be corrected).
We could have puntigula, puntiga, and puntigone.
Or puntula, punta, puntone.
That Keen is a dodgy lawyer.
Clearly from the betting quite a lot of puntets are not fully aware of the implications of this...
And though 'punt' can be traced back to a Latin root, 'punter' is very definitely of English origin, so I'm afraid your potentially useful Latinate inventions aren't quite appropriate.
Still probably vote for them though, as a least bad option.
It's a gamble. She's betting on this being the new reality, not the old left/right economic axis. It might not work, but if she pulls it off ... it makes permanent the splits in Labour and Tory parties opened by Brexit.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/17/jo-swinson-urges-lib-dems-to-fight-populists-for-heart-and-soul-of-britain-brexit
At least the cameras seemed to be leaving Ed Davey alone.
It's not an easy act to pull off.
And staking out we need a grand vision like the architect of Westminster abbey did is the most cloying, ridiculous, year 10 debating society crap. Everybody believes they have vision, saying it doesn't make it somehow revolutionary.
Ah well, when they ditch the crappy history and tradition and name (and her) and become a proper centrist alliance I'll give them another look.
I know someone who was arrested by the police in 1989 or 90 for a scuffle with the police in a tube station entrance. (He reckoned the police started it, I'm not so sure). His solicitor said straightaway, they won't press charges for the smoking as no one had yet been sucessfuly prosecuted for it. The solicitor was right, the other charges were brought before the court, but not the smoking charge.
Could she then follow through by tabling a VONC against a Johnson led government whenever parliament resumes, if Corbyn fails to do so?
And if it resumes with Corbyn not Johnson as PM, will she support a VONC that the Conservatives bring against Corbyn?
https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1173965610847485952?s=20
That seems a rather reckless argument, which could be defeated by a single example of the courts ruling against the executive without explicit statutory authority.
Wouldn't the Gina Miller judgment be such an example? If not, what was the statute that the court invoked?
Alternatively, companies running their own transport fleets are going to let vehicles go without the right paperwork? Once or twice.
Madness to propagate the thought that our business community is stupid enough to send lorries and goods to a port without having required clearances. Sure small companies / individuals may make some cock ups, but I really do not have confidence that our entire road transport industry is completely negligent.
I would think there are other far more likely Brexit disasters. If these tailbacks don't materialise, what a success Brexit has been. Expectations management for after the event is important for both sides.
Different thing, but Lineker was awful when he started fronting MoTD, but grew into it. With politicians - May never had it, Cameron did, Kennedy did, Blair did, Johnson probably does (in a conference setting). I'm not old enough to remember early Thatcher - did she improve over time?
Only political obsessives like us listen to conference speeches anyway, so maybe it doesn't matter. Performing in a debate is more important now.
Those lads could well be moving it back into the truck in a few weeks...
I read that. Rather than got away with it.
(Although I did once get found Not Guilty by the magistrates despite having peaded guilty....)
It'll be surely be the most positive Liberal Democrat conference in years and that's all that matters.
A blocked Dover stuffs Ireland.
Of course, in the current climate, Alexander Johnson may ignore any VoNC completely. What does the law say ? Probably completely silent.
I agree the number of forms would be increased.
The Brexit policy, despite its misrepresentations by those not well disposed, is quite clear. Revocation only if the LDs win a Parliamentary majority at the next GE, otherwise support for a second referendum and the Party would campaign to Remain and obviously will continue to work with others to prevent a No Deal A50.
As far as the more domestic is concerned, no support for either a minority Johnson-led Conservative or Corbyn-led Labour Government (there's a nuance or too there I would say).
Of course, if a future Government were to Revoke there would be nothing to stop a later Government with an anti-EU majority re-applying to withdraw under A50 - I'd assume that would be the post-revocation policy of the Conservatives in Opposition.
However, that's not the point. The question is, would Swinson be true to her word by trying? Somehow I doubt it.
And the more important question, is would she dare go back on her commitment even before the GE by propping up Corbyn, for all the world to see?
a) Having the shits - I reckon if this had been a lay person and not Ferguson/Ferrari? using that excuse the magistrate would rightly have chucked it out.
b) Desperately needing your car more than anyone else - "Once found guilty with 12 pts.. "exceptional hardship m'lud"
If the government's argument now is that the courts can't limit the executive's power without explicit statutory authority, what was the statutory authority in the Gina Miller case?
Lord Keen is arguing before the same court that made the Gina Miller judgment.
My sensible proposal for the day. Include third party insurance on petrol and then make further car insurance optional.
With the correct paperwork they will be able to get through. It would seem a stretch to think that the correct paperwork will only be for a one way journey, unless you want to tie up your £100,000 truck, trailer and driver for loads of wasted hours.
Business mainly cares about business, not politics, so will be as ready as possible. Bosses might hate Brexit, but they aren't going to let it cause them problems just to help the Lib Dems' optics...
Will it all be smooth? Surely not, it's a ballache we could do without, but it absolutely won't be the hoped-for disaster of the hardcore Remainers.
Macron flips on immigration - now hes for toughening up regulations and stopping flows.
http://www.lefigaro.fr/politique/le-scan/decryptages/immigration-comment-macron-a-durci-son-discours-20190917
Obviously that will only work one way.
The Yellowhammer assessment was that the rate of flow of goods across the Channel could be more than halved.
Also I don't agree with your possible implication that the speed limit is set by people who are benevolent and wise and who deserve to be obeyed with reverence and gratitude for their kind management of our lives...
Another poster has said vote on a case by case basis. Which means a veto on his socialist nonsense. Sounds good to me.