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 next out of the cabinet betting

SystemSystem Posts: 8,258
edited June 28 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The next out of the cabinet betting

Ladbrokes have finally put up their next out of the cabinet market and to be honest there’s no value in backing Robert Jenrick. It truly is shameful how shameless Robert Jenrick and the Prime Minister are over this scandal. If Robert Jenrick was a humble councillor he’d had been forced out and facing much worse.

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 3,460
    Jenrick should have gone when he was the first to break the lockdown rules to flee to his second third home. He was safe because of the precedent that would create for Dominic Cummings and Boris himself. This may also be true of his various dealings with Richard Desmond, since the latter also seems to have interacted with the Prime Minister. To the extent Jenrick is Boris's human shield, then yes, we should look elsewhere.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 3,460
    Punters should carefully check the dead heat (or reshuffle) rules. Most bookmakers settle all ministers who leave on the same day as a dead heat but one or two (and here my memory fails me) settle on the first announced departure.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 3,460
    At the tail end of the previous thread, @rcs1000 made a brief case for Tammy Duckworth to be Sleepy Joe's VP nominee. Fwiw (very little!), I concur that she does look a viable contender.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 3,460
    Back on topic. It has been rumoured that we will learn more of Dominic Cummings' "hard rain" Whitehall revolution next week, so it is quite possible the next Cabinet Minister to leave will be one whose department disappears from underneath him or her. However, so far speculation is only that Cabinet Secretary Sir Mark Sedwill is to be ousted.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/06/27/sir-mark-sedwill-pm-oust-uks-senior-civil-servant-whitehall/

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 31,378

    Back on topic. It has been rumoured that we will learn more of Dominic Cummings' "hard rain" Whitehall revolution next week, so it is quite possible the next Cabinet Minister to leave will be one whose department disappears from underneath him or her. However, so far speculation is only that Cabinet Secretary Sir Mark Sedwill is to be ousted.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/06/27/sir-mark-sedwill-pm-oust-uks-senior-civil-servant-whitehall/

    Cummings is a well known Pink Floyd fan, so how about Gavin Williamson?
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 2,958
    This market is missing from the Ladbrokes site. What price the purple-faced Alister Jack? He is absolutely hopeless. Not that being hopeless is any kind of USP in this market.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 3,460
    The real scandal of the Ladbrokes market is the use of 3/2 to show the price traditionally written as 6/4.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 2,958
    Shadsy also has prices up for Next First Minister. Kate Forbes strikes me as being very short indeed at 4/1. Does Shadsy have some inside info? I know Forbes well (she represents an area I have strong connections with), and I admire her, but she is still young and relatively untested. 4/1 just strikes me as being far too short.

    If you’re looking for a longer-odds tip, I like the look of Andrew Wilson at 33/1. An outstanding personality within the independence movement, the former MSP is (unusually for SNP figures) widely respected and admired throughout the Scottish establishment: business, finance sector, media, academia, civil society and even among the other political parties. But the key problem is that I am not aware that he is even standing next year? If he doesn’t, it’s very hard to see how he can build his internal base sufficiently in time to replace Sturgeon.

    Looking at the top Unionist candidates, Richard Leonard (SLab) has shortened to 16/1, presumably on the back of the Starmer effect? But Leonard himself is universally regarded as a figure of ridicule, not least within his own party; and the SLD’s wouldn’t touch him with a bargepole. Jackson Carlaw (SCon) remains 25/1. That is way too short. The Scottish Labour and Liberal Democrat parties would implode if their leaderships ever tried to install the hapless Tory as first minister. Carlaw would be poor value at 50/1. Not quite sure why Shadsy is still listing Ruth Davidson at 20/1, shorter than her successor? She is retiring from parliament next year.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 18,829

    Shadsy also has prices up for Next First Minister. Kate Forbes strikes me as being very short indeed at 4/1. Does Shadsy have some inside info? I know Forbes well (she represents an area I have strong connections with), and I admire her, but she is still young and relatively untested. 4/1 just strikes me as being far too short.

    If you’re looking for a longer-odds tip, I like the look of Andrew Wilson at 33/1. An outstanding personality within the independence movement, the former MSP is (unusually for SNP figures) widely respected and admired throughout the Scottish establishment: business, finance sector, media, academia, civil society and even among the other political parties. But the key problem is that I am not aware that he is even standing next year? If he doesn’t, it’s very hard to see how he can build his internal base sufficiently in time to replace Sturgeon.

    Looking at the top Unionist candidates, Richard Leonard (SLab) has shortened to 16/1, presumably on the back of the Starmer effect? But Leonard himself is universally regarded as a figure of ridicule, not least within his own party; and the SLD’s wouldn’t touch him with a bargepole. Jackson Carlaw (SCon) remains 25/1. That is way too short. The Scottish Labour and Liberal Democrat parties would implode if their leaderships ever tried to install the hapless Tory as first minister. Carlaw would be poor value at 50/1. Not quite sure why Shadsy is still listing Ruth Davidson at 20/1, shorter than her successor? She is retiring from parliament next year.

    'Not quite sure why Shadsy is still listing Ruth Davidson at 20/1, shorter than her successor? She is retiring from parliament next year'

    If a week is a long time in politics, a year......?
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 2,958

    Shadsy also has prices up for Next First Minister. Kate Forbes strikes me as being very short indeed at 4/1. Does Shadsy have some inside info? I know Forbes well (she represents an area I have strong connections with), and I admire her, but she is still young and relatively untested. 4/1 just strikes me as being far too short.

    If you’re looking for a longer-odds tip, I like the look of Andrew Wilson at 33/1. An outstanding personality within the independence movement, the former MSP is (unusually for SNP figures) widely respected and admired throughout the Scottish establishment: business, finance sector, media, academia, civil society and even among the other political parties. But the key problem is that I am not aware that he is even standing next year? If he doesn’t, it’s very hard to see how he can build his internal base sufficiently in time to replace Sturgeon.

    Looking at the top Unionist candidates, Richard Leonard (SLab) has shortened to 16/1, presumably on the back of the Starmer effect? But Leonard himself is universally regarded as a figure of ridicule, not least within his own party; and the SLD’s wouldn’t touch him with a bargepole. Jackson Carlaw (SCon) remains 25/1. That is way too short. The Scottish Labour and Liberal Democrat parties would implode if their leaderships ever tried to install the hapless Tory as first minister. Carlaw would be poor value at 50/1. Not quite sure why Shadsy is still listing Ruth Davidson at 20/1, shorter than her successor? She is retiring from parliament next year.

    'Not quite sure why Shadsy is still listing Ruth Davidson at 20/1, shorter than her successor? She is retiring from parliament next year'

    If a week is a long time in politics, a year......?
    A fun speculation! I would welcome a return for the combative Davidson. At least she had a bit of spunk. The Unionist benches really are very pale and tepid. There is very little fight and lust for debate and engagement. It is becoming increasingly obvious that when the next independence referendum is held, the Unionist forces are so exhausted and depleted that the BetterTogether2 campaign is going to be a London-run effort. That would be disastrous for the No side, sending out all the wrong signals.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 20,573

    Shadsy also has prices up for Next First Minister. Kate Forbes strikes me as being very short indeed at 4/1. Does Shadsy have some inside info? I know Forbes well (she represents an area I have strong connections with), and I admire her, but she is still young and relatively untested. 4/1 just strikes me as being far too short.

    If you’re looking for a longer-odds tip, I like the look of Andrew Wilson at 33/1. An outstanding personality within the independence movement, the former MSP is (unusually for SNP figures) widely respected and admired throughout the Scottish establishment: business, finance sector, media, academia, civil society and even among the other political parties. But the key problem is that I am not aware that he is even standing next year? If he doesn’t, it’s very hard to see how he can build his internal base sufficiently in time to replace Sturgeon.

    Looking at the top Unionist candidates, Richard Leonard (SLab) has shortened to 16/1, presumably on the back of the Starmer effect? But Leonard himself is universally regarded as a figure of ridicule, not least within his own party; and the SLD’s wouldn’t touch him with a bargepole. Jackson Carlaw (SCon) remains 25/1. That is way too short. The Scottish Labour and Liberal Democrat parties would implode if their leaderships ever tried to install the hapless Tory as first minister. Carlaw would be poor value at 50/1. Not quite sure why Shadsy is still listing Ruth Davidson at 20/1, shorter than her successor? She is retiring from parliament next year.

    'Not quite sure why Shadsy is still listing Ruth Davidson at 20/1, shorter than her successor? She is retiring from parliament next year'

    If a week is a long time in politics, a year......?
    A fun speculation! I would welcome a return for the combative Davidson. At least she had a bit of spunk. The Unionist benches really are very pale and tepid. There is very little fight and lust for debate and engagement. It is becoming increasingly obvious that when the next independence referendum is held, the Unionist forces are so exhausted and depleted that the BetterTogether2 campaign is going to be a London-run effort. That would be disastrous for the No side, sending out all the wrong signals.
    She has been more noisy lately, eg:



    I wonder if she's looked at the post Covid 'celebrity politician with a bit of political lobbying' landscape and decided it's a bit bleak?
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 2,958

    Shadsy also has prices up for Next First Minister. Kate Forbes strikes me as being very short indeed at 4/1. Does Shadsy have some inside info? I know Forbes well (she represents an area I have strong connections with), and I admire her, but she is still young and relatively untested. 4/1 just strikes me as being far too short.

    If you’re looking for a longer-odds tip, I like the look of Andrew Wilson at 33/1. An outstanding personality within the independence movement, the former MSP is (unusually for SNP figures) widely respected and admired throughout the Scottish establishment: business, finance sector, media, academia, civil society and even among the other political parties. But the key problem is that I am not aware that he is even standing next year? If he doesn’t, it’s very hard to see how he can build his internal base sufficiently in time to replace Sturgeon.

    Looking at the top Unionist candidates, Richard Leonard (SLab) has shortened to 16/1, presumably on the back of the Starmer effect? But Leonard himself is universally regarded as a figure of ridicule, not least within his own party; and the SLD’s wouldn’t touch him with a bargepole. Jackson Carlaw (SCon) remains 25/1. That is way too short. The Scottish Labour and Liberal Democrat parties would implode if their leaderships ever tried to install the hapless Tory as first minister. Carlaw would be poor value at 50/1. Not quite sure why Shadsy is still listing Ruth Davidson at 20/1, shorter than her successor? She is retiring from parliament next year.

    'Not quite sure why Shadsy is still listing Ruth Davidson at 20/1, shorter than her successor? She is retiring from parliament next year'

    If a week is a long time in politics, a year......?
    A fun speculation! I would welcome a return for the combative Davidson. At least she had a bit of spunk. The Unionist benches really are very pale and tepid. There is very little fight and lust for debate and engagement. It is becoming increasingly obvious that when the next independence referendum is held, the Unionist forces are so exhausted and depleted that the BetterTogether2 campaign is going to be a London-run effort. That would be disastrous for the No side, sending out all the wrong signals.
    She has been more noisy lately, eg:



    I wonder if she's looked at the post Covid 'celebrity politician with a bit of political lobbying' landscape and decided it's a bit bleak?
    Fun Ruthie speculation II. I like a pattern...

    Nice to see the mighty Ruth defending Boris’ useless floppy arse. Quite literally.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 22,334
    Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Back on topic. It has been rumoured that we will learn more of Dominic Cummings' "hard rain" Whitehall revolution next week, so it is quite possible the next Cabinet Minister to leave will be one whose department disappears from underneath him or her. However, so far speculation is only that Cabinet Secretary Sir Mark Sedwill is to be ousted.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/06/27/sir-mark-sedwill-pm-oust-uks-senior-civil-servant-whitehall/

    Cummings is a well known Pink Floyd fan, so how about Gavin Williamson?
    That explains his time working for Gove. We don't need no education.
    :smile:
    What do you make of this, @Foxy ?
    (If nothing else, I learned a new word...)

    Coronaviruses Induce Entry-Independent, Continuous Macropinocytosis

    https://mbio.asm.org/content/5/4/e01340-14
    ... Macropinocytosis can occur in polarized cells (42) and could represent a novel mechanism of virus cell-to-cell spreading over tight junctions within airway epithelium. Viral spreading in this manner has several advantages over viral spreading via exocytosis, specifically, immune evasion, concentration of reagents, speed, and the capacity to circumvent physical barriers. Increasing the size and duration of plasma membrane extensions could increase opportunities for interactions with adjacent or distant cells.

    Our results also show that expression of cleaved, fusogenic spike protein on the cell surface is necessary to induce macropinocytosis, whether by furin-mediated cleavage in the cell or by exogenous cleavage by trypsin on the cell surface. Induction of macropinocytosis also requires EGFR activation and signaling through the known macropinocytosis cellular pathway. On the basis of our results, we propose a model in which fusogenic spike protein on the plasma membrane results in EGFR activation, leading to a signaling cascade that manifests as increased membrane ruffling and filopodium formation to facilitate cell-cell fusion and virus spread....
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 26,675

    Shadsy also has prices up for Next First Minister. Kate Forbes strikes me as being very short indeed at 4/1. Does Shadsy have some inside info? I know Forbes well (she represents an area I have strong connections with), and I admire her, but she is still young and relatively untested. 4/1 just strikes me as being far too short.

    If you’re looking for a longer-odds tip, I like the look of Andrew Wilson at 33/1. An outstanding personality within the independence movement, the former MSP is (unusually for SNP figures) widely respected and admired throughout the Scottish establishment: business, finance sector, media, academia, civil society and even among the other political parties. But the key problem is that I am not aware that he is even standing next year? If he doesn’t, it’s very hard to see how he can build his internal base sufficiently in time to replace Sturgeon.

    Looking at the top Unionist candidates, Richard Leonard (SLab) has shortened to 16/1, presumably on the back of the Starmer effect? But Leonard himself is universally regarded as a figure of ridicule, not least within his own party; and the SLD’s wouldn’t touch him with a bargepole. Jackson Carlaw (SCon) remains 25/1. That is way too short. The Scottish Labour and Liberal Democrat parties would implode if their leaderships ever tried to install the hapless Tory as first minister. Carlaw would be poor value at 50/1. Not quite sure why Shadsy is still listing Ruth Davidson at 20/1, shorter than her successor? She is retiring from parliament next year.

    It depends whether the Nats think they can lever a referendum within the tenure of the next leader. If so they have to go for the most inspirational figure they have, ready to gamble everything on the next vote; it won’t be any good to pick a technocrat. On the other hand if they anticipate years of dull grind and cat and mouse with London, someone with more down to earth political skills would be called for.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 2,958
    Astonishingly good figures for Sturgeon there, considering that this is a Great Britain-wide poll. She clearly has an awful lot of admirers in England. Rightly so.

    The winner of the Next First Minister market depends largely on when Sturgeon decides to go.

    There is of course the issue of what Ladbrokes and other bookies would do if the job title changes. That could be pre- or post-independence, or in conjunction with it. The office of First Minister of Norway was changed to Prime Minister of Norway 27 years prior to their successful independence referendum in 1905. On the other hand, even when independent, Scots could decide to keep the name of the office as First Minister, which has the advantage of familiarity. The job title is far less important than the substantive powers.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 26,620

    The real scandal of the Ladbrokes market is the use of 3/2 to show the price traditionally written as 6/4.

    Bet they’d write 100/30 as 10/3 too.

    As for the market, I’m guessing we’ll be getting an autumn reshuffle so probably a dead heat with value on the current outsiders. Jenrick seems to have convinced the PM for now, so unless there’s more to the story we don’t know yet, he’s probably safe. Johnson seems to be following the Cameron approach of avoiding losing anyone if he can help it.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 7,673
    rcs1000 said:

    Back on topic. It has been rumoured that we will learn more of Dominic Cummings' "hard rain" Whitehall revolution next week, so it is quite possible the next Cabinet Minister to leave will be one whose department disappears from underneath him or her. However, so far speculation is only that Cabinet Secretary Sir Mark Sedwill is to be ousted.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/06/27/sir-mark-sedwill-pm-oust-uks-senior-civil-servant-whitehall/

    Cummings is a well known Pink Floyd fan, so how about Gavin Williamson?
    Why not? He's just another brick in the wall.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 3,599

    Why not? He's just another brick in the wall.

    Oh, brick...
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 22,334
    Long and interesting Politico article.

    ‘I’m Tired of Being the Help’
    https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/06/24/letter-to-washington-grosse-pointe-woods-325641
    In suburban Detroit, a cookout full of Democratic voters bubbles into outrage, frustration at being taken for granted—and certainty that 2020 is in the bag for Trump.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 29,154
    edited June 28

    Astonishingly good figures for Sturgeon there, considering that this is a Great Britain-wide poll. She clearly has an awful lot of admirers in England. Rightly so.

    The winner of the Next First Minister market depends largely on when Sturgeon decides to go.

    There is of course the issue of what Ladbrokes and other bookies would do if the job title changes. That could be pre- or post-independence, or in conjunction with it. The office of First Minister of Norway was changed to Prime Minister of Norway 27 years prior to their successful independence referendum in 1905. On the other hand, even when independent, Scots could decide to keep the name of the office as First Minister, which has the advantage of familiarity. The job title is far less important than the substantive powers.
    Norway and Sweden were in a personal rather than political Union under the crown of Sweden after 1873 (not 1878). That change was the reason why the title changed (and the location of the office, which was previously in Stockholm not Oslo). Scotland and England are in one United Kingdom. The parallel doesn’t work.

    Or to put it another way, do you really think Boris Johnson or even Keir Starmer will be willing to put forward and pass legislation that would change the statutory office of First Minister established under Section 44 of the Scotland Act 1998, that would further the SNP narrative they both reject?
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 7,673
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 8,382
    Let's keep doing that.
    "Donald Trump knows he's losing."
    https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/27/trump-losing-2020-election-342326
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 22,334
    Sandpit said:

    The real scandal of the Ladbrokes market is the use of 3/2 to show the price traditionally written as 6/4.

    Bet they’d write 100/30 as 10/3 too.

    As for the market, I’m guessing we’ll be getting an autumn reshuffle so probably a dead heat with value on the current outsiders. Jenrick seems to have convinced the PM for now, so unless there’s more to the story we don’t know yet, he’s probably safe. Johnson seems to be following the Cameron approach of avoiding losing anyone if he can help it.
    Is the move to the lowest common denominator thanks to the growth of online betting, and use of calculators ? If you’re not doing it in your head, the utility of the same denominator is reduced.

    Agree about the market, and much as Williamson deserves the boot, it’s unclear that he’ll get it. If Johnson gave a damn, he wouldn’t have appointed him in the first place.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 2,958
    ydoethur said:

    Astonishingly good figures for Sturgeon there, considering that this is a Great Britain-wide poll. She clearly has an awful lot of admirers in England. Rightly so.

    The winner of the Next First Minister market depends largely on when Sturgeon decides to go.

    There is of course the issue of what Ladbrokes and other bookies would do if the job title changes. That could be pre- or post-independence, or in conjunction with it. The office of First Minister of Norway was changed to Prime Minister of Norway 27 years prior to their successful independence referendum in 1905. On the other hand, even when independent, Scots could decide to keep the name of the office as First Minister, which has the advantage of familiarity. The job title is far less important than the substantive powers.
    Norway and Sweden were in a personal rather than political Union under the crown of Sweden after 1873 (not 1878). That change was the reason why the title changed (and the location of the office, which was previously in Stockholm not Oslo). Scotland and England are in one United Kingdom. The parallel doesn’t work.

    Or to put it another way, do you really think Boris Johnson or even Keir Starmer will be willing to put forward and pass legislation that would change the statutory office of First Minister established under Section 44 of the Scotland Act 1998, that would further the SNP narrative they both reject?
    “one United Kingdom”

    Ho ho.

    I’m a big fan of the Johnson/Starmer Jock-bashing axis: they have both decided to simply keep building the dam higher and higher, as the weight of water behind the crumbling, ill-designed structure just keeps getting greater and greater. Tony Blair was no structural engineer, and his blueprint to “kill nationalism stone dead” has so enraged British Nationalists that they have set themselves on an irreversible course to destroying the thing they claim to love.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 7,673
    Scott_xP said:

    Why not? He's just another brick in the wall.

    Oh, brick...
    Yes, Scott. This is a family site.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 29,154

    ydoethur said:

    Astonishingly good figures for Sturgeon there, considering that this is a Great Britain-wide poll. She clearly has an awful lot of admirers in England. Rightly so.

    The winner of the Next First Minister market depends largely on when Sturgeon decides to go.

    There is of course the issue of what Ladbrokes and other bookies would do if the job title changes. That could be pre- or post-independence, or in conjunction with it. The office of First Minister of Norway was changed to Prime Minister of Norway 27 years prior to their successful independence referendum in 1905. On the other hand, even when independent, Scots could decide to keep the name of the office as First Minister, which has the advantage of familiarity. The job title is far less important than the substantive powers.
    Norway and Sweden were in a personal rather than political Union under the crown of Sweden after 1873 (not 1878). That change was the reason why the title changed (and the location of the office, which was previously in Stockholm not Oslo). Scotland and England are in one United Kingdom. The parallel doesn’t work.

    Or to put it another way, do you really think Boris Johnson or even Keir Starmer will be willing to put forward and pass legislation that would change the statutory office of First Minister established under Section 44 of the Scotland Act 1998, that would further the SNP narrative they both reject?
    “one United Kingdom”

    Ho ho.

    I’m a big fan of the Johnson/Starmer Jock-bashing axis: they have both decided to simply keep building the dam higher and higher, as the weight of water behind the crumbling, ill-designed structure just keeps getting greater and greater. Tony Blair was no structural engineer, and his blueprint to “kill nationalism stone dead” has so enraged British Nationalists that they have set themselves on an irreversible course to destroying the thing they claim to love.
    Are you saying Scotland is not part of the United Kingdom?

    If so, I fear I have some disappointing news from 2014 for you.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 22,334
    A 1% (or thereabouts) fatality rate which greatly skews towards the elderly is not going to have much evolutionary effect.
    Politically, perhaps.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 29,154
    Sandpit said:

    The real scandal of the Ladbrokes market is the use of 3/2 to show the price traditionally written as 6/4.

    Bet they’d write 100/30 as 10/3 too.

    As for the market, I’m guessing we’ll be getting an autumn reshuffle so probably a dead heat with value on the current outsiders. Jenrick seems to have convinced the PM for now, so unless there’s more to the story we don’t know yet, he’s probably safe. Johnson seems to be following the Cameron approach of avoiding losing anyone if he can help it.
    Wait till they try and regularise 100-6.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 29,154
    Nigelb said:

    A 1% (or thereabouts) fatality rate which greatly skews towards the elderly is not going to have much evolutionary effect.
    Politically, perhaps.
    If Donald Trump catches it, definitely.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 26,675
    Nigelb said:

    A 1% (or thereabouts) fatality rate which greatly skews towards the elderly is not going to have much evolutionary effect.
    Politically, perhaps.
    But over millions of years....
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 7,673
    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    The real scandal of the Ladbrokes market is the use of 3/2 to show the price traditionally written as 6/4.

    Bet they’d write 100/30 as 10/3 too.

    As for the market, I’m guessing we’ll be getting an autumn reshuffle so probably a dead heat with value on the current outsiders. Jenrick seems to have convinced the PM for now, so unless there’s more to the story we don’t know yet, he’s probably safe. Johnson seems to be following the Cameron approach of avoiding losing anyone if he can help it.
    Wait till they try and regularise 100-6.
    Ah how I pine for the days when you could ask for 16/1 and the fractions.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 29,154
    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    The real scandal of the Ladbrokes market is the use of 3/2 to show the price traditionally written as 6/4.

    Bet they’d write 100/30 as 10/3 too.

    As for the market, I’m guessing we’ll be getting an autumn reshuffle so probably a dead heat with value on the current outsiders. Jenrick seems to have convinced the PM for now, so unless there’s more to the story we don’t know yet, he’s probably safe. Johnson seems to be following the Cameron approach of avoiding losing anyone if he can help it.
    Is the move to the lowest common denominator thanks to the growth of online betting, and use of calculators ? If you’re not doing it in your head, the utility of the same denominator is reduced.

    Agree about the market, and much as Williamson deserves the boot, it’s unclear that he’ll get it. If Johnson gave a damn, he wouldn’t have appointed him in the first place.
    Johnson cannot allow the idea that being utterly incompetent is a bar from high office.

    Where would that leave him, or Cummings, or Raab?
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 2,958
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Astonishingly good figures for Sturgeon there, considering that this is a Great Britain-wide poll. She clearly has an awful lot of admirers in England. Rightly so.

    The winner of the Next First Minister market depends largely on when Sturgeon decides to go.

    There is of course the issue of what Ladbrokes and other bookies would do if the job title changes. That could be pre- or post-independence, or in conjunction with it. The office of First Minister of Norway was changed to Prime Minister of Norway 27 years prior to their successful independence referendum in 1905. On the other hand, even when independent, Scots could decide to keep the name of the office as First Minister, which has the advantage of familiarity. The job title is far less important than the substantive powers.
    Norway and Sweden were in a personal rather than political Union under the crown of Sweden after 1873 (not 1878). That change was the reason why the title changed (and the location of the office, which was previously in Stockholm not Oslo). Scotland and England are in one United Kingdom. The parallel doesn’t work.

    Or to put it another way, do you really think Boris Johnson or even Keir Starmer will be willing to put forward and pass legislation that would change the statutory office of First Minister established under Section 44 of the Scotland Act 1998, that would further the SNP narrative they both reject?
    “one United Kingdom”

    Ho ho.

    I’m a big fan of the Johnson/Starmer Jock-bashing axis: they have both decided to simply keep building the dam higher and higher, as the weight of water behind the crumbling, ill-designed structure just keeps getting greater and greater. Tony Blair was no structural engineer, and his blueprint to “kill nationalism stone dead” has so enraged British Nationalists that they have set themselves on an irreversible course to destroying the thing they claim to love.
    Are you saying Scotland is not part of the United Kingdom?
    Intellectually: no.

    Emotionally: no.

    Technically: kind of.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 2,958
    IanB2 said:

    Nigelb said:

    A 1% (or thereabouts) fatality rate which greatly skews towards the elderly is not going to have much evolutionary effect.
    Politically, perhaps.
    But over millions of years....
    The U.S.A. won’t exist in a million years. It’ll barely even merit a mention in the footnotes.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 29,154

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Astonishingly good figures for Sturgeon there, considering that this is a Great Britain-wide poll. She clearly has an awful lot of admirers in England. Rightly so.

    The winner of the Next First Minister market depends largely on when Sturgeon decides to go.

    There is of course the issue of what Ladbrokes and other bookies would do if the job title changes. That could be pre- or post-independence, or in conjunction with it. The office of First Minister of Norway was changed to Prime Minister of Norway 27 years prior to their successful independence referendum in 1905. On the other hand, even when independent, Scots could decide to keep the name of the office as First Minister, which has the advantage of familiarity. The job title is far less important than the substantive powers.
    Norway and Sweden were in a personal rather than political Union under the crown of Sweden after 1873 (not 1878). That change was the reason why the title changed (and the location of the office, which was previously in Stockholm not Oslo). Scotland and England are in one United Kingdom. The parallel doesn’t work.

    Or to put it another way, do you really think Boris Johnson or even Keir Starmer will be willing to put forward and pass legislation that would change the statutory office of First Minister established under Section 44 of the Scotland Act 1998, that would further the SNP narrative they both reject?
    “one United Kingdom”

    Ho ho.

    I’m a big fan of the Johnson/Starmer Jock-bashing axis: they have both decided to simply keep building the dam higher and higher, as the weight of water behind the crumbling, ill-designed structure just keeps getting greater and greater. Tony Blair was no structural engineer, and his blueprint to “kill nationalism stone dead” has so enraged British Nationalists that they have set themselves on an irreversible course to destroying the thing they claim to love.
    Are you saying Scotland is not part of the United Kingdom?
    Intellectually: no.

    Emotionally: no.

    Technically: kind of.
    Yet in 2014 55% of actual Scottish voters disagreed. And since then there is no metric other than a few MoE polls to suggest a substantial shift.

    Try not to confuse wishful thinking from the safe(ish) distance of Sweden with reality.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 3,599

    Intellectually: no.

    Emotionally: no.

    From someone who loves Scotland so much he left...
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 2,958
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Astonishingly good figures for Sturgeon there, considering that this is a Great Britain-wide poll. She clearly has an awful lot of admirers in England. Rightly so.

    The winner of the Next First Minister market depends largely on when Sturgeon decides to go.

    There is of course the issue of what Ladbrokes and other bookies would do if the job title changes. That could be pre- or post-independence, or in conjunction with it. The office of First Minister of Norway was changed to Prime Minister of Norway 27 years prior to their successful independence referendum in 1905. On the other hand, even when independent, Scots could decide to keep the name of the office as First Minister, which has the advantage of familiarity. The job title is far less important than the substantive powers.
    Norway and Sweden were in a personal rather than political Union under the crown of Sweden after 1873 (not 1878). That change was the reason why the title changed (and the location of the office, which was previously in Stockholm not Oslo). Scotland and England are in one United Kingdom. The parallel doesn’t work.

    Or to put it another way, do you really think Boris Johnson or even Keir Starmer will be willing to put forward and pass legislation that would change the statutory office of First Minister established under Section 44 of the Scotland Act 1998, that would further the SNP narrative they both reject?
    “one United Kingdom”

    Ho ho.

    I’m a big fan of the Johnson/Starmer Jock-bashing axis: they have both decided to simply keep building the dam higher and higher, as the weight of water behind the crumbling, ill-designed structure just keeps getting greater and greater. Tony Blair was no structural engineer, and his blueprint to “kill nationalism stone dead” has so enraged British Nationalists that they have set themselves on an irreversible course to destroying the thing they claim to love.
    Are you saying Scotland is not part of the United Kingdom?
    Intellectually: no.

    Emotionally: no.

    Technically: kind of.
    Yet in 2014 55% of actual Scottish voters disagreed. And since then there is no metric other than a few MoE polls to suggest a substantial shift.

    Try not to confuse wishful thinking from the safe(ish) distance of Sweden with reality.
    55% of people resident in Scotland, which is not quite the same thing.

    Personally, I’d prefer zero polling on this topic. The shock when the reality hits home as the dam collapses...
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 3,599

    The shock when the reality hits home as the dam collapses...

    Does it look like this?


  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 26,620
    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    The real scandal of the Ladbrokes market is the use of 3/2 to show the price traditionally written as 6/4.

    Bet they’d write 100/30 as 10/3 too.

    As for the market, I’m guessing we’ll be getting an autumn reshuffle so probably a dead heat with value on the current outsiders. Jenrick seems to have convinced the PM for now, so unless there’s more to the story we don’t know yet, he’s probably safe. Johnson seems to be following the Cameron approach of avoiding losing anyone if he can help it.
    Is the move to the lowest common denominator thanks to the growth of online betting, and use of calculators ? If you’re not doing it in your head, the utility of the same denominator is reduced.

    Agree about the market, and much as Williamson deserves the boot, it’s unclear that he’ll get it. If Johnson gave a damn, he wouldn’t have appointed him in the first place.
    Talking of markets, finally we get the first Grand Prix of the season next weekend
    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/motor-sport/event/28778956/multi-market?marketIds=1.170627277
    Lots of unknowns, but Valtteri at 8 looks like the value in the win market.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 13,176
    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    A 1% (or thereabouts) fatality rate which greatly skews towards the elderly is not going to have much evolutionary effect.
    Politically, perhaps.
    If Donald Trump catches it, definitely.
    Has @Dura_Ace's competition resulted in a winner, just asking?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 26,675

    IanB2 said:

    Nigelb said:

    A 1% (or thereabouts) fatality rate which greatly skews towards the elderly is not going to have much evolutionary effect.
    Politically, perhaps.
    But over millions of years....
    The U.S.A. won’t exist in a million years. It’ll barely even merit a mention in the footnotes.
    Rather glibly assuming that footnotes will still be around, there?
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 14,933
    I am assuming that the Dems will get a lesser convention bounce than the GOP (assuming the convention actually goes ahead) and will be aligning my book on that assumption.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 22,334
    edited June 28
    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    The real scandal of the Ladbrokes market is the use of 3/2 to show the price traditionally written as 6/4.

    Bet they’d write 100/30 as 10/3 too.

    As for the market, I’m guessing we’ll be getting an autumn reshuffle so probably a dead heat with value on the current outsiders. Jenrick seems to have convinced the PM for now, so unless there’s more to the story we don’t know yet, he’s probably safe. Johnson seems to be following the Cameron approach of avoiding losing anyone if he can help it.
    Is the move to the lowest common denominator thanks to the growth of online betting, and use of calculators ? If you’re not doing it in your head, the utility of the same denominator is reduced.

    Agree about the market, and much as Williamson deserves the boot, it’s unclear that he’ll get it. If Johnson gave a damn, he wouldn’t have appointed him in the first place.
    Talking of markets, finally we get the first Grand Prix of the season next weekend
    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/motor-sport/event/28778956/multi-market?marketIds=1.170627277
    Lots of unknowns, but Valtteri at 8 looks like the value in the win market.
    Thanks for pointing that out. Tempted.

    (Though Hamilton has form in being quick straight away, and given the long lay-off should be the overwhelming favourite.)
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 29,154
    edited June 28

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Astonishingly good figures for Sturgeon there, considering that this is a Great Britain-wide poll. She clearly has an awful lot of admirers in England. Rightly so.

    The winner of the Next First Minister market depends largely on when Sturgeon decides to go.

    There is of course the issue of what Ladbrokes and other bookies would do if the job title changes. That could be pre- or post-independence, or in conjunction with it. The office of First Minister of Norway was changed to Prime Minister of Norway 27 years prior to their successful independence referendum in 1905. On the other hand, even when independent, Scots could decide to keep the name of the office as First Minister, which has the advantage of familiarity. The job title is far less important than the substantive powers.
    Norway and Sweden were in a personal rather than political Union under the crown of Sweden after 1873 (not 1878). That change was the reason why the title changed (and the location of the office, which was previously in Stockholm not Oslo). Scotland and England are in one United Kingdom. The parallel doesn’t work.

    Or to put it another way, do you really think Boris Johnson or even Keir Starmer will be willing to put forward and pass legislation that would change the statutory office of First Minister established under Section 44 of the Scotland Act 1998, that would further the SNP narrative they both reject?
    “one United Kingdom”

    Ho ho.

    I’m a big fan of the Johnson/Starmer Jock-bashing axis: they have both decided to simply keep building the dam higher and higher, as the weight of water behind the crumbling, ill-designed structure just keeps getting greater and greater. Tony Blair was no structural engineer, and his blueprint to “kill nationalism stone dead” has so enraged British Nationalists that they have set themselves on an irreversible course to destroying the thing they claim to love.
    Are you saying Scotland is not part of the United Kingdom?
    Intellectually: no.

    Emotionally: no.

    Technically: kind of.
    Yet in 2014 55% of actual Scottish voters disagreed. And since then there is no metric other than a few MoE polls to suggest a substantial shift.

    Try not to confuse wishful thinking from the safe(ish) distance of Sweden with reality.
    55% of people resident in Scotland, which is not quite the same thing.

    Personally, I’d prefer zero polling on this topic. The shock when the reality hits home as the dam collapses...
    Umm, Scottish voters are ‘people resident in Scotland.’ That’s why they have, y’know, votes in Scotland.

    The problem for Scottish independence is that while its supporters are becoming more strident the actual issues have, if anything, moved the fundamentals against them.

    In 2014 there were serious doubts as to whether Scotland could remain in the EU, which was vital to the economic case for independence. Now, we know it wouldn’t be in the EU and would have to apply under article 49, a long process.

    In 2014, there was a strong government with substantial Scottish representation in Westminster, which had worked effectively with the SNP to deliver a referendum that everyone agrees was free, fair and democratic, although some quibbles about the franchise and its extent remain. It was a government that could be expected to negotiate a divorce on a reasonable basis, in good faith. Now, we have a factional, divisive and populist English dominated government led by an unstable liar whose skills in negotiations are zero, and because of that, would not negotiate at all. His response would be, ‘independence? Fine. Sod off. Enjoy the border checks at Gretna.’

    The oil price is on the floor and may never recover fully.

    The pound, leaving aside its own serious issues, is being debased to support the government of the UK, and the Euro continues to be a mess, so the currency situation would still be unclear.

    The SNP itself is divided and the Salmond saga is far from over. It may bring down Sturgeon. More likely it simply becomes a festering sore that taints a government noted for its patriotism but not for its executive ability.

    Does that mean a referendum on independence would vote no again? Well, no, not for certain. Often these things are about emotion rather than reason (Brexit and perhaps more pertinently, the Irish Free State wave hello). And the mere fact the UK government is so unpopular in Scotland in itself does probably have an impact.

    But there is no sign of a shift from 45-55 to the 60-40 that would probably be needed to call a referendum in the expectation of winning it. I strongly suspect, indeed, that if Sturgeon had thought May or Johnson would have granted her a referendum she wouldn’t have called for one, as a second ‘No’ really would kill independence and possibly the SNP stone dead.

    Personally, I wonder if this all isn’t irrelevant anyway, as I think the age of the nation state (and there I include the EU) may be drawing to an end for other reasons. But I personally would be surprised if Scotland were to become independent in the next ten years. Not shocked, not dying of a heart attack, but surprised.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 3,599
    Alistair said:

    I am assuming that the Dems will get a lesser convention bounce than the GOP (assuming the convention actually goes ahead) and will be aligning my book on that assumption.

    A lesser bounce in infections, certainly
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 5,056

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    A 1% (or thereabouts) fatality rate which greatly skews towards the elderly is not going to have much evolutionary effect.
    Politically, perhaps.
    If Donald Trump catches it, definitely.
    Has @Dura_Ace's competition resulted in a winner, just asking?
    Nope. @Paristonda came close with Johnson. If Trump gets it we might as well start engraving your name on the trophy as there is (hopefully) no way the fat fuck will survive it.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 4,288
    Scott_xP said:

    Sandpit said:

    Jenrick seems to have convinced the PM for now, so unless there’s more to the story we don’t know yet, he’s probably safe. Johnson seems to be following the Cameron approach of avoiding losing anyone if he can help it.

    Cummings has convinced the PM that he can do what he wants with no consequences.

    Never apologise. Never explain. Never admit you were wrong. Fuck the plebs.
    That's no way to talk about our superiors!
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 2,958
    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Nigelb said:

    A 1% (or thereabouts) fatality rate which greatly skews towards the elderly is not going to have much evolutionary effect.
    Politically, perhaps.
    But over millions of years....
    The U.S.A. won’t exist in a million years. It’ll barely even merit a mention in the footnotes.
    Rather glibly assuming that footnotes will still be around, there?
    Absolutely.*

    What are the odds of Homo sapiens still being around in a million years? Worse than 1000/1 against?

    In a hundred years? 1/10 on?

    In ten years 1/100?

    (*There is of course the possibility that the next top predator also writes history, where footnotes might exist.)
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 14,157
    Dura_Ace said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    A 1% (or thereabouts) fatality rate which greatly skews towards the elderly is not going to have much evolutionary effect.
    Politically, perhaps.
    If Donald Trump catches it, definitely.
    Has @Dura_Ace's competition resulted in a winner, just asking?
    Nope. @Paristonda came close with Johnson. If Trump gets it we might as well start engraving your name on the trophy as there is (hopefully) no way the fat fuck will survive it.
    I suspect that if he was going to get it, he would have had it by now. He may be in the lucky group that seems to be immune without having had it.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 7,673

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Nigelb said:

    A 1% (or thereabouts) fatality rate which greatly skews towards the elderly is not going to have much evolutionary effect.
    Politically, perhaps.
    But over millions of years....
    The U.S.A. won’t exist in a million years. It’ll barely even merit a mention in the footnotes.
    Rather glibly assuming that footnotes will still be around, there?
    Absolutely.*

    What are the odds of Homo sapiens still being around in a million years? Worse than 1000/1 against?

    In a hundred years? 1/10 on?

    In ten years 1/100?

    (*There is of course the possibility that the next top predator also writes history, where footnotes might exist.)
    I am perfectly willing to take your bets should no other bookmaker wish to accommodate you.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 1,307
    Lol.

    Rebecca Long-Bailey tweeting an article from the fringe conspiracy site “The Independent” is worthy of sacking, says The Independent https://t.co/3M7Ku7VmFK

    — Matt Zarb-Cousin (@mattzarb) June 27, 2020
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 2,080
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Astonishingly good figures for Sturgeon there, considering that this is a Great Britain-wide poll. She clearly has an awful lot of admirers in England. Rightly so.

    The winner of the Next First Minister market depends largely on when Sturgeon decides to go.

    There is of course the issue of what Ladbrokes and other bookies would do if the job title changes. That could be pre- or post-independence, or in conjunction with it. The office of First Minister of Norway was changed to Prime Minister of Norway 27 years prior to their successful independence referendum in 1905. On the other hand, even when independent, Scots could decide to keep the name of the office as First Minister, which has the advantage of familiarity. The job title is far less important than the substantive powers.
    Norway and Sweden were in a personal rather than political Union under the crown of Sweden after 1873 (not 1878). That change was the reason why the title changed (and the location of the office, which was previously in Stockholm not Oslo). Scotland and England are in one United Kingdom. The parallel doesn’t work.

    Or to put it another way, do you really think Boris Johnson or even Keir Starmer will be willing to put forward and pass legislation that would change the statutory office of First Minister established under Section 44 of the Scotland Act 1998, that would further the SNP narrative they both reject?
    “one United Kingdom”

    Ho ho.

    I’m a big fan of the Johnson/Starmer Jock-bashing axis: they have both decided to simply keep building the dam higher and higher, as the weight of water behind the crumbling, ill-designed structure just keeps getting greater and greater. Tony Blair was no structural engineer, and his blueprint to “kill nationalism stone dead” has so enraged British Nationalists that they have set themselves on an irreversible course to destroying the thing they claim to love.
    Are you saying Scotland is not part of the United Kingdom?
    Intellectually: no.

    Emotionally: no.

    Technically: kind of.
    Yet in 2014 55% of actual Scottish voters disagreed. And since then there is no metric other than a few MoE polls to suggest a substantial shift.

    Try not to confuse wishful thinking from the safe(ish) distance of Sweden with reality.
    55% of people resident in Scotland, which is not quite the same thing.

    Personally, I’d prefer zero polling on this topic. The shock when the reality hits home as the dam collapses...
    Umm, Scottish voters are ‘people resident in Scotland.’ That’s why they have, y’know, votes in Scotland.

    The problem for Scottish independence is that while its supporters are becoming more strident the actual issues have, if anything, moved the fundamentals against them.

    In 2014 there were serious doubts as to whether Scotland could remain in the EU, which was vital to the economic case for independence. Now, we know it wouldn’t be in the EU and would have to apply under article 49, a long process.

    In 2014, there was a strong government with substantial Scottish representation in Westminster, which had worked effectively with the SNP to deliver a referendum that everyone agrees was free, fair and democratic, although some quibbles about the franchise and its extent remain. It was a government that could be expected to negotiate a divorce on a reasonable basis, in good faith. Now, we have a factional, divisive and populist English dominated government led by an unstable liar whose skills in negotiations are zero, and because of that, would not negotiate at all. His response would be, ‘independence? Fine. Sod off. Enjoy the border checks at Gretna.’

    The oil price is on the floor and may never recover fully.

    The pound, leaving aside its own serious issues, is being debased to support the government of the UK, and the Euro continues to be a mess, so the currency situation would still be unclear.

    The SNP itself is divided and the Salmond saga is far from over. It may bring down Sturgeon. More likely it simply becomes a festering sore that taints a government noted for its patriotism but not for its executive ability.

    Does that mean a referendum on independence would vote no again? Well, no, not for certain. Often these things are about emotion rather than reason (Brexit and perhaps more pertinently, the Irish Free State wave hello). And the mere fact the UK government is so unpopular in Scotland in itself does probably have an impact.

    But there is no sign of a shift from 45-55 to the 60-40 that would probably be needed to call a referendum in the expectation of winning it. I strongly suspect, indeed, that if Sturgeon had thought May or Johnson would have granted her a referendum she wouldn’t have called for one, as a second ‘No’ really would kill independence and possibly the SNP stone dead.

    Personally, I wonder if this all isn’t irrelevant anyway, as I think the age of the nation state (and there I include the EU) may be drawing to an end for other reasons. But I personally would be surprised if Scotland were to become independent in the next ten years. Not shocked, not dying of a heart attack, but surprised.
    I am looking forward to the denouement of "Salmondgate"!
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 6,034
    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Nigelb said:

    A 1% (or thereabouts) fatality rate which greatly skews towards the elderly is not going to have much evolutionary effect.
    Politically, perhaps.
    But over millions of years....
    The U.S.A. won’t exist in a million years. It’ll barely even merit a mention in the footnotes.
    Rather glibly assuming that footnotes will still be around, there?
    It will be buried somewhere deep in the galactic AI net that will have outlived and replaced the human species.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 29,154

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Nigelb said:

    A 1% (or thereabouts) fatality rate which greatly skews towards the elderly is not going to have much evolutionary effect.
    Politically, perhaps.
    But over millions of years....
    The U.S.A. won’t exist in a million years. It’ll barely even merit a mention in the footnotes.
    Rather glibly assuming that footnotes will still be around, there?
    Absolutely.*

    What are the odds of Homo sapiens still being around in a million years? Worse than 1000/1 against?

    In a hundred years? 1/10 on?

    In ten years 1/100?

    (*There is of course the possibility that the next top predator also writes history, where footnotes might exist.)
    I am perfectly willing to take your bets should no other bookmaker wish to accommodate you.
    The story is told of a pilot and observer in WWII who were ordered on a very risky mission. The observer gloomily said, ‘Fifty quid we get shot down.’

    ‘Done,’ said the pilot,

    ‘Why were you so quick to accept?’ asked the observer.

    ‘Well, if we come back, you pay up. But if we’re killed, I won’t have to!’
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 16,365
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 4,288
    Foxy said:
    That looks similar to Trump's margin of victory in November after the Russian postal votes are counted.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 26,620
    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    The real scandal of the Ladbrokes market is the use of 3/2 to show the price traditionally written as 6/4.

    Bet they’d write 100/30 as 10/3 too.

    As for the market, I’m guessing we’ll be getting an autumn reshuffle so probably a dead heat with value on the current outsiders. Jenrick seems to have convinced the PM for now, so unless there’s more to the story we don’t know yet, he’s probably safe. Johnson seems to be following the Cameron approach of avoiding losing anyone if he can help it.
    Is the move to the lowest common denominator thanks to the growth of online betting, and use of calculators ? If you’re not doing it in your head, the utility of the same denominator is reduced.

    Agree about the market, and much as Williamson deserves the boot, it’s unclear that he’ll get it. If Johnson gave a damn, he wouldn’t have appointed him in the first place.
    Talking of markets, finally we get the first Grand Prix of the season next weekend
    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/motor-sport/event/28778956/multi-market?marketIds=1.170627277
    Lots of unknowns, but Valtteri at 8 looks like the value in the win market.
    Thanks for pointing that out. Tempted.

    (Though Hamilton has form in being quick straight away, and given the long lay-off should be the overwhelming favourite.)
    Which of course he is, at 2.95. A little too short IMO given the situation. Bottas won the first race last year of course, but I’m playing the first couple of races for very small money until we have a better idea of how things will look.

    Very weird to start the season not knowing how many races there will be, nor when they’ll take place. 8 races scheduled so far, which if they all happen is the minimum required for a valid championship. Next target is 15, which is the minimum in the media rights and sponsorship contracts with F1 and costs them huge refunds if they go below. At the moment the Americas look like a no-go, so it’s going to be as many places as they can find in Europe until the weather turns in autumn, then maybe a couple in Asia and finish in the Middle East in December. Maybe even with crowds allowed by the end of the year (he says optimisticly, clutching a pair of tickets to the final race in Abu Dhabi).
  • kamskikamski Posts: 992
    tlg86 said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    A 1% (or thereabouts) fatality rate which greatly skews towards the elderly is not going to have much evolutionary effect.
    Politically, perhaps.
    If Donald Trump catches it, definitely.
    Has @Dura_Ace's competition resulted in a winner, just asking?
    Nope. @Paristonda came close with Johnson. If Trump gets it we might as well start engraving your name on the trophy as there is (hopefully) no way the fat fuck will survive it.
    I suspect that if he was going to get it, he would have had it by now. He may be in the lucky group that seems to be immune without having had it.
    Probably the best chance Pence has of becoming president is if Trump dies before November. Pence is capable of believing God sent the virus in order for this to happen, so someone deliberately infecting Trump would be doing God's work...
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 5,613

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Nigelb said:

    A 1% (or thereabouts) fatality rate which greatly skews towards the elderly is not going to have much evolutionary effect.
    Politically, perhaps.
    But over millions of years....
    The U.S.A. won’t exist in a million years. It’ll barely even merit a mention in the footnotes.
    Rather glibly assuming that footnotes will still be around, there?
    Absolutely.*

    What are the odds of Homo sapiens still being around in a million years? Worse than 1000/1 against?

    In a hundred years? 1/10 on?

    In ten years 1/100?

    (*There is of course the possibility that the next top predator also writes history, where footnotes might exist.)
    In ten years is a clear back at that price. In a hundred years it depends if you include genetically modified bionic sapien types.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 28,857

    At the tail end of the previous thread, @rcs1000 made a brief case for Tammy Duckworth to be Sleepy Joe's VP nominee. Fwiw (very little!), I concur that she does look a viable contender.

    Was she not Jack's wife in Coronation street
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 53,598
    edited June 28
    As an aside, Ladbrokes has had its Austrian markets up for a week or more already.

    Not bet yet. Might give them another look.

    Edited extra bit: no idea why it takes so long for the other markets to expand after clicking... bit tedious.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 26,620

    As an aside, Ladbrokes has had its Austrian markets up for a week or more already.

    Not bet yet. Might give them another look.

    Edited extra bit: no idea why it takes so long for the other markets to expand after clicking... bit tedious.

    Good news for those not banned by Ladbrokes!

    Are bookies’ shops open in the U.K. yet?
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 2,958

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Nigelb said:

    A 1% (or thereabouts) fatality rate which greatly skews towards the elderly is not going to have much evolutionary effect.
    Politically, perhaps.
    But over millions of years....
    The U.S.A. won’t exist in a million years. It’ll barely even merit a mention in the footnotes.
    Rather glibly assuming that footnotes will still be around, there?
    Absolutely.*

    What are the odds of Homo sapiens still being around in a million years? Worse than 1000/1 against?

    In a hundred years? 1/10 on?

    In ten years 1/100?

    (*There is of course the possibility that the next top predator also writes history, where footnotes might exist.)
    In ten years is a clear back at that price. In a hundred years it depends if you include genetically modified bionic sapien types.
    A back? What’s the point? Even a bog standard savings account would give better compound interest over ten years.

    “Bionic sapiens types”. Glad I won’t be around.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 1,696
    tlg86 said:
    Interesting, coming from a ridiculous headbanger.

    Three scenarios:

    The left have decided to play by centrist rules for now and keep their positions.

    This bloke has a strongly developed sense of irony.

    He has grown up, changed his mind and decided to join the normal people. (Possible but unlikely.)

    AFAIC he is one of the people who has to go if Labour is to become a party a Tory voter can vote for.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 28,857
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Astonishingly good figures for Sturgeon there, considering that this is a Great Britain-wide poll. She clearly has an awful lot of admirers in England. Rightly so.

    The winner of the Next First Minister market depends largely on when Sturgeon decides to go.

    There is of course the issue of what Ladbrokes and other bookies would do if the job title changes. That could be pre- or post-independence, or in conjunction with it. The office of First Minister of Norway was changed to Prime Minister of Norway 27 years prior to their successful independence referendum in 1905. On the other hand, even when independent, Scots could decide to keep the name of the office as First Minister, which has the advantage of familiarity. The job title is far less important than the substantive powers.
    Norway and Sweden were in a personal rather than political Union under the crown of Sweden after 1873 (not 1878). That change was the reason why the title changed (and the location of the office, which was previously in Stockholm not Oslo). Scotland and England are in one United Kingdom. The parallel doesn’t work.

    Or to put it another way, do you really think Boris Johnson or even Keir Starmer will be willing to put forward and pass legislation that would change the statutory office of First Minister established under Section 44 of the Scotland Act 1998, that would further the SNP narrative they both reject?
    “one United Kingdom”

    Ho ho.

    I’m a big fan of the Johnson/Starmer Jock-bashing axis: they have both decided to simply keep building the dam higher and higher, as the weight of water behind the crumbling, ill-designed structure just keeps getting greater and greater. Tony Blair was no structural engineer, and his blueprint to “kill nationalism stone dead” has so enraged British Nationalists that they have set themselves on an irreversible course to destroying the thing they claim to love.
    Are you saying Scotland is not part of the United Kingdom?
    Intellectually: no.

    Emotionally: no.

    Technically: kind of.
    Yet in 2014 55% of actual Scottish voters disagreed. And since then there is no metric other than a few MoE polls to suggest a substantial shift.

    Try not to confuse wishful thinking from the safe(ish) distance of Sweden with reality.
    55% of people resident in Scotland, which is not quite the same thing.

    Personally, I’d prefer zero polling on this topic. The shock when the reality hits home as the dam collapses...
    Umm, Scottish voters are ‘people resident in Scotland.’ That’s why they have, y’know, votes in Scotland.

    The problem for Scottish independence is that while its supporters are becoming more strident the actual issues have, if anything, moved the fundamentals against them.

    In 2014 there were serious doubts as to whether Scotland could remain in the EU, which was vital to the economic case for independence. Now, we know it wouldn’t be in the EU and would have to apply under article 49, a long process.

    In 2014, there was a strong government with substantial Scottish representation in Westminster, which had worked effectively with the SNP to deliver a referendum that everyone agrees was free, fair and democratic, although some quibbles about the franchise and its extent remain. It was a government that could be expected to negotiate a divorce on a reasonable basis, in good faith. Now, we have a factional, divisive and populist English dominated government led by an unstable liar whose skills in negotiations are zero, and because of that, would not negotiate at all. His response would be, ‘independence? Fine. Sod off. Enjoy the border checks at Gretna.’

    The oil price is on the floor and may never recover fully.

    The pound, leaving aside its own serious issues, is being debased to support the government of the UK, and the Euro continues to be a mess, so the currency situation would still be unclear.

    The SNP itself is divided and the Salmond saga is far from over. It may bring down Sturgeon. More likely it simply becomes a festering sore that taints a government noted for its patriotism but not for its executive ability.

    Does that mean a referendum on independence would vote no again? Well, no, not for certain. Often these things are about emotion rather than reason (Brexit and perhaps more pertinently, the Irish Free State wave hello). And the mere fact the UK government is so unpopular in Scotland in itself does probably have an impact.

    But there is no sign of a shift from 45-55 to the 60-40 that would probably be needed to call a referendum in the expectation of winning it. I strongly suspect, indeed, that if Sturgeon had thought May or Johnson would have granted her a referendum she wouldn’t have called for one, as a second ‘No’ really would kill independence and possibly the SNP stone dead.

    Personally, I wonder if this all isn’t irrelevant anyway, as I think the age of the nation state (and there I include the EU) may be drawing to an end for other reasons. But I personally would be surprised if Scotland were to become independent in the next ten years. Not shocked, not dying of a heart attack, but surprised.
    Ydoethur, your one weakness is your knowledge of Scotland , Independence, SNP etc. You don't half write a load of old bollocks on the topic. Apart from that keep up the good work. Might be worth reading some actual Scottish "real" news sites rather than the Times and Daily Mail.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 2,958
    Sandpit said:

    As an aside, Ladbrokes has had its Austrian markets up for a week or more already.

    Not bet yet. Might give them another look.

    Edited extra bit: no idea why it takes so long for the other markets to expand after clicking... bit tedious.

    Good news for those not banned by Ladbrokes!

    Are bookies’ shops open in the U.K. yet?
    Tomorrow north of border.

    https://www.racingpost.com/news/betting-shops-set-to-reopen-in-scotland-with-restricted-service-on-monday-week/438516
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 5,613

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Nigelb said:

    A 1% (or thereabouts) fatality rate which greatly skews towards the elderly is not going to have much evolutionary effect.
    Politically, perhaps.
    But over millions of years....
    The U.S.A. won’t exist in a million years. It’ll barely even merit a mention in the footnotes.
    Rather glibly assuming that footnotes will still be around, there?
    Absolutely.*

    What are the odds of Homo sapiens still being around in a million years? Worse than 1000/1 against?

    In a hundred years? 1/10 on?

    In ten years 1/100?

    (*There is of course the possibility that the next top predator also writes history, where footnotes might exist.)
    In ten years is a clear back at that price. In a hundred years it depends if you include genetically modified bionic sapien types.
    A back? What’s the point? Even a bog standard savings account would give better compound interest over ten years.

    “Bionic sapiens types”. Glad I won’t be around.
    A back on credit betting. If the tech arrives quickly enough who knows who might still be around!
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 28,857

    Shadsy also has prices up for Next First Minister. Kate Forbes strikes me as being very short indeed at 4/1. Does Shadsy have some inside info? I know Forbes well (she represents an area I have strong connections with), and I admire her, but she is still young and relatively untested. 4/1 just strikes me as being far too short.

    If you’re looking for a longer-odds tip, I like the look of Andrew Wilson at 33/1. An outstanding personality within the independence movement, the former MSP is (unusually for SNP figures) widely respected and admired throughout the Scottish establishment: business, finance sector, media, academia, civil society and even among the other political parties. But the key problem is that I am not aware that he is even standing next year? If he doesn’t, it’s very hard to see how he can build his internal base sufficiently in time to replace Sturgeon.

    Looking at the top Unionist candidates, Richard Leonard (SLab) has shortened to 16/1, presumably on the back of the Starmer effect? But Leonard himself is universally regarded as a figure of ridicule, not least within his own party; and the SLD’s wouldn’t touch him with a bargepole. Jackson Carlaw (SCon) remains 25/1. That is way too short. The Scottish Labour and Liberal Democrat parties would implode if their leaderships ever tried to install the hapless Tory as first minister. Carlaw would be poor value at 50/1. Not quite sure why Shadsy is still listing Ruth Davidson at 20/1, shorter than her successor? She is retiring from parliament next year.

    Stuart, Wilson is not even at the races.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 53,598
    Mr. Sandpit, no idea, to be honest.

    Not backing anything just now, but the ones that look most interesting to me are Albon podium 34, and Sainz top 6 at 3.25.

    Odd season, though. Even the mood music of testing is now pretty much worthless.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 28,857

    Shadsy also has prices up for Next First Minister. Kate Forbes strikes me as being very short indeed at 4/1. Does Shadsy have some inside info? I know Forbes well (she represents an area I have strong connections with), and I admire her, but she is still young and relatively untested. 4/1 just strikes me as being far too short.

    If you’re looking for a longer-odds tip, I like the look of Andrew Wilson at 33/1. An outstanding personality within the independence movement, the former MSP is (unusually for SNP figures) widely respected and admired throughout the Scottish establishment: business, finance sector, media, academia, civil society and even among the other political parties. But the key problem is that I am not aware that he is even standing next year? If he doesn’t, it’s very hard to see how he can build his internal base sufficiently in time to replace Sturgeon.

    Looking at the top Unionist candidates, Richard Leonard (SLab) has shortened to 16/1, presumably on the back of the Starmer effect? But Leonard himself is universally regarded as a figure of ridicule, not least within his own party; and the SLD’s wouldn’t touch him with a bargepole. Jackson Carlaw (SCon) remains 25/1. That is way too short. The Scottish Labour and Liberal Democrat parties would implode if their leaderships ever tried to install the hapless Tory as first minister. Carlaw would be poor value at 50/1. Not quite sure why Shadsy is still listing Ruth Davidson at 20/1, shorter than her successor? She is retiring from parliament next year.

    'Not quite sure why Shadsy is still listing Ruth Davidson at 20/1, shorter than her successor? She is retiring from parliament next year'

    If a week is a long time in politics, a year......?
    A fun speculation! I would welcome a return for the combative Davidson. At least she had a bit of spunk. The Unionist benches really are very pale and tepid. There is very little fight and lust for debate and engagement. It is becoming increasingly obvious that when the next independence referendum is held, the Unionist forces are so exhausted and depleted that the BetterTogether2 campaign is going to be a London-run effort. That would be disastrous for the No side, sending out all the wrong signals.
    She was feckin useless, a windbag of monumental proportions and just supped at the trough, a parasite of gigantic proportions in every way. Yet to have her first constituency surgery, only interested in number 1 and her bankbook.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 26,620

    Sandpit said:

    As an aside, Ladbrokes has had its Austrian markets up for a week or more already.

    Not bet yet. Might give them another look.

    Edited extra bit: no idea why it takes so long for the other markets to expand after clicking... bit tedious.

    Good news for those not banned by Ladbrokes!

    Are bookies’ shops open in the U.K. yet?
    Tomorrow north of border.

    https://www.racingpost.com/news/betting-shops-set-to-reopen-in-scotland-with-restricted-service-on-monday-week/438516
    Thanks. (Looks through contacts for friends in Scotland who can be trusted to go to the bookies next weekend!).
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 28,857
    Scott_xP said:

    The shock when the reality hits home as the dam collapses...

    Does it look like this?


    Topically the cowardy custard unionists are bricking it, having to use the jackboot to prevent their last colony leaving is not a pretty site. Keep tweeting Pinochet.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 6,128
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    As an aside, Ladbrokes has had its Austrian markets up for a week or more already.

    Not bet yet. Might give them another look.

    Edited extra bit: no idea why it takes so long for the other markets to expand after clicking... bit tedious.

    Good news for those not banned by Ladbrokes!

    Are bookies’ shops open in the U.K. yet?
    Tomorrow north of border.

    https://www.racingpost.com/news/betting-shops-set-to-reopen-in-scotland-with-restricted-service-on-monday-week/438516
    Thanks. (Looks through contacts for friends in Scotland who can be trusted to go to the bookies next weekend!).
    Hardly matters though. Online betting has been possible throughout the lockdown.
  • felixfelix Posts: 10,561
    Scott_xP said:
    He likes power more than his beliefs. Welcome to the real world.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 29,154
    malcolmg said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Astonishingly good figures for Sturgeon there, considering that this is a Great Britain-wide poll. She clearly has an awful lot of admirers in England. Rightly so.

    The winner of the Next First Minister market depends largely on when Sturgeon decides to go.

    There is of course the issue of what Ladbrokes and other bookies would do if the job title changes. That could be pre- or post-independence, or in conjunction with it. The office of First Minister of Norway was changed to Prime Minister of Norway 27 years prior to their successful independence referendum in 1905. On the other hand, even when independent, Scots could decide to keep the name of the office as First Minister, which has the advantage of familiarity. The job title is far less important than the substantive powers.
    Norway and Sweden were in a personal rather than political Union under the crown of Sweden after 1873 (not 1878). That change was the reason why the title changed (and the location of the office, which was previously in Stockholm not Oslo). Scotland and England are in one United Kingdom. The parallel doesn’t work.

    Or to put it another way, do you really think Boris Johnson or even Keir Starmer will be willing to put forward and pass legislation that would change the statutory office of First Minister established under Section 44 of the Scotland Act 1998, that would further the SNP narrative they both reject?
    “one United Kingdom”

    Ho ho.

    I’m a big fan of the Johnson/Starmer Jock-bashing axis: they have both decided to simply keep building the dam higher and higher, as the weight of water behind the crumbling, ill-designed structure just keeps getting greater and greater. Tony Blair was no structural engineer, and his blueprint to “kill nationalism stone dead” has so enraged British Nationalists that they have set themselves on an irreversible course to destroying the thing they claim to love.
    Are you saying Scotland is not part of the United Kingdom?
    Intellectually: no.

    Emotionally: no.

    Technically: kind of.
    Yet in 2014 55% of actual Scottish voters disagreed. And since then there is no metric other than a few MoE polls to suggest a substantial shift.

    Try not to confuse wishful thinking from the safe(ish) distance of Sweden with reality.
    55% of people resident in Scotland, which is not quite the same thing.

    Personally, I’d prefer zero polling on this topic. The shock when the reality hits home as the dam collapses...
    Umm, Scottish voters are ‘people resident in Scotland.’ That’s why they have, y’know, votes in Scotland.

    The problem for Scottish independence is that while its supporters are becoming more strident the actual issues have, if anything, moved the fundamentals against them.

    In 2014 there were serious doubts as to whether Scotland could remain in the EU, which was vital to the economic case for independence. Now, we know it wouldn’t be in the EU and would have to apply under article 49, a long process.

    In 2014, there was a strong government with substantial Scottish representation in Westminster, which had worked effectively with the SNP to deliver a referendum that everyone agrees was free, fair and democratic, although some quibbles about the franchise and its extent remain. It was a government that could be expected to negotiate a divorce on a reasonable basis, in good faith. Now, we have a factional, divisive and populist English dominated government led by an unstable liar whose skills in negotiations are zero, and because of that, would not negotiate at all. His response would be, ‘independence? Fine. Sod off. Enjoy the border checks at Gretna.’

    The oil price is on the floor and may never recover fully.

    The pound, leaving aside its own serious issues, is being debased to support the government of the UK, and the Euro continues to be a mess, so the currency situation would still be unclear.

    The SNP itself is divided and the Salmond saga is far from over. It may bring down Sturgeon. More likely it simply becomes a festering sore that taints a government noted for its patriotism but not for its executive ability.

    Does that mean a referendum on independence would vote no again? Well, no, not for certain. Often these things are about emotion rather than reason (Brexit and perhaps more pertinently, the Irish Free State wave hello). And the mere fact the UK government is so unpopular in Scotland in itself does probably have an impact.

    But there is no sign of a shift from 45-55 to the 60-40 that would probably be needed to call a referendum in the expectation of winning it. I strongly suspect, indeed, that if Sturgeon had thought May or Johnson would have granted her a referendum she wouldn’t have called for one, as a second ‘No’ really would kill independence and possibly the SNP stone dead.

    Personally, I wonder if this all isn’t irrelevant anyway, as I think the age of the nation state (and there I include the EU) may be drawing to an end for other reasons. But I personally would be surprised if Scotland were to become independent in the next ten years. Not shocked, not dying of a heart attack, but surprised.
    Ydoethur, your one weakness is your knowledge of Scotland , Independence, SNP etc. You don't half write a load of old bollocks on the topic. Apart from that keep up the good work. Might be worth reading some actual Scottish "real" news sites rather than the Times and Daily Mail.
    You mean, I should lay off the Daily Record and the National that I was reading this morning?

    I’m vain enough to be preening that you think it my ‘one weakness’ though.

    (PS, I never read the Times. My newspaper of choice is the Guardian. No political reasons, I’m just a cheapskate.)
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 28,857
    Dura_Ace said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    A 1% (or thereabouts) fatality rate which greatly skews towards the elderly is not going to have much evolutionary effect.
    Politically, perhaps.
    If Donald Trump catches it, definitely.
    Has @Dura_Ace's competition resulted in a winner, just asking?
    Nope. @Paristonda came close with Johnson. If Trump gets it we might as well start engraving your name on the trophy as there is (hopefully) no way the fat fuck will survive it.
    Close as in meteor hitting earth close I believe, if you exclude the PR guff.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 73,082

    Shadsy also has prices up for Next First Minister. Kate Forbes strikes me as being very short indeed at 4/1. Does Shadsy have some inside info? I know Forbes well (she represents an area I have strong connections with), and I admire her, but she is still young and relatively untested. 4/1 just strikes me as being far too short.

    If you’re looking for a longer-odds tip, I like the look of Andrew Wilson at 33/1. An outstanding personality within the independence movement, the former MSP is (unusually for SNP figures) widely respected and admired throughout the Scottish establishment: business, finance sector, media, academia, civil society and even among the other political parties. But the key problem is that I am not aware that he is even standing next year? If he doesn’t, it’s very hard to see how he can build his internal base sufficiently in time to replace Sturgeon.

    Looking at the top Unionist candidates, Richard Leonard (SLab) has shortened to 16/1, presumably on the back of the Starmer effect? But Leonard himself is universally regarded as a figure of ridicule, not least within his own party; and the SLD’s wouldn’t touch him with a bargepole. Jackson Carlaw (SCon) remains 25/1. That is way too short. The Scottish Labour and Liberal Democrat parties would implode if their leaderships ever tried to install the hapless Tory as first minister. Carlaw would be poor value at 50/1. Not quite sure why Shadsy is still listing Ruth Davidson at 20/1, shorter than her successor? She is retiring from parliament next year.

    'Not quite sure why Shadsy is still listing Ruth Davidson at 20/1, shorter than her successor? She is retiring from parliament next year'

    If a week is a long time in politics, a year......?
    A fun speculation! I would welcome a return for the combative Davidson. At least she had a bit of spunk. The Unionist benches really are very pale and tepid. There is very little fight and lust for debate and engagement. It is becoming increasingly obvious that when the next independence referendum is held, the Unionist forces are so exhausted and depleted that the BetterTogether2 campaign is going to be a London-run effort. That would be disastrous for the No side, sending out all the wrong signals.
    As indyref2 will not be allowed to take place unless and until Starmer becomes PM it is likely a Labour figure would lead No again
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 2,958
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Astonishingly good figures for Sturgeon there, considering that this is a Great Britain-wide poll. She clearly has an awful lot of admirers in England. Rightly so.

    The winner of the Next First Minister market depends largely on when Sturgeon decides to go.

    There is of course the issue of what Ladbrokes and other bookies would do if the job title changes. That could be pre- or post-independence, or in conjunction with it. The office of First Minister of Norway was changed to Prime Minister of Norway 27 years prior to their successful independence referendum in 1905. On the other hand, even when independent, Scots could decide to keep the name of the office as First Minister, which has the advantage of familiarity. The job title is far less important than the substantive powers.
    Norway and Sweden were in a personal rather than political Union under the crown of Sweden after 1873 (not 1878). That change was the reason why the title changed (and the location of the office, which was previously in Stockholm not Oslo). Scotland and England are in one United Kingdom. The parallel doesn’t work.

    Or to put it another way, do you really think Boris Johnson or even Keir Starmer will be willing to put forward and pass legislation that would change the statutory office of First Minister established under Section 44 of the Scotland Act 1998, that would further the SNP narrative they both reject?
    “one United Kingdom”

    Ho ho.

    I’m a big fan of the Johnson/Starmer Jock-bashing axis: they have both decided to simply keep building the dam higher and higher, as the weight of water behind the crumbling, ill-designed structure just keeps getting greater and greater. Tony Blair was no structural engineer, and his blueprint to “kill nationalism stone dead” has so enraged British Nationalists that they have set themselves on an irreversible course to destroying the thing they claim to love.
    Are you saying Scotland is not part of the United Kingdom?
    Intellectually: no.

    Emotionally: no.

    Technically: kind of.
    Yet in 2014 55% of actual Scottish voters disagreed. And since then there is no metric other than a few MoE polls to suggest a substantial shift.

    Try not to confuse wishful thinking from the safe(ish) distance of Sweden with reality.
    55% of people resident in Scotland, which is not quite the same thing.

    Personally, I’d prefer zero polling on this topic. The shock when the reality hits home as the dam collapses...
    Umm, Scottish voters are ‘people resident in Scotland.’ That’s why they have, y’know, votes in Scotland.

    The problem for Scottish independence is that while its supporters are becoming more strident the actual issues have, if anything, moved the fundamentals against them.

    In 2014 there were serious doubts as to whether Scotland could remain in the EU, which was vital to the economic case for independence. Now, we know it wouldn’t be in the EU and would have to apply under article 49, a long process.

    In 2014, there was a strong government with substantial Scottish representation in Westminster, which had worked effectively with the SNP to deliver a referendum that everyone agrees was free, fair and democratic, although some quibbles about the franchise and its extent remain. It was a government that could be expected to negotiate a divorce on a reasonable basis, in good faith. Now, we have a factional, divisive and populist English dominated government led by an unstable liar whose skills in negotiations are zero, and because of that, would not negotiate at all. His response would be, ‘independence? Fine. Sod off. Enjoy the border checks at Gretna.’

    The oil price is on the floor and may never recover fully.

    The pound, leaving aside its own serious issues, is being debased to support the government of the UK, and the Euro continues to be a mess, so the currency situation would still be unclear.

    The SNP itself is divided and the Salmond saga is far from over. It may bring down Sturgeon. More likely it simply becomes a festering sore that taints a government noted for its patriotism but not for its executive ability.

    Does that mean a referendum on independence would vote no again? Well, no, not for certain. Often these things are about emotion rather than reason (Brexit and perhaps more pertinently, the Irish Free State wave hello). And the mere fact the UK government is so unpopular in Scotland in itself does probably have an impact.

    But there is no sign of a shift from 45-55 to the 60-40 that would probably be needed to call a referendum in the expectation of winning it. I strongly suspect, indeed, that if Sturgeon had thought May or Johnson would have granted her a referendum she wouldn’t have called for one, as a second ‘No’ really would kill independence and possibly the SNP stone dead.

    Personally, I wonder if this all isn’t irrelevant anyway, as I think the age of the nation state (and there I include the EU) may be drawing to an end for other reasons. But I personally would be surprised if Scotland were to become independent in the next ten years. Not shocked, not dying of a heart attack, but surprised.
    Para by para:

    Are 100% of people on the electoral roles of England English?

    Ill-informed piffle.

    Better Together lied. Yes Scotland told the truth. Other Europeans like us.

    “everyone agrees”: er. “Now, we have a factional, divisive and populist English dominated government led by an unstable liar whose skills in negotiations are zero, and because of that, would not negotiate at all. His response would be, ‘independence? Fine.”: no comment needed.

    Agreed. And?

    Agreed. And your only valid point.

    More ill-informed piffle. Yawn.

    “probably” have an impact!?! Do you know anything about Scots and our culture?

    Stop reading the Daily Express. It rots the brain.

    States dying? Have you heard of China, Russia or the USA? They are places abroad.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 33,816
    malcolmg said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Astonishingly good figures for Sturgeon there, considering that this is a Great Britain-wide poll. She clearly has an awful lot of admirers in England. Rightly so.

    The winner of the Next First Minister market depends largely on when Sturgeon decides to go.

    There is of course the issue of what Ladbrokes and other bookies would do if the job title changes. That could be pre- or post-independence, or in conjunction with it. The office of First Minister of Norway was changed to Prime Minister of Norway 27 years prior to their successful independence referendum in 1905. On the other hand, even when independent, Scots could decide to keep the name of the office as First Minister, which has the advantage of familiarity. The job title is far less important than the substantive powers.
    Norway and Sweden were in a personal rather than political Union under the crown of Sweden after 1873 (not 1878). That change was the reason why the title changed (and the location of the office, which was previously in Stockholm not Oslo). Scotland and England are in one United Kingdom. The parallel doesn’t work.

    Or to put it another way, do you really think Boris Johnson or even Keir Starmer will be willing to put forward and pass legislation that would change the statutory office of First Minister established under Section 44 of the Scotland Act 1998, that would further the SNP narrative they both reject?
    “one United Kingdom”

    Ho ho.

    I’m a big fan of the Johnson/Starmer Jock-bashing axis: they have both decided to simply keep building the dam higher and higher, as the weight of water behind the crumbling, ill-designed structure just keeps getting greater and greater. Tony Blair was no structural engineer, and his blueprint to “kill nationalism stone dead” has so enraged British Nationalists that they have set themselves on an irreversible course to destroying the thing they claim to love.
    Are you saying Scotland is not part of the United Kingdom?
    Intellectually: no.

    Emotionally: no.

    Technically: kind of.
    Yet in 2014 55% of actual Scottish voters disagreed. And since then there is no metric other than a few MoE polls to suggest a substantial shift.

    Try not to confuse wishful thinking from the safe(ish) distance of Sweden with reality.
    55% of people resident in Scotland, which is not quite the same thing.

    Personally, I’d prefer zero polling on this topic. The shock when the reality hits home as the dam collapses...
    Umm, Scottish voters are ‘people resident in Scotland.’ That’s why they have, y’know, votes in Scotland.

    The problem for Scottish independence is that while its supporters are becoming more strident the actual issues have, if anything, moved the fundamentals against them.

    In 2014 there were serious doubts as to whether Scotland could remain in the EU, which was vital to the economic case for independence. Now, we know it wouldn’t be in the EU and would have to apply under article 49, a long process.

    In 2014, there was a strong government with substantial Scottish representation in Westminster, which had worked effectively with the SNP to deliver a referendum that everyone agrees was free, fair and democratic, although some quibbles about the franchise and its extent remain. It was a government that could be expected to negotiate a divorce on a reasonable basis, in good faith. Now, we have a factional, divisive and populist English dominated government led by an unstable liar whose skills in negotiations are zero, and because of that, would not negotiate at all. His response would be, ‘independence? Fine. Sod off. Enjoy the border checks at Gretna.’

    The oil price is on the floor and may never recover fully.

    The pound, leaving aside its own serious issues, is being debased to support the government of the UK, and the Euro continues to be a mess, so the currency situation would still be unclear.

    The SNP itself is divided and the Salmond saga is far from over. It may bring down Sturgeon. More likely it simply becomes a festering sore that taints a government noted for its patriotism but not for its executive ability.

    Does that mean a referendum on independence would vote no again? Well, no, not for certain. Often these things are about emotion rather than reason (Brexit and perhaps more pertinently, the Irish Free State wave hello). And the mere fact the UK government is so unpopular in Scotland in itself does probably have an impact.

    But there is no sign of a shift from 45-55 to the 60-40 that would probably be needed to call a referendum in the expectation of winning it. I strongly suspect, indeed, that if Sturgeon had thought May or Johnson would have granted her a referendum she wouldn’t have called for one, as a second ‘No’ really would kill independence and possibly the SNP stone dead.

    Personally, I wonder if this all isn’t irrelevant anyway, as I think the age of the nation state (and there I include the EU) may be drawing to an end for other reasons. But I personally would be surprised if Scotland were to become independent in the next ten years. Not shocked, not dying of a heart attack, but surprised.
    Ydoethur, your one weakness is your knowledge of Scotland , Independence, SNP etc. You don't half write a load of old bollocks on the topic. Apart from that keep up the good work. Might be worth reading some actual Scottish "real" news sites rather than the Times and Daily Mail.
    Good morning Malc.

    I have just had a 'wee chuckle' when I read your entirely predictable response to Ydoethur's intelligent and well stated argument as it reminds me of Scots Nats of 70 years ago expressing themselves in a very similar manner and it got them nowhere

    Someday, the SNP may need to make their case in a serious debate and answer all the questions posed by Ydoethur and others, before even standing a chance of winning the argument and seeing the erection of a border crossing from Berwick to Carlisle
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 73,082
    Boris says no return to austerity of ten years ago
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53207700
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 2,958
    malcolmg said:

    Shadsy also has prices up for Next First Minister. Kate Forbes strikes me as being very short indeed at 4/1. Does Shadsy have some inside info? I know Forbes well (she represents an area I have strong connections with), and I admire her, but she is still young and relatively untested. 4/1 just strikes me as being far too short.

    If you’re looking for a longer-odds tip, I like the look of Andrew Wilson at 33/1. An outstanding personality within the independence movement, the former MSP is (unusually for SNP figures) widely respected and admired throughout the Scottish establishment: business, finance sector, media, academia, civil society and even among the other political parties. But the key problem is that I am not aware that he is even standing next year? If he doesn’t, it’s very hard to see how he can build his internal base sufficiently in time to replace Sturgeon.

    Looking at the top Unionist candidates, Richard Leonard (SLab) has shortened to 16/1, presumably on the back of the Starmer effect? But Leonard himself is universally regarded as a figure of ridicule, not least within his own party; and the SLD’s wouldn’t touch him with a bargepole. Jackson Carlaw (SCon) remains 25/1. That is way too short. The Scottish Labour and Liberal Democrat parties would implode if their leaderships ever tried to install the hapless Tory as first minister. Carlaw would be poor value at 50/1. Not quite sure why Shadsy is still listing Ruth Davidson at 20/1, shorter than her successor? She is retiring from parliament next year.

    Stuart, Wilson is not even at the races.
    I know, hence the 33/1. But I’m intrigued by Shadsy even listing him.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 14,157
    I'm not sure Marr and Ed Miliband are adequately distanced given the hyperventilating by the former LOTO.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 26,620

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    As an aside, Ladbrokes has had its Austrian markets up for a week or more already.

    Not bet yet. Might give them another look.

    Edited extra bit: no idea why it takes so long for the other markets to expand after clicking... bit tedious.

    Good news for those not banned by Ladbrokes!

    Are bookies’ shops open in the U.K. yet?
    Tomorrow north of border.

    https://www.racingpost.com/news/betting-shops-set-to-reopen-in-scotland-with-restricted-service-on-monday-week/438516
    Thanks. (Looks through contacts for friends in Scotland who can be trusted to go to the bookies next weekend!).
    Hardly matters though. Online betting has been possible throughout the lockdown.
    It does when you're not UK resident and they shut your accounts down though! Sometimes sending a mate to a shop is all one has left! :)
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 3,460
    edited June 28
    Scott_xP said:
    This is what I was alluding to in the very first post on this thread. Jenrick survives because he is, now on this second issue, a human shield for Boris.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 11,760

    The real scandal of the Ladbrokes market is the use of 3/2 to show the price traditionally written as 6/4.

    The one I hate is 8/5. That is just wrong.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 33,816

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Astonishingly good figures for Sturgeon there, considering that this is a Great Britain-wide poll. She clearly has an awful lot of admirers in England. Rightly so.

    The winner of the Next First Minister market depends largely on when Sturgeon decides to go.

    There is of course the issue of what Ladbrokes and other bookies would do if the job title changes. That could be pre- or post-independence, or in conjunction with it. The office of First Minister of Norway was changed to Prime Minister of Norway 27 years prior to their successful independence referendum in 1905. On the other hand, even when independent, Scots could decide to keep the name of the office as First Minister, which has the advantage of familiarity. The job title is far less important than the substantive powers.
    Norway and Sweden were in a personal rather than political Union under the crown of Sweden after 1873 (not 1878). That change was the reason why the title changed (and the location of the office, which was previously in Stockholm not Oslo). Scotland and England are in one United Kingdom. The parallel doesn’t work.

    Or to put it another way, do you really think Boris Johnson or even Keir Starmer will be willing to put forward and pass legislation that would change the statutory office of First Minister established under Section 44 of the Scotland Act 1998, that would further the SNP narrative they both reject?
    “one United Kingdom”

    Ho ho.

    I’m a big fan of the Johnson/Starmer Jock-bashing axis: they have both decided to simply keep building the dam higher and higher, as the weight of water behind the crumbling, ill-designed structure just keeps getting greater and greater. Tony Blair was no structural engineer, and his blueprint to “kill nationalism stone dead” has so enraged British Nationalists that they have set themselves on an irreversible course to destroying the thing they claim to love.
    Are you saying Scotland is not part of the United Kingdom?
    Intellectually: no.

    Emotionally: no.

    Technically: kind of.
    Yet in 2014 55% of actual Scottish voters disagreed. And since then there is no metric other than a few MoE polls to suggest a substantial shift.

    Try not to confuse wishful thinking from the safe(ish) distance of Sweden with reality.
    55% of people resident in Scotland, which is not quite the same thing.

    Personally, I’d prefer zero polling on this topic. The shock when the reality hits home as the dam collapses...
    Umm, Scottish voters are ‘people resident in Scotland.’ That’s why they have, y’know, votes in Scotland.

    The problem for Scottish independence is that while its supporters are becoming more strident the actual issues have, if anything, moved the fundamentals against them.

    In 2014 there were serious doubts as to whether Scotland could remain in the EU, which was vital to the economic case for independence. Now, we know it wouldn’t be in the EU and would have to apply under article 49, a long process.

    In 2014, there was a strong government with substantial Scottish representation in Westminster, which had worked effectively with the SNP to deliver a referendum that everyone agrees was free, fair and democratic, although some quibbles about the franchise and its extent remain. It was a government that could be expected to negotiate a divorce on a reasonable basis, in good faith. Now, we have a factional, divisive and populist English dominated government led by an unstable liar whose skills in negotiations are zero, and because of that, would not negotiate at all. His response would be, ‘independence? Fine. Sod off. Enjoy the border checks at Gretna.’

    The oil price is on the floor and may never recover fully.

    The pound, leaving aside its own serious issues, is being debased to support the government of the UK, and the Euro continues to be a mess, so the currency situation would still be unclear.

    The SNP itself is divided and the Salmond saga is far from over. It may bring down Sturgeon. More likely it simply becomes a festering sore that taints a government noted for its patriotism but not for its executive ability.

    Does that mean a referendum on independence would vote no again? Well, no, not for certain. Often these things are about emotion rather than reason (Brexit and perhaps more pertinently, the Irish Free State wave hello). And the mere fact the UK government is so unpopular in Scotland in itself does probably have an impact.

    But there is no sign of a shift from 45-55 to the 60-40 that would probably be needed to call a referendum in the expectation of winning it. I strongly suspect, indeed, that if Sturgeon had thought May or Johnson would have granted her a referendum she wouldn’t have called for one, as a second ‘No’ really would kill independence and possibly the SNP stone dead.

    Personally, I wonder if this all isn’t irrelevant anyway, as I think the age of the nation state (and there I include the EU) may be drawing to an end for other reasons. But I personally would be surprised if Scotland were to become independent in the next ten years. Not shocked, not dying of a heart attack, but surprised.
    Para by para:

    Are 100% of people on the electoral roles of England English?

    Ill-informed piffle.

    Better Together lied. Yes Scotland told the truth. Other Europeans like us.

    “everyone agrees”: er. “Now, we have a factional, divisive and populist English dominated government led by an unstable liar whose skills in negotiations are zero, and because of that, would not negotiate at all. His response would be, ‘independence? Fine.”: no comment needed.

    Agreed. And?

    Agreed. And your only valid point.

    More ill-informed piffle. Yawn.

    “probably” have an impact!?! Do you know anything about Scots and our culture?

    Stop reading the Daily Express. It rots the brain.

    States dying? Have you heard of China, Russia or the USA? They are places abroad.
    As I have just said to Malc you reflect the way the Scots Nats dismissed every reasonable argument 70 years ago and it got then nowhere.

    If and when another referendum is held serious questions will require serious answers, not insults and hyperbole
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 2,958
    ydoethur said:

    malcolmg said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Astonishingly good figures for Sturgeon there, considering that this is a Great Britain-wide poll. She clearly has an awful lot of admirers in England. Rightly so.

    The winner of the Next First Minister market depends largely on when Sturgeon decides to go.

    There is of course the issue of what Ladbrokes and other bookies would do if the job title changes. That could be pre- or post-independence, or in conjunction with it. The office of First Minister of Norway was changed to Prime Minister of Norway 27 years prior to their successful independence referendum in 1905. On the other hand, even when independent, Scots could decide to keep the name of the office as First Minister, which has the advantage of familiarity. The job title is far less important than the substantive powers.
    Norway and Sweden were in a personal rather than political Union under the crown of Sweden after 1873 (not 1878). That change was the reason why the title changed (and the location of the office, which was previously in Stockholm not Oslo). Scotland and England are in one United Kingdom. The parallel doesn’t work.

    Or to put it another way, do you really think Boris Johnson or even Keir Starmer will be willing to put forward and pass legislation that would change the statutory office of First Minister established under Section 44 of the Scotland Act 1998, that would further the SNP narrative they both reject?
    “one United Kingdom”

    Ho ho.

    I’m a big fan of the Johnson/Starmer Jock-bashing axis: they have both decided to simply keep building the dam higher and higher, as the weight of water behind the crumbling, ill-designed structure just keeps getting greater and greater. Tony Blair was no structural engineer, and his blueprint to “kill nationalism stone dead” has so enraged British Nationalists that they have set themselves on an irreversible course to destroying the thing they claim to love.
    Are you saying Scotland is not part of the United Kingdom?
    Intellectually: no.

    Emotionally: no.

    Technically: kind of.
    Yet in 2014 55% of actual Scottish voters disagreed. And since then there is no metric other than a few MoE polls to suggest a substantial shift.

    Try not to confuse wishful thinking from the safe(ish) distance of Sweden with reality.
    55% of people resident in Scotland, which is not quite the same thing.

    Personally, I’d prefer zero polling on this topic. The shock when the reality hits home as the dam collapses...
    Umm, Scottish voters are ‘people resident in Scotland.’ That’s why they have, y’know, votes in Scotland.

    The problem for Scottish independence is that while its supporters are becoming more strident the actual issues have, if anything, moved the fundamentals against them.

    In 2014 there were serious doubts as to whether Scotland could remain in the EU, which was vital to the economic case for independence. Now, we know it wouldn’t be in the EU and would have to apply under article 49, a long process.

    In 2014, there was a strong government with substantial Scottish representation in Westminster, which had worked effectively with the SNP to deliver a referendum that everyone agrees was free, fair and democratic, although some quibbles about the franchise and its extent remain. It was a government that could be expected to negotiate a divorce on a reasonable basis, in good faith. Now, we have a factional, divisive and populist English dominated government led by an unstable liar whose skills in negotiations are zero, and because of that, would not negotiate at all. His response would be, ‘independence? Fine. Sod off. Enjoy the border checks at Gretna.’

    The oil price is on the floor and may never recover fully.

    The pound, leaving aside its own serious issues, is being debased to support the government of the UK, and the Euro continues to be a mess, so the currency situation would still be unclear.

    The SNP itself is divided and the Salmond saga is far from over. It may bring down Sturgeon. More likely it simply becomes a festering sore that taints a government noted for its patriotism but not for its executive ability.

    Does that mean a referendum on independence would vote no again? Well, no, not for certain. Often these things are about emotion rather than reason (Brexit and perhaps more pertinently, the Irish Free State wave hello). And the mere fact the UK government is so unpopular in Scotland in itself does probably have an impact.

    But there is no sign of a shift from 45-55 to the 60-40 that would probably be needed to call a referendum in the expectation of winning it. I strongly suspect, indeed, that if Sturgeon had thought May or Johnson would have granted her a referendum she wouldn’t have called for one, as a second ‘No’ really would kill independence and possibly the SNP stone dead.

    Personally, I wonder if this all isn’t irrelevant anyway, as I think the age of the nation state (and there I include the EU) may be drawing to an end for other reasons. But I personally would be surprised if Scotland were to become independent in the next ten years. Not shocked, not dying of a heart attack, but surprised.
    Ydoethur, your one weakness is your knowledge of Scotland , Independence, SNP etc. You don't half write a load of old bollocks on the topic. Apart from that keep up the good work. Might be worth reading some actual Scottish "real" news sites rather than the Times and Daily Mail.
    You mean, I should lay off the Daily Record and the National that I was reading this morning?

    I’m vain enough to be preening that you think it my ‘one weakness’ though.

    (PS, I never read the Times. My newspaper of choice is the Guardian. No political reasons, I’m just a cheapskate.)
    So, you subscribe to The National? A bit odd for a self-confessed cheapskate.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 3,599

    This is what I was alluding to in the very first post on this thread. Jenrick survives because he is, now on this second issue, a human shield for Boris.

    And this is why he was appointed in the first place



    No threat to BoZo or Cummings
  • LRM should resign or be sacked.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 2,958
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    As an aside, Ladbrokes has had its Austrian markets up for a week or more already.

    Not bet yet. Might give them another look.

    Edited extra bit: no idea why it takes so long for the other markets to expand after clicking... bit tedious.

    Good news for those not banned by Ladbrokes!

    Are bookies’ shops open in the U.K. yet?
    Tomorrow north of border.

    https://www.racingpost.com/news/betting-shops-set-to-reopen-in-scotland-with-restricted-service-on-monday-week/438516
    Thanks. (Looks through contacts for friends in Scotland who can be trusted to go to the bookies next weekend!).
    Hardly matters though. Online betting has been possible throughout the lockdown.
    It does when you're not UK resident and they shut your accounts down though! Sometimes sending a mate to a shop is all one has left! :)
    Snap.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 2,958
    Does anyone know the Alister Jack price?
Sign In or Register to comment.