Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Where political gamblers are risking their money at the mom

SystemSystem Posts: 11,014
edited March 2016 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Where political gamblers are risking their money at the moment

Thanks to PB’s new odds widgets provided by Liberty Tech we are now able to track the amount of betting there has been on selected political markets.

Read the full story here


«13456

Comments

  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    I'm much more interested in domestic politics than US politics. But the markets on the US elections are at present much more dynamic than the domestic politics markets. So I'm doing most of my betting there. It's fun, but scary.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,359
    edited March 2016
    Good idea Mike.

    I think everyone thinks the referendum is going to be a Remain win, thus no excitement.

    Whereas the Presidential markets have been unpredictable and lots of liquidity.

    All I will say is thank Allah for Iowans and the betting market overreaction to the Iowa Caucus.
  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,846
    Storm clouds are gathering

    Over Osbornes leadership ambitions.

    Would be a shame from my point of view
  • Options
    FPT
    foxinsoxuk said:
    » show previous quotes
    "The companies income belongs to the shareholders, it is a spurious distinction.

    Though political parties funding is ripe for reform, I would restrict donations to individuals who are on the electoral register. Companies and Unions cannot vote as entities, so should not be able to donate in cash or in kind either."

    Political donations by companies could be approved by individual and institutional shareholders if they could only be made in the form of deductions from dividend payments: shareholders would have the option of approving (or not) the deduction.
  • Options
    Quelle? Daten? I'm not sure I approve of the Frenchfying of PB.

    (Says the person who used Hors de combat in a thread header last weekend)
  • Options
    watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474
    edited March 2016

    Storm clouds are gathering

    Over Osbornes leadership ambitions.

    Would be a shame from my point of view

    Because he'll be a liability at the next GE?
  • Options
    WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838
    For me, the US election is by far the most entertaining thing to bet on right now. There's liquidity and a variety of runners and possible outcomes.
  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,846
    watford30 said:

    Storm clouds are gathering

    Over Osbornes leadership ambitions.

    Would be a shame from my point of view

    Because he'll be a liability at the next GE?
    Correct although from that point of view would prefer Gove
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,302
    edited March 2016
    I was ready to have a punt.

    As I posted last night, I put £20 on Michael Gove as Next Chancellor at 6/1 with Ladbrokes.

    I found the D'Ancona article in the ES last night (who is personally and socially very close to the Cameroons) convincing: there is an emerging alliance between Gove and Osborne IMHO.

    http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/matthew-dancona-the-budget-reveals-the-kind-of-britain-that-george-osborne-wants-a3204991.html

    I'm not saying Osborne *will* be leader but, if he is, it will be with Gove as his No.2 and that'll be either as Chancellor, or Foreign Secretary.

    It will all become clear after the referendum but, by then, these odds will be gone.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,938
    Wanderer said:

    For me, the US election is by far the most entertaining thing to bet on right now. There's liquidity and a variety of runners and possible outcomes.

    The outcome being that it's Trump vs Clinton...
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670

    I'm much more interested in domestic politics than US politics. But the markets on the US elections are at present much more dynamic than the domestic politics markets. So I'm doing most of my betting there. It's fun, but scary.

    Is 'dynamic' a euphemism for 'filled with stupid punters'
  • Options
    runnymederunnymede Posts: 2,536
    'Whatever the EU does it will be legal - and in the best interests of Europe'

    People placing their faith in the 'guarantees' the PM has negotiated for the UK should take serious note of this. The EU will do whatever it pleases, if it feels so inclined - it has developed for itself a new version of the doctrine of Papal Infallibility.


    https://t.co/kkgsGTQJuM
  • Options

    I was ready to have a punt.

    As I posted last night, I put £20 on Michael Gove as Next Chancellor at 6/1 with Ladbrokes.

    I found the D'Ancona article in the ES last night (who is personally and socially very close to the Cameroons) convincing: there is an emerging alliance between Gove and Osborne IMHO.

    http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/matthew-dancona-the-budget-reveals-the-kind-of-britain-that-george-osborne-wants-a3204991.html

    I'm not saying Osborne *will* be leader but, if he is, it will be with Gove as his No.2 and that'll be either as Chancellor, or Foreign Secretary.

    It will all become clear after the referendum but, by then, these odds will be gone.

    I've got a very interesting tip coming up as next Tory leader this weekend.

    I know PBers will laugh at it, but I reckon it might have value.
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Alistair said:

    I'm much more interested in domestic politics than US politics. But the markets on the US elections are at present much more dynamic than the domestic politics markets. So I'm doing most of my betting there. It's fun, but scary.

    Is 'dynamic' a euphemism for 'filled with stupid punters'
    It's a long time since I've been accused of being unnecessarily polite.
  • Options
    Alistair said:

    I'm much more interested in domestic politics than US politics. But the markets on the US elections are at present much more dynamic than the domestic politics markets. So I'm doing most of my betting there. It's fun, but scary.

    Is 'dynamic' a euphemism for 'filled with stupid punters'
    To be fair us it didn't feel stupid to keep on laying Trump for so long.

    Oh you're talking about the people that laid Cruz at 70/1?
  • Options
    JonathanDJonathanD Posts: 2,400

    I was ready to have a punt.

    As I posted last night, I put £20 on Michael Gove as Next Chancellor at 6/1 with Ladbrokes.

    I found the D'Ancona article in the ES last night (who is personally and socially very close to the Cameroons) convincing: there is an emerging alliance between Gove and Osborne IMHO.

    http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/matthew-dancona-the-budget-reveals-the-kind-of-britain-that-george-osborne-wants-a3204991.html

    I'm not saying Osborne *will* be leader but, if he is, it will be with Gove as his No.2 and that'll be either as Chancellor, or Foreign Secretary.

    It will all become clear after the referendum but, by then, these odds will be gone.


    An Osborne - Gove top two for the Tory party would be electorally unappealing to a lot of the country. Sadly the current Tory party behaviour shows they seem to have forgot a lot of the lessons of the 90's / 00's.
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    Watford. He was like an octopus with a PA of mine. Fortunately she was made of sterner stuff so dealt with it herself.
  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 18,468

    FPT
    foxinsoxuk said:
    » show previous quotes
    "The companies income belongs to the shareholders, it is a spurious distinction.

    Though political parties funding is ripe for reform, I would restrict donations to individuals who are on the electoral register. Companies and Unions cannot vote as entities, so should not be able to donate in cash or in kind either."

    Political donations by companies could be approved by individual and institutional shareholders if they could only be made in the form of deductions from dividend payments: shareholders would have the option of approving (or not) the deduction.

    Sounds reasonable.

    The Tories are approaching (desperately needed) TU funding reform from the wrong (partisan) end.

    They should be breaking the control exercised by the Union leaderships, who are likely to be extemists, in favour of the political parties supported by members. For the largest Unions, barely half of the members vote Labour.

    The Union claim is to represent their members; in political funding they do not.

    Let the members decide which legal political party they support, and make that the measure of where party political funds should go.

    There is still the question around Union leaderships supporting "non-party" political campaigns (eg various websites), but it would be a start, and could be applied similarly to corportate donations.
  • Options
    Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    Ditto. I've no book on UK stuff right now.
    Wanderer said:

    For me, the US election is by far the most entertaining thing to bet on right now. There's liquidity and a variety of runners and possible outcomes.

  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,302

    Good idea Mike.

    I think everyone thinks the referendum is going to be a Remain win, thus no excitement.

    Whereas the Presidential markets have been unpredictable and lots of liquidity.

    All I will say is thank Allah for Iowans and the betting market overreaction to the Iowa Caucus.

    Incredible to think now that My Dad Was A Bartender went odds on after Iowa because he came in third place.
  • Options
    JonathanD said:

    I was ready to have a punt.

    As I posted last night, I put £20 on Michael Gove as Next Chancellor at 6/1 with Ladbrokes.

    I found the D'Ancona article in the ES last night (who is personally and socially very close to the Cameroons) convincing: there is an emerging alliance between Gove and Osborne IMHO.

    http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/matthew-dancona-the-budget-reveals-the-kind-of-britain-that-george-osborne-wants-a3204991.html

    I'm not saying Osborne *will* be leader but, if he is, it will be with Gove as his No.2 and that'll be either as Chancellor, or Foreign Secretary.

    It will all become clear after the referendum but, by then, these odds will be gone.


    An Osborne - Gove top two for the Tory party would be electorally unappealing to a lot of the country. Sadly the current Tory party behaviour shows they seem to have forgot a lot of the lessons of the 90's / 00's.
    Last night I met up with someone who worked for the Tories in the 90s and is back again working for them. He said there's one palpable difference between then and now. The Tories retain their bloodlust for power, they lost it in the 90s, plus Corbyn is a very unifying force for the Tory party. The view is we're not letting him become PM on our watch.
  • Options
    Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    It's certainly packed with emotional bettors.
    Alistair said:

    I'm much more interested in domestic politics than US politics. But the markets on the US elections are at present much more dynamic than the domestic politics markets. So I'm doing most of my betting there. It's fun, but scary.

    Is 'dynamic' a euphemism for 'filled with stupid punters'
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,302
    JonathanD said:

    I was ready to have a punt.

    As I posted last night, I put £20 on Michael Gove as Next Chancellor at 6/1 with Ladbrokes.

    I found the D'Ancona article in the ES last night (who is personally and socially very close to the Cameroons) convincing: there is an emerging alliance between Gove and Osborne IMHO.

    http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/matthew-dancona-the-budget-reveals-the-kind-of-britain-that-george-osborne-wants-a3204991.html

    I'm not saying Osborne *will* be leader but, if he is, it will be with Gove as his No.2 and that'll be either as Chancellor, or Foreign Secretary.

    It will all become clear after the referendum but, by then, these odds will be gone.


    An Osborne - Gove top two for the Tory party would be electorally unappealing to a lot of the country. Sadly the current Tory party behaviour shows they seem to have forgot a lot of the lessons of the 90's / 00's.
    No, it wouldn't, and no, we haven't.

    Apart from that, good points.
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    JonathanD said:

    I was ready to have a punt.

    As I posted last night, I put £20 on Michael Gove as Next Chancellor at 6/1 with Ladbrokes.

    I found the D'Ancona article in the ES last night (who is personally and socially very close to the Cameroons) convincing: there is an emerging alliance between Gove and Osborne IMHO.

    http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/matthew-dancona-the-budget-reveals-the-kind-of-britain-that-george-osborne-wants-a3204991.html

    I'm not saying Osborne *will* be leader but, if he is, it will be with Gove as his No.2 and that'll be either as Chancellor, or Foreign Secretary.

    It will all become clear after the referendum but, by then, these odds will be gone.


    An Osborne - Gove top two for the Tory party would be electorally unappealing to a lot of the country. Sadly the current Tory party behaviour shows they seem to have forgot a lot of the lessons of the 90's / 00's.
    Last night I met up with someone who worked for the Tories in the 90s and is back again working for them. He said there's one palpable difference between then and now. The Tories retain their bloodlust for power, they lost it in the 90s, plus Corbyn is a very unifying force for the Tory party. The view is we're not letting him become PM on our watch.
    You talk a good talk. I see not the slightest evidence in the Conservatives' current behaviour that they're ready to walk the walk. They seem supremely and unjustifiably complacent.
  • Options
    watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474
    Roger said:

    Watford. He was like an octopus with a PA of mine. Fortunately she was made of sterner stuff so dealt with it herself.

    He died a few hours ago, and you're smearing him already.

    You're such a class act, Roger.
  • Options
    MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792
    runnymede said:

    'Whatever the EU does it will be legal - and in the best interests of Europe'

    People placing their faith in the 'guarantees' the PM has negotiated for the UK should take serious note of this. The EU will do whatever it pleases, if it feels so inclined - it has developed for itself a new version of the doctrine of Papal Infallibility.


    https://t.co/kkgsGTQJuM

    " If the President does it, that means it isn't illegal. ". Nixon.
    The EU is about to meet its Waterloogate.
  • Options
    Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    edited March 2016
    I hope Louise doesn't bet, if her tweeting is any yardstick.

    Trump Hate is so OTT.

    Good idea Mike.

    I think everyone thinks the referendum is going to be a Remain win, thus no excitement.

    Whereas the Presidential markets have been unpredictable and lots of liquidity.

    All I will say is thank Allah for Iowans and the betting market overreaction to the Iowa Caucus.

    Incredible to think now that My Dad Was A Bartender went odds on after Iowa because he came in third place.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,938

    I was ready to have a punt.

    As I posted last night, I put £20 on Michael Gove as Next Chancellor at 6/1 with Ladbrokes.

    I found the D'Ancona article in the ES last night (who is personally and socially very close to the Cameroons) convincing: there is an emerging alliance between Gove and Osborne IMHO.

    http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/matthew-dancona-the-budget-reveals-the-kind-of-britain-that-george-osborne-wants-a3204991.html

    I'm not saying Osborne *will* be leader but, if he is, it will be with Gove as his No.2 and that'll be either as Chancellor, or Foreign Secretary.

    It will all become clear after the referendum but, by then, these odds will be gone.

    I've got a very interesting tip coming up as next Tory leader this weekend.

    I know PBers will laugh at it, but I reckon it might have value.
    Nick Clegg?
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,849
    FPT

    Andrew Neil
    Deep in Treasury Red Book:
    Oil revenues £2.2bn 2014/15
    Oil revs close to zero 2015/16
    Oil revs MINUS £1bn 2016/17 (oil cos get tax credits)

    Almost makes you think HMG should have been doing something to offset the inevitable hit.

    As for Nicola .......
    Peanuts given they have had £360B from it and Tories have pissed it away unlike Norway who now have 755B in the bank.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,359
    edited March 2016

    JonathanD said:

    I was ready to have a punt.

    As I posted last night, I put £20 on Michael Gove as Next Chancellor at 6/1 with Ladbrokes.

    I found the D'Ancona article in the ES last night (who is personally and socially very close to the Cameroons) convincing: there is an emerging alliance between Gove and Osborne IMHO.

    http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/matthew-dancona-the-budget-reveals-the-kind-of-britain-that-george-osborne-wants-a3204991.html

    I'm not saying Osborne *will* be leader but, if he is, it will be with Gove as his No.2 and that'll be either as Chancellor, or Foreign Secretary.

    It will all become clear after the referendum but, by then, these odds will be gone.


    An Osborne - Gove top two for the Tory party would be electorally unappealing to a lot of the country. Sadly the current Tory party behaviour shows they seem to have forgot a lot of the lessons of the 90's / 00's.
    Last night I met up with someone who worked for the Tories in the 90s and is back again working for them. He said there's one palpable difference between then and now. The Tories retain their bloodlust for power, they lost it in the 90s, plus Corbyn is a very unifying force for the Tory party. The view is we're not letting him become PM on our watch.
    You talk a good talk. I see not the slightest evidence in the Conservatives' current behaviour that they're ready to walk the walk. They seem supremely and unjustifiably complacent.
    Compare and contrast during 1992-1997 we had Tory MPs saying John Major must go, including from the floor of the House of Commons.

    Today even the most ardent Leaver is saying Cameron must stay even if he loses the referendum.
  • Options
    Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    edited March 2016
    I can't see the name Clegg without recalling Philippe's epic bet on Cleggasm.

    Ouchtastic :astonished:
    rcs1000 said:

    I was ready to have a punt.

    As I posted last night, I put £20 on Michael Gove as Next Chancellor at 6/1 with Ladbrokes.

    I found the D'Ancona article in the ES last night (who is personally and socially very close to the Cameroons) convincing: there is an emerging alliance between Gove and Osborne IMHO.

    http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/matthew-dancona-the-budget-reveals-the-kind-of-britain-that-george-osborne-wants-a3204991.html

    I'm not saying Osborne *will* be leader but, if he is, it will be with Gove as his No.2 and that'll be either as Chancellor, or Foreign Secretary.

    It will all become clear after the referendum but, by then, these odds will be gone.

    I've got a very interesting tip coming up as next Tory leader this weekend.

    I know PBers will laugh at it, but I reckon it might have value.
    Nick Clegg?
  • Options
    rcs1000 said:

    I was ready to have a punt.

    As I posted last night, I put £20 on Michael Gove as Next Chancellor at 6/1 with Ladbrokes.

    I found the D'Ancona article in the ES last night (who is personally and socially very close to the Cameroons) convincing: there is an emerging alliance between Gove and Osborne IMHO.

    http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/matthew-dancona-the-budget-reveals-the-kind-of-britain-that-george-osborne-wants-a3204991.html

    I'm not saying Osborne *will* be leader but, if he is, it will be with Gove as his No.2 and that'll be either as Chancellor, or Foreign Secretary.

    It will all become clear after the referendum but, by then, these odds will be gone.

    I've got a very interesting tip coming up as next Tory leader this weekend.

    I know PBers will laugh at it, but I reckon it might have value.
    Nick Clegg?
    No. But nearly as likely as my tip.
  • Options
    MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792
    malcolmg said:

    FPT

    Andrew Neil
    Deep in Treasury Red Book:
    Oil revenues £2.2bn 2014/15
    Oil revs close to zero 2015/16
    Oil revs MINUS £1bn 2016/17 (oil cos get tax credits)

    Almost makes you think HMG should have been doing something to offset the inevitable hit.

    As for Nicola .......
    Peanuts given they have had £360B from it and Tories have pissed it away unlike Norway who now have 755B in the bank.
    Used by Labour and Tories to turn London into the world capital, hardly pissed away.
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    JonathanD said:

    I was ready to have a punt.

    As I posted last night, I put £20 on Michael Gove as Next Chancellor at 6/1 with Ladbrokes.

    I found the D'Ancona article in the ES last night (who is personally and socially very close to the Cameroons) convincing: there is an emerging alliance between Gove and Osborne IMHO.

    http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/matthew-dancona-the-budget-reveals-the-kind-of-britain-that-george-osborne-wants-a3204991.html

    I'm not saying Osborne *will* be leader but, if he is, it will be with Gove as his No.2 and that'll be either as Chancellor, or Foreign Secretary.

    It will all become clear after the referendum but, by then, these odds will be gone.


    An Osborne - Gove top two for the Tory party would be electorally unappealing to a lot of the country. Sadly the current Tory party behaviour shows they seem to have forgot a lot of the lessons of the 90's / 00's.
    Last night I met up with someone who worked for the Tories in the 90s and is back again working for them. He said there's one palpable difference between then and now. The Tories retain their bloodlust for power, they lost it in the 90s, plus Corbyn is a very unifying force for the Tory party. The view is we're not letting him become PM on our watch.
    You talk a good talk. I see not the slightest evidence in the Conservatives' current behaviour that they're ready to walk the walk. They seem supremely and unjustifiably complacent.
    Compare and contrast during 1992-1997 we had Tory MPs saying John Major must go, including from the floor of the House of Commons.

    Today even the most ardent Leaver is saying Cameron must say even if he loses the referendum.
    Nadine Dorries has said that, for starters. And that would change the morning after the referendum result. Michael Gove has already had to warn would-be plotters against David Cameron not to be self-indulgent.

    This morning we hear that Conservative opponents of George Osborne are plotting his demise by rebelling against a budget.

    This is a party that believes that it can afford a civil war. It is mistaken in that belief.
  • Options
    Judging by his piece in today's Daily Telegraph, Roger Bootle seems to agree with OGH that Osborne's Budget yesterday may well prove to be his last:

    "Admittedly, though, if the world economy misbehaves and/or Osborne is proved wrong about the Brexit vote, but right about its consequences, then the borrowing and debt numbers will turn out to be higher. But in that event, not only will Osborne have to kiss goodbye to his hopes of becoming Prime Minister, but he probably won’t still be Chancellor. There is a real possibility that this Budget will turn out to have been his last."
  • Options

    JonathanD said:

    I was ready to have a punt.

    As I posted last night, I put £20 on Michael Gove as Next Chancellor at 6/1 with Ladbrokes.

    I found the D'Ancona article in the ES last night (who is personally and socially very close to the Cameroons) convincing: there is an emerging alliance between Gove and Osborne IMHO.

    http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/matthew-dancona-the-budget-reveals-the-kind-of-britain-that-george-osborne-wants-a3204991.html

    I'm not saying Osborne *will* be leader but, if he is, it will be with Gove as his No.2 and that'll be either as Chancellor, or Foreign Secretary.

    It will all become clear after the referendum but, by then, these odds will be gone.


    An Osborne - Gove top two for the Tory party would be electorally unappealing to a lot of the country. Sadly the current Tory party behaviour shows they seem to have forgot a lot of the lessons of the 90's / 00's.
    Last night I met up with someone who worked for the Tories in the 90s and is back again working for them. He said there's one palpable difference between then and now. The Tories retain their bloodlust for power, they lost it in the 90s, plus Corbyn is a very unifying force for the Tory party. The view is we're not letting him become PM on our watch.
    You talk a good talk. I see not the slightest evidence in the Conservatives' current behaviour that they're ready to walk the walk. They seem supremely and unjustifiably complacent.
    Compare and contrast during 1992-1997 we had Tory MPs saying John Major must go, including from the floor of the House of Commons.

    Today even the most ardent Leaver is saying Cameron must say even if he loses the referendum.
    Nadine Dorries has said that, for starters. And that would change the morning after the referendum result. Michael Gove has already had to warn would-be plotters against David Cameron not to be self-indulgent.

    This morning we hear that Conservative opponents of George Osborne are plotting his demise by rebelling against a budget.

    This is a party that believes that it can afford a civil war. It is mistaken in that belief.
    This explains it.

    When Cameron came to the House to recommend Remain, it should have been a difficult moment for Dave and the Tory party.

    What happened ? It was civil and the Tory party couldn't stop laughing at Corbyn

    http://youtu.be/TCbWLeJ35cA
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    malcolmg said:

    FPT

    Andrew Neil
    Deep in Treasury Red Book:
    Oil revenues £2.2bn 2014/15
    Oil revs close to zero 2015/16
    Oil revs MINUS £1bn 2016/17 (oil cos get tax credits)

    Almost makes you think HMG should have been doing something to offset the inevitable hit.

    As for Nicola .......
    Peanuts given they have had £360B from it and Tories have pissed it away unlike Norway who now have 755B in the bank.
    Tories? I think we have the Scottish Brown to blame the most for the nation's deficit. Your lot elected him by a landslide too.
  • Options
    Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820


    Nadine Dorries has said that, for starters. And that would change the morning after the referendum result. Michael Gove has already had to warn would-be plotters against David Cameron not to be self-indulgent.

    This morning we hear that Conservative opponents of George Osborne are plotting his demise by rebelling against a budget.

    This is a party that believes that it can afford a civil war. It is mistaken in that belief.

    It's not engaged in civil war. It's engaged in a fierce battle in the lead-up to a controversial referendum. Big difference, because on June 24th the outcome of the battle will have been decided once and for all, by voters, not by the Conservative Party or its leadership. There will be literally no further point at all in continuing the battle.
  • Options
    Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    edited March 2016
    O_o


    Nadine Dorries has said that, for starters. And that would change the morning after the referendum result. Michael Gove has already had to warn would-be plotters against David Cameron not to be self-indulgent.

    This morning we hear that Conservative opponents of George Osborne are plotting his demise by rebelling against a budget.

    This is a party that believes that it can afford a civil war. It is mistaken in that belief.

    It's not engaged in civil war. It's engaged in a fierce battle in the lead-up to a controversial referendum. Big difference, because on June 24th the outcome of the battle will have been decided once and for all, by voters, not by the Conservative Party or its leadership. There will be literally no further point at all in continuing the battle.
  • Options
    MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792

    malcolmg said:

    FPT

    Andrew Neil
    Deep in Treasury Red Book:
    Oil revenues £2.2bn 2014/15
    Oil revs close to zero 2015/16
    Oil revs MINUS £1bn 2016/17 (oil cos get tax credits)

    Almost makes you think HMG should have been doing something to offset the inevitable hit.

    As for Nicola .......
    Peanuts given they have had £360B from it and Tories have pissed it away unlike Norway who now have 755B in the bank.
    Tories? I think we have the Scottish Brown to blame the most for the nation's deficit. Your lot elected him by a landslide too.
    Not to mention RBS and BoS, no slouches in pissing away vast sums.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,302

    I was ready to have a punt.

    As I posted last night, I put £20 on Michael Gove as Next Chancellor at 6/1 with Ladbrokes.

    I found the D'Ancona article in the ES last night (who is personally and socially very close to the Cameroons) convincing: there is an emerging alliance between Gove and Osborne IMHO.

    http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/matthew-dancona-the-budget-reveals-the-kind-of-britain-that-george-osborne-wants-a3204991.html

    I'm not saying Osborne *will* be leader but, if he is, it will be with Gove as his No.2 and that'll be either as Chancellor, or Foreign Secretary.

    It will all become clear after the referendum but, by then, these odds will be gone.

    I've got a very interesting tip coming up as next Tory leader this weekend.

    I know PBers will laugh at it, but I reckon it might have value.
    Look forward to that.

    FWIW I find a lot of the 2015 intake v.impressive and I like Jesse Norman as an interesting longshot.
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340


    Nadine Dorries has said that, for starters. And that would change the morning after the referendum result. Michael Gove has already had to warn would-be plotters against David Cameron not to be self-indulgent.

    This morning we hear that Conservative opponents of George Osborne are plotting his demise by rebelling against a budget.

    This is a party that believes that it can afford a civil war. It is mistaken in that belief.

    It's not engaged in civil war. It's engaged in a fierce battle in the lead-up to a controversial referendum. Big difference, because on June 24th the outcome of the battle will have been decided once and for all, by voters, not by the Conservative Party or its leadership. There will be literally no further point at all in continuing the battle.
    Nothing is going to be settled in the Conservative party by the referendum. If Leave lose, the Leaver losers will simply regroup and consider how to adjust their strategy to achieve victory on what they consider to be by far the most important issue confronting the nation. If Leave win, the Leaver winners will then take over the party and then fall out hugely among themselves about what Leave means.

    Neither result is going to lead to a Conservative party at ease with itself.
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    JonathanD said:

    I was ready to have a punt.

    As I posted last night, I put £20 on Michael Gove as Next Chancellor at 6/1 with Ladbrokes.

    I found the D'Ancona article in the ES last night (who is personally and socially very close to the Cameroons) convincing: there is an emerging alliance between Gove and Osborne IMHO.

    http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/matthew-dancona-the-budget-reveals-the-kind-of-britain-that-george-osborne-wants-a3204991.html

    I'm not saying Osborne *will* be leader but, if he is, it will be with Gove as his No.2 and that'll be either as Chancellor, or Foreign Secretary.

    It will all become clear after the referendum but, by then, these odds will be gone.


    An Osborne - Gove top two for the Tory party would be electorally unappealing to a lot of the country. Sadly the current Tory party behaviour shows they seem to have forgot a lot of the lessons of the 90's / 00's.
    Last night I met up with someone who worked for the Tories in the 90s and is back again working for them. He said there's one palpable difference between then and now. The Tories retain their bloodlust for power, they lost it in the 90s, plus Corbyn is a very unifying force for the Tory party. The view is we're not letting him become PM on our watch.
    You talk a good talk. I see not the slightest evidence in the Conservatives' current behaviour that they're ready to walk the walk. They seem supremely and unjustifiably complacent.
    Compare and contrast during 1992-1997 we had Tory MPs saying John Major must go, including from the floor of the House of Commons.

    Today even the most ardent Leaver is saying Cameron must say even if he loses the referendum.
    Nadine Dorries has said that, for starters. And that would change the morning after the referendum result. Michael Gove has already had to warn would-be plotters against David Cameron not to be self-indulgent.

    This morning we hear that Conservative opponents of George Osborne are plotting his demise by rebelling against a budget.

    This is a party that believes that it can afford a civil war. It is mistaken in that belief.
    Nadine has said it for coming upto 15 years now it feels like. As has David Davis. Anyone else?
  • Options
    watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474

    malcolmg said:

    FPT

    Andrew Neil
    Deep in Treasury Red Book:
    Oil revenues £2.2bn 2014/15
    Oil revs close to zero 2015/16
    Oil revs MINUS £1bn 2016/17 (oil cos get tax credits)

    Almost makes you think HMG should have been doing something to offset the inevitable hit.

    As for Nicola .......
    Peanuts given they have had £360B from it and Tories have pissed it away unlike Norway who now have 755B in the bank.
    Used by Labour and Tories to turn London into the world capital, hardly pissed away.
    They did allow a few quid to be hosed on benefits for wee scunners like Malky and his fellow neds.
  • Options
    Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    edited March 2016
    AFP
    #BREAKING Germany's Spiegel magazine says forced to withdraw Turkey correspondent

    Germany decides to close its embassy in Ankara & its consulate in Istanbul as a result of threatening its security. https://t.co/w1sLjvgW6r
  • Options
    watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474


    Nadine Dorries has said that, for starters. And that would change the morning after the referendum result. Michael Gove has already had to warn would-be plotters against David Cameron not to be self-indulgent.

    This morning we hear that Conservative opponents of George Osborne are plotting his demise by rebelling against a budget.

    This is a party that believes that it can afford a civil war. It is mistaken in that belief.

    It's not engaged in civil war. It's engaged in a fierce battle in the lead-up to a controversial referendum. Big difference, because on June 24th the outcome of the battle will have been decided once and for all, by voters, not by the Conservative Party or its leadership. There will be literally no further point at all in continuing the battle.
    Ha Ha. As if Remain will sit on their hands in the event of a Leave vote.
  • Options
    runnymederunnymede Posts: 2,536
    'There will be literally no further point at all in continuing the battle.'

    Whatever the outcome I am 100% sure that is wrong.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,976
    Miss Plato, really quite surprised by that German move. By the same logic, they could justify closing their French embassy.

    Not only that, but the Germans are trying to butter up Turkey over the migrant crisis, and this sort of thing seems unlikely to help.
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    watford30 said:


    Nadine Dorries has said that, for starters. And that would change the morning after the referendum result. Michael Gove has already had to warn would-be plotters against David Cameron not to be self-indulgent.

    This morning we hear that Conservative opponents of George Osborne are plotting his demise by rebelling against a budget.

    This is a party that believes that it can afford a civil war. It is mistaken in that belief.

    It's not engaged in civil war. It's engaged in a fierce battle in the lead-up to a controversial referendum. Big difference, because on June 24th the outcome of the battle will have been decided once and for all, by voters, not by the Conservative Party or its leadership. There will be literally no further point at all in continuing the battle.
    Ha Ha. As if Remain will sit on their hands in the event of a Leave vote.
    Remain Tories should not try to undermine the result but instead segue to trying to get their ideal sort of Leave, which likely means EEA.
  • Options
    Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    The Economist
    Youth unemployment, the scourge of much of Europe, has plummeted in Britain https://t.co/t2xeDXOk5F https://t.co/Lm6Bdtp5tB
  • Options
    MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792

    Miss Plato, really quite surprised by that German move. By the same logic, they could justify closing their French embassy.

    Not only that, but the Germans are trying to butter up Turkey over the migrant crisis, and this sort of thing seems unlikely to help.

    German decision making will remain in disarray until Mad Merkel is sectioned.
  • Options
    WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838

    JonathanD said:

    I was ready to have a punt.

    As I posted last night, I put £20 on Michael Gove as Next Chancellor at 6/1 with Ladbrokes.

    I found the D'Ancona article in the ES last night (who is personally and socially very close to the Cameroons) convincing: there is an emerging alliance between Gove and Osborne IMHO.

    http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/matthew-dancona-the-budget-reveals-the-kind-of-britain-that-george-osborne-wants-a3204991.html

    I'm not saying Osborne *will* be leader but, if he is, it will be with Gove as his No.2 and that'll be either as Chancellor, or Foreign Secretary.

    It will all become clear after the referendum but, by then, these odds will be gone.


    An Osborne - Gove top two for the Tory party would be electorally unappealing to a lot of the country. Sadly the current Tory party behaviour shows they seem to have forgot a lot of the lessons of the 90's / 00's.
    Last night I met up with someone who worked for the Tories in the 90s and is back again working for them. He said there's one palpable difference between then and now. The Tories retain their bloodlust for power, they lost it in the 90s, plus Corbyn is a very unifying force for the Tory party. The view is we're not letting him become PM on our watch.
    You talk a good talk. I see not the slightest evidence in the Conservatives' current behaviour that they're ready to walk the walk. They seem supremely and unjustifiably complacent.
    Compare and contrast during 1992-1997 we had Tory MPs saying John Major must go, including from the floor of the House of Commons.

    Today even the most ardent Leaver is saying Cameron must say even if he loses the referendum.
    Nadine Dorries has said that, for starters. And that would change the morning after the referendum result. Michael Gove has already had to warn would-be plotters against David Cameron not to be self-indulgent.

    This morning we hear that Conservative opponents of George Osborne are plotting his demise by rebelling against a budget.

    This is a party that believes that it can afford a civil war. It is mistaken in that belief.
    Indeed.

    There is the assumption that if Corbyn is replaced by another left-winger they would be equally unpopular. Ie, a failure to see that Corbyn's low approval is - possibly - more to do with his being an ineffectual duffer than a raging pinko.

    Then, people seem to forget how precarious the Conservatives' position in the Commons is and how few seats they could afford to lose and stay in government.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,937
    edited March 2016

    AFP
    #BREAKING Germany's Spiegel magazine says forced to withdraw Turkey correspondent

    Germany decides to close its embassy in Ankara & its consulate in Istanbul as a result of threatening its security. https://t.co/w1sLjvgW6r

    Any other sources for that latter link?
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/german-embassy-ankara-closed-turkey-imminent-attack-a6936051.html
  • Options
    Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    edited March 2016

    Nothing is going to be settled in the Conservative party by the referendum. If Leave lose, the Leaver losers will simply regroup and consider how to adjust their strategy to achieve victory on what they consider to be by far the most important issue confronting the nation. If Leave win, the Leaver winners will then take over the party and then fall out hugely among themselves about what Leave means.

    Neither result is going to lead to a Conservative party at ease with itself.

    I don't think that is right. OK, if it's a very narrow Remain win, you might possibly be right, but even in that scenario voters will have decided and no-one is going to suggest a re-run. If it's a reasonably clear Remain result then that's the end of the matter for the foreseeable future. Those Leavers who are passionate about the issue of course won't change their views, but that has been the case for the last twenty-five years, and they'll accept that they've lost the argument for at least the next few years.

    If Leave win, I agree that it's more uncertain in that the issue will become the nature of the Brexit deal we are seeking, but that's not going to be as divisive with the party as you think (it will remain divisive compared with UKIP). The key point here is that those voting Remain are almost all not doing so with any enthusiasm (there aren't many Ken Clarkes or Damian Greens in the party). So they will happily go along with the decision and support a Leaver as leader.

    As I've said before, we have to be careful not to get misled by the salience of the EU issue now. It won't be so salient in a year's time, at least if it's a Remain result.
  • Options
    TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,387

    rcs1000 said:

    I was ready to have a punt.

    As I posted last night, I put £20 on Michael Gove as Next Chancellor at 6/1 with Ladbrokes.

    I found the D'Ancona article in the ES last night (who is personally and socially very close to the Cameroons) convincing: there is an emerging alliance between Gove and Osborne IMHO.

    http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/matthew-dancona-the-budget-reveals-the-kind-of-britain-that-george-osborne-wants-a3204991.html

    I'm not saying Osborne *will* be leader but, if he is, it will be with Gove as his No.2 and that'll be either as Chancellor, or Foreign Secretary.

    It will all become clear after the referendum but, by then, these odds will be gone.

    I've got a very interesting tip coming up as next Tory leader this weekend.

    I know PBers will laugh at it, but I reckon it might have value.
    Nick Clegg?
    No. But nearly as likely as my tip.
    Mark Reckless
  • Options

    I was ready to have a punt.

    As I posted last night, I put £20 on Michael Gove as Next Chancellor at 6/1 with Ladbrokes.

    I found the D'Ancona article in the ES last night (who is personally and socially very close to the Cameroons) convincing: there is an emerging alliance between Gove and Osborne IMHO.

    http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/matthew-dancona-the-budget-reveals-the-kind-of-britain-that-george-osborne-wants-a3204991.html

    I'm not saying Osborne *will* be leader but, if he is, it will be with Gove as his No.2 and that'll be either as Chancellor, or Foreign Secretary.

    It will all become clear after the referendum but, by then, these odds will be gone.

    It's probably equally possible that Gove will become the next Chancellor without Osborne becoming PM, simply as part of a re-shuffle, more likely next year than this (Cameron doesn't like them and postpones them therefore for as long as possible).
    Either way your bet looks a good one - unfortunately Laddies are the only bookie offering this market and their price this morning is a somewhat skinny 5/1.
  • Options

    rcs1000 said:

    I was ready to have a punt.

    As I posted last night, I put £20 on Michael Gove as Next Chancellor at 6/1 with Ladbrokes.

    I found the D'Ancona article in the ES last night (who is personally and socially very close to the Cameroons) convincing: there is an emerging alliance between Gove and Osborne IMHO.

    http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/matthew-dancona-the-budget-reveals-the-kind-of-britain-that-george-osborne-wants-a3204991.html

    I'm not saying Osborne *will* be leader but, if he is, it will be with Gove as his No.2 and that'll be either as Chancellor, or Foreign Secretary.

    It will all become clear after the referendum but, by then, these odds will be gone.

    I've got a very interesting tip coming up as next Tory leader this weekend.

    I know PBers will laugh at it, but I reckon it might have value.
    Nick Clegg?
    No. But nearly as likely as my tip.
    Mark Reckless
    Who?
  • Options
    MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    Good morning. My few £'s on Trump being nominated looking more paltry by the minute.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285
    edited March 2016

    Miss Plato, really quite surprised by that German move. By the same logic, they could justify closing their French embassy.

    Not only that, but the Germans are trying to butter up Turkey over the migrant crisis, and this sort of thing seems unlikely to help.

    Merkel making bonkers decisions again...it struck me a couple of days ago that people are pointing to Merkel and her decision over migrants of the start of mad decisions, but actually remember when she ordered all nuclear power stations to shut down in the near future because of incident in Japan...despite Germany getting 25% of their energy from it.

    They are now having to use stuff like brown coal.
  • Options
    Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    You'll like it, but not a lot

    https://youtu.be/1d09MsMkBuI
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,937

    Miss Plato, really quite surprised by that German move. By the same logic, they could justify closing their French embassy.

    Not only that, but the Germans are trying to butter up Turkey over the migrant crisis, and this sort of thing seems unlikely to help.

    Merkel making bonkers decisions again...it struck me a couple of days ago that people are pointing to Merkel and her decision over migrants of the start of mad decisions, but actually remember when ordered all nuclear power stations to shut down because of incident in Japan...
    It looks as though there has been a credible threat against German interests in Ankara. Given the bombing of the last week, it might be the PKK or left-wing groups trying to disrupt the talks with the EU over the migrant crisis.

    As I've said passim, Turkey's frightened. It's a shame that the Solution Process broke down last year. A great missed opportunity.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,302

    I was ready to have a punt.

    As I posted last night, I put £20 on Michael Gove as Next Chancellor at 6/1 with Ladbrokes.

    I found the D'Ancona article in the ES last night (who is personally and socially very close to the Cameroons) convincing: there is an emerging alliance between Gove and Osborne IMHO.

    http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/matthew-dancona-the-budget-reveals-the-kind-of-britain-that-george-osborne-wants-a3204991.html

    I'm not saying Osborne *will* be leader but, if he is, it will be with Gove as his No.2 and that'll be either as Chancellor, or Foreign Secretary.

    It will all become clear after the referendum but, by then, these odds will be gone.

    It's probably equally possible that Gove will become the next Chancellor without Osborne becoming PM, simply as part of a re-shuffle, more likely next year than this (Cameron doesn't like them and postpones them therefore for as long as possible).
    Either way your bet looks a good one - unfortunately Laddies are the only bookie offering this market and their price this morning is a somewhat skinny 5/1.
    Yup. Gove is going to have a strong future whatever happens in the referendum.

    Even though some have tried to damage him with Queengate.
  • Options
    MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053

    AFP
    #BREAKING Germany's Spiegel magazine says forced to withdraw Turkey correspondent

    Germany decides to close its embassy in Ankara & its consulate in Istanbul as a result of threatening its security. https://t.co/w1sLjvgW6r

    The rope around Merkels neck getting tighter.
  • Options
    CD13CD13 Posts: 6,351
    My prediction ... Remain wins referendum. Europe proceeds to Political Union at a slow rate. A few dissenters in Remain complain. They are told this isn't political union, it just walks and talks and swims like it. And anyway, you voted for it.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,910
    On political betting, I'm swimming in a nice green sea of Cruz/Trump then Ryan/Romney/Kasich/ (In that order more or less). Should Trump be longer or shorter, how certain is he to get the nomination really.

    No idea at this point !

    Also was a tax on sugary drinks REALLY the biggest item from the budget yesterday ?! Seems small beer to me but yet it was getting all the morning news. Unless you spend a horrendous amount on sugary drinks surely the other changes are alot more relevant.

    Prestbury park yesterday was going badly, right till Sprinter Sacre bounded up the hill for a tremendously emotional (And very profitable) win. Sometimes, just occasionally it is OK to bet with your heart and dreams.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285
    Pulpstar said:



    Also was a tax on sugary drinks REALLY the biggest item from the budget yesterday ?! Seems small beer to me but yet it was getting all the morning news. Unless you spend a horrendous amount on sugary drinks surely the other changes are alot more relevant.

    DEAD CAT........THUD....He knows the Guardian/BBC wing of the media have been calling for it and the Mail/Sun will scream nanny state.

  • Options
    MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053

    Miss Plato, really quite surprised by that German move. By the same logic, they could justify closing their French embassy.

    Not only that, but the Germans are trying to butter up Turkey over the migrant crisis, and this sort of thing seems unlikely to help.

    Merkel making bonkers decisions again...it struck me a couple of days ago that people are pointing to Merkel and her decision over migrants of the start of mad decisions, but actually remember when she ordered all nuclear power stations to shut down in the near future because of incident in Japan...despite Germany getting 25% of their energy from it.

    They are now having to use stuff like brown coal.
    Merkel is indeed acting as well as looking a bit demented. Alzheimers stage one/two?
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Pulpstar said:

    On political betting, I'm swimming in a nice green sea of Cruz/Trump then Ryan/Romney/Kasich/ (In that order more or less). Should Trump be longer or shorter, how certain is he to get the nomination really.

    No idea at this point !

    Also was a tax on sugary drinks REALLY the biggest item from the budget yesterday ?! Seems small beer to me but yet it was getting all the morning news. Unless you spend a horrendous amount on sugary drinks surely the other changes are alot more relevant.

    Prestbury park yesterday was going badly, right till Sprinter Sacre bounded up the hill for a tremendously emotional (And very profitable) win. Sometimes, just occasionally it is OK to bet with your heart and dreams.

    LISA is a nice name for a Trojan horse. Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes. But it's going to be a good idea for many under 40 to look at using LISA.
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,921

    JonathanD said:

    I was ready to have a punt.

    As I posted last night, I put £20 on Michael Gove as Next Chancellor at 6/1 with Ladbrokes.

    I found the D'Ancona article in the ES last night (who is personally and socially very close to the Cameroons) convincing: there is an emerging alliance between Gove and Osborne IMHO.

    http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/matthew-dancona-the-budget-reveals-the-kind-of-britain-that-george-osborne-wants-a3204991.html

    I'm not saying Osborne *will* be leader but, if he is, it will be with Gove as his No.2 and that'll be either as Chancellor, or Foreign Secretary.

    It will all become clear after the referendum but, by then, these odds will be gone.


    An Osborne - Gove top two for the Tory party would be electorally unappealing to a lot of the country. Sadly the current Tory party behaviour shows they seem to have forgot a lot of the lessons of the 90's / 00's.
    Last night I met up with someone who worked for the Tories in the 90s and is back again working for them. He said there's one palpable difference between then and now. The Tories retain their bloodlust for power, they lost it in the 90s, plus Corbyn is a very unifying force for the Tory party. The view is we're not letting him become PM on our watch.
    You talk a good talk. I see not the slightest evidence in the Conservatives' current behaviour that they're ready to walk the walk. They seem supremely and unjustifiably complacent.

    With Corbyn as leader of Labour the Tories can tear themselves apart and they will still win the election in 2020. That is the major difference between then and now. They have a free ticket to do exactly as they wish. Of course, there is a chance that Labour might decide it is serious about wanting to win elections again at some stage, but you wouldn't bet on it.

  • Options
    TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,387
    Pulpstar said:

    On political betting, I'm swimming in a nice green sea of Cruz/Trump then Ryan/Romney/Kasich/ (In that order more or less). Should Trump be longer or shorter, how certain is he to get the nomination really.

    No idea at this point !

    Also was a tax on sugary drinks REALLY the biggest item from the budget yesterday ?! Seems small beer to me but yet it was getting all the morning news. Unless you spend a horrendous amount on sugary drinks surely the other changes are alot more relevant.

    Prestbury park yesterday was going badly, right till Sprinter Sacre bounded up the hill for a tremendously emotional (And very profitable) win. Sometimes, just occasionally it is OK to bet with your heart and dreams.

    Whether you think Trump is too long depends on GOP wiliness to take the nomination away from with 1000+ delegates and give it to a man (probably) with none.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,910
    edited March 2016
    Anyone win from @Shadsy 's buzzword bingo tarpit ?

    Did George make any tough decisions or hard choices
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    JonathanD said:

    I was ready to have a punt.

    As I posted last night, I put £20 on Michael Gove as Next Chancellor at 6/1 with Ladbrokes.

    I found the D'Ancona article in the ES last night (who is personally and socially very close to the Cameroons) convincing: there is an emerging alliance between Gove and Osborne IMHO.

    http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/matthew-dancona-the-budget-reveals-the-kind-of-britain-that-george-osborne-wants-a3204991.html

    I'm not saying Osborne *will* be leader but, if he is, it will be with Gove as his No.2 and that'll be either as Chancellor, or Foreign Secretary.

    It will all become clear after the referendum but, by then, these odds will be gone.


    An Osborne - Gove top two for the Tory party would be electorally unappealing to a lot of the country. Sadly the current Tory party behaviour shows they seem to have forgot a lot of the lessons of the 90's / 00's.
    Last night I met up with someone who worked for the Tories in the 90s and is back again working for them. He said there's one palpable difference between then and now. The Tories retain their bloodlust for power, they lost it in the 90s, plus Corbyn is a very unifying force for the Tory party. The view is we're not letting him become PM on our watch.
    You talk a good talk. I see not the slightest evidence in the Conservatives' current behaviour that they're ready to walk the walk. They seem supremely and unjustifiably complacent.

    With Corbyn as leader of Labour the Tories can tear themselves apart and they will still win the election in 2020. That is the major difference between then and now. They have a free ticket to do exactly as they wish. Of course, there is a chance that Labour might decide it is serious about wanting to win elections again at some stage, but you wouldn't bet on it.

    I remain of the view that there is a substantial chance of a split in one or both main parties, precisely because each can see that the other is feuding madly.
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,921
    watford30 said:

    Storm clouds are gathering

    Over Osbornes leadership ambitions.

    Would be a shame from my point of view

    Because he'll be a liability at the next GE?

    It's clear from yesterday's budget that Osborne is not planning to be chancellor when the mess has to be cleared up in 20I9.

  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,910
    @Thewhiterabbit Honestly I have no clue at this point, my position is healthy enough though.

    Did you manage to trade out of Missouri btw ? I was a bit shocked to see Hillary take it.
  • Options
    Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 4,806
    Just looking at the Republican brokered convention odds vs nomination odds to see what is implied (from predictit which is the first place I found such a comparison).

    Brokered is at 38pc vs 62pc non brokered. I've assumed Trump accounts for 60/62 of the non-brokered probability and Cruz the other 2/62.

    There is a bookies overhead on the combined nomination prices of all the candidates, which add up to around about 110%, and I'm not sure how best to calculate the residual probability it implies for a brokered convention.

    So, if round nomination price odds to 100 first, implies Trump = (72/1.1)-60 = 5.4/38 = 14% chance in a brokered convention.
    If round odds afterwards, Trump = 72-60 = 12/48 (25% chance)

    Think I prefer the latter and quote further below, but the proper gamblers can perhaps advise on the right calculation to use and where any value might be in these implications:

    Cruz @ 15-2 =13/48 (27%)
    Kasich = 9/48 (19%)
    Ryan = 6/48 (13%)
    Romney = 4/48 (8%)
    Others = approx (less than) 4/48 (8%)
  • Options
    notmenotme Posts: 3,293

    The Economist
    Youth unemployment, the scourge of much of Europe, has plummeted in Britain https://t.co/t2xeDXOk5F https://t.co/Lm6Bdtp5tB

    Despite taking on a sizable population of many youngsters across the rest of the EU. An extraordinary jobs miracle that just keeps going on and on.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285
    IFS - Osborne 'has only 50-50 chance' of hitting surplus target

    That high a chance....
  • Options
    TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,387
    Pulpstar said:

    @Thewhiterabbit Honestly I have no clue at this point, my position is healthy enough though.

    Did you manage to trade out of Missouri btw ? I was a bit shocked to see Hillary take it.

    I got, I think, £1.38 on Hillary compared to about £20 I would have made on Sanders.

    So no gain rather than a loss.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,910

    Pulpstar said:

    @Thewhiterabbit Honestly I have no clue at this point, my position is healthy enough though.

    Did you manage to trade out of Missouri btw ? I was a bit shocked to see Hillary take it.

    I got, I think, £1.38 on Hillary compared to about £20 I would have made on Sanders.

    So no gain rather than a loss.
    Similiar to Ohio for me :)
  • Options
    TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,387
    Pro_Rata said:

    Just looking at the Republican brokered convention odds vs nomination odds to see what is implied (from predictit which is the first place I found such a comparison).

    Brokered is at 38pc vs 62pc non brokered. I've assumed Trump accounts for 60/62 of the non-brokered probability and Cruz the other 2/62.

    There is a bookies overhead on the combined nomination prices of all the candidates, which add up to around about 110%, and I'm not sure how best to calculate the residual probability it implies for a brokered convention.

    So, if round nomination price odds to 100 first, implies Trump = (72/1.1)-60 = 5.4/38 = 14% chance in a brokered convention.
    If round odds afterwards, Trump = 72-60 = 12/48 (25% chance)

    Think I prefer the latter and quote further below, but the proper gamblers can perhaps advise on the right calculation to use and where any value might be in these implications:

    Cruz @ 15-2 =13/48 (27%)
    Kasich = 9/48 (19%)
    Ryan = 6/48 (13%)
    Romney = 4/48 (8%)
    Others = approx (less than) 4/48 (8%)

    Betfair have way different odds for non-brokered. A few bookies do too, but before I bet more money I need a fuller understanding of the "first round" vote.
  • Options
    WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838

    Pulpstar said:

    On political betting, I'm swimming in a nice green sea of Cruz/Trump then Ryan/Romney/Kasich/ (In that order more or less). Should Trump be longer or shorter, how certain is he to get the nomination really.

    No idea at this point !

    Also was a tax on sugary drinks REALLY the biggest item from the budget yesterday ?! Seems small beer to me but yet it was getting all the morning news. Unless you spend a horrendous amount on sugary drinks surely the other changes are alot more relevant.

    Prestbury park yesterday was going badly, right till Sprinter Sacre bounded up the hill for a tremendously emotional (And very profitable) win. Sometimes, just occasionally it is OK to bet with your heart and dreams.

    Whether you think Trump is too long depends on GOP wiliness to take the nomination away from with 1000+ delegates and give it to a man (probably) with none.
    What do you think about Cruz's odds? This morning I'm thinking that if the establishment had the slightest appetite for Cruz as an alternative to Trump they would already have adopted him. Ergo, they won't do it.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,285
    edited March 2016
    Talking of bonkers decisions....

    Trinity Mirror has rapidly reversed its decision to freeze the price of its new national newspaper the New Day, doubling the cover price to 50p despite sales falling to less than 90,000.

    The New Day has seen its sales fall from a high of about 150,000 copies set in the days after the title launched on 29 February.

    http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/mar/17/the-new-day-price-sales-slide-trinity-mirror

    Did they hire an Apple "Genius", thinking they were a real genius? How long before they put it out of its misery?
  • Options
    MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053

    Pulpstar said:

    On political betting, I'm swimming in a nice green sea of Cruz/Trump then Ryan/Romney/Kasich/ (In that order more or less). Should Trump be longer or shorter, how certain is he to get the nomination really.

    No idea at this point !

    Also was a tax on sugary drinks REALLY the biggest item from the budget yesterday ?! Seems small beer to me but yet it was getting all the morning news. Unless you spend a horrendous amount on sugary drinks surely the other changes are alot more relevant.

    Prestbury park yesterday was going badly, right till Sprinter Sacre bounded up the hill for a tremendously emotional (And very profitable) win. Sometimes, just occasionally it is OK to bet with your heart and dreams.

    Whether you think Trump is too long depends on GOP wiliness to take the nomination away from with 1000+ delegates and give it to a man (probably) with none.
    That will never happen in a sane organization. Even the most hardened Trump haters doesn't want the Democrats with Hilary to win. Or perhaps they do. Anyway, if the GOP bigwigs try such a stunt it will be the end of the Republican Party as we now know it,
  • Options
    TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,387
    edited March 2016
    Wanderer said:

    Pulpstar said:

    On political betting, I'm swimming in a nice green sea of Cruz/Trump then Ryan/Romney/Kasich/ (In that order more or less). Should Trump be longer or shorter, how certain is he to get the nomination really.

    No idea at this point !

    Also was a tax on sugary drinks REALLY the biggest item from the budget yesterday ?! Seems small beer to me but yet it was getting all the morning news. Unless you spend a horrendous amount on sugary drinks surely the other changes are alot more relevant.

    Prestbury park yesterday was going badly, right till Sprinter Sacre bounded up the hill for a tremendously emotional (And very profitable) win. Sometimes, just occasionally it is OK to bet with your heart and dreams.

    Whether you think Trump is too long depends on GOP wiliness to take the nomination away from with 1000+ delegates and give it to a man (probably) with none.
    What do you think about Cruz's odds? This morning I'm thinking that if the establishment had the slightest appetite for Cruz as an alternative to Trump they would already have adopted him. Ergo, they won't do it.
    I don't think they'll pick the one man who has definitely been beaten in the public vote by Trump over Trump. Better surely, to pick a non-runner (with the implication that if it had been X v Trump all along, X might have won).

    Edit: that's at the Convention, of course.

    Prior to then, I think Cruz has some probability, but I have sold out a bit on him.
  • Options
    pinkrosepinkrose Posts: 189
    I cannot believe the deal the EU (Merkel, Juncker, Tusk et al) are going to do with Turkey over the refugees. Its absolute madness, highly impractical and possibly illegal. I read in the Telegraph that Merkel has come up with some hair brained scheme to process all refugees on the Greek Islands, by turning the current recepetion centres into detention centres complete with courts. Greek judges are going to be given the sole power to decide who gets refugee status and is therefore allowed to travel on to mainland Europe, in "rapid tribunals" and the rest are going to be deported immediately to Turkey. How on earth are they going to deport thousands of men, women and children without riots breaking out?

    Also, the EU is going to be in a situation where Syrians, Afghans, Iraqis (ie genuine refugees fleeing war and persecution) are going to be deported en masse but in the next few weeks when the weather improves in the Mediterranean, thousands of Sub Saharan Africans are going to set sail from Libya for Italy. They are not refugees but economic migrants. But they wont be deported back to Libya as the Country is in chaos so they will presumably be free to roam Europe??
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,849

    malcolmg said:

    FPT

    Andrew Neil
    Deep in Treasury Red Book:
    Oil revenues £2.2bn 2014/15
    Oil revs close to zero 2015/16
    Oil revs MINUS £1bn 2016/17 (oil cos get tax credits)

    Almost makes you think HMG should have been doing something to offset the inevitable hit.

    As for Nicola .......
    Peanuts given they have had £360B from it and Tories have pissed it away unlike Norway who now have 755B in the bank.
    Used by Labour and Tories to turn London into the world capital, hardly pissed away.
    As I said and you proved , pissed away big time
  • Options

    Good idea Mike.

    I think everyone thinks the referendum is going to be a Remain win, thus no excitement.

    Whereas the Presidential markets have been unpredictable and lots of liquidity.

    All I will say is thank Allah for Iowans and the betting market overreaction to the Iowa Caucus.

    Incredible to think now that My Dad Was A Bartender went odds on after Iowa because he came in third place.
    Indeed.

    Mind you I was the idiot who, when Trump's odds to be POTUS were 150/1, Trump will never be POTUS.
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,849
    watford30 said:

    malcolmg said:

    FPT

    Andrew Neil
    Deep in Treasury Red Book:
    Oil revenues £2.2bn 2014/15
    Oil revs close to zero 2015/16
    Oil revs MINUS £1bn 2016/17 (oil cos get tax credits)

    Almost makes you think HMG should have been doing something to offset the inevitable hit.

    As for Nicola .......
    Peanuts given they have had £360B from it and Tories have pissed it away unlike Norway who now have 755B in the bank.
    Used by Labour and Tories to turn London into the world capital, hardly pissed away.
    They did allow a few quid to be hosed on benefits for wee scunners like Malky and his fellow neds.
    I pay north of £30K a year to keep tossers like you on JSA and housing.
  • Options
    Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    I mentioned yesterday that the goto RNC fixer has already been on the phone to Trump.

    They know the huge turnout he's generating will slap them in the face if they're caught trying to fix this.

    It's damage limitation now to bring him into the fold.
    Wanderer said:

    Pulpstar said:

    On political betting, I'm swimming in a nice green sea of Cruz/Trump then Ryan/Romney/Kasich/ (In that order more or less). Should Trump be longer or shorter, how certain is he to get the nomination really.

    No idea at this point !

    Also was a tax on sugary drinks REALLY the biggest item from the budget yesterday ?! Seems small beer to me but yet it was getting all the morning news. Unless you spend a horrendous amount on sugary drinks surely the other changes are alot more relevant.

    Prestbury park yesterday was going badly, right till Sprinter Sacre bounded up the hill for a tremendously emotional (And very profitable) win. Sometimes, just occasionally it is OK to bet with your heart and dreams.

    Whether you think Trump is too long depends on GOP wiliness to take the nomination away from with 1000+ delegates and give it to a man (probably) with none.
    What do you think about Cruz's odds? This morning I'm thinking that if the establishment had the slightest appetite for Cruz as an alternative to Trump they would already have adopted him. Ergo, they won't do it.
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670

    Good idea Mike.

    I think everyone thinks the referendum is going to be a Remain win, thus no excitement.

    Whereas the Presidential markets have been unpredictable and lots of liquidity.

    All I will say is thank Allah for Iowans and the betting market overreaction to the Iowa Caucus.

    Incredible to think now that My Dad Was A Bartender went odds on after Iowa because he came in third place.
    "Ted Cruz won Iowa so that obviously makes Marco Rubio odds on favourite for the nomination" was what I said after people said that they would like to hear a joke.
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,921

    Talking of bonkers decisions....

    Trinity Mirror has rapidly reversed its decision to freeze the price of its new national newspaper the New Day, doubling the cover price to 50p despite sales falling to less than 90,000.

    The New Day has seen its sales fall from a high of about 150,000 copies set in the days after the title launched on 29 February.

    http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/mar/17/the-new-day-price-sales-slide-trinity-mirror

    Did they hire an Apple "Genius", thinking they were a real genius? How long before they put it out of its misery?

    It was obvious to absolutely everyone outside the Mirror Group that this was never a starter. I am surprised it has lasted this long, to be honest. It's a product built on focus group feedback: people saying that they don't buy newspapers anymore because they are so miserable, biased and so on; when anyone with half a brain knows that is not the case.
  • Options
    My glue factory watch tips for today

    13:30 Three Musketeers

    14:10: Un Ace

    14:50: Taquin Du Seuil

    15:30: Aux Ptits Soins

    16:10: Salubrious

    16:50: Girly Girl

    17:30: Perfect Candidate
  • Options
    peter_from_putneypeter_from_putney Posts: 6,875
    edited March 2016
    Pulpstar said:

    On political betting, I'm swimming in a nice green sea of Cruz/Trump then Ryan/Romney/Kasich/ (In that order more or less). Should Trump be longer or shorter, how certain is he to get the nomination really.

    Also was a tax on sugary drinks REALLY the biggest item from the budget yesterday ?! Seems small beer to me but yet it was getting all the morning news. Unless you spend a horrendous amount on sugary drinks surely the other changes are alot more relevant.

    I absoutely agree - I couldn't believe that the so-called sugar tax received top billing on all the major news programmes last night as well as in this morning's newspapers. In the overall scheme of things it's really a very insignificant measure from a fiscal perspective and there were at least 10, possibly 20 other aspects in the Budget which warranted greater coverage. Just like the old days when we used to get over-excited by the prospect of beer going up tuppence a pint, or fags by 4p a packet .... pathetic!

    It's at times like this when I realise what a short-sighted, petty minded island people we really are.
  • Options
    Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    edited March 2016

    I don't think they'll pick the one man who has definitely been beaten in the public vote by Trump over Trump. Better surely, to pick a non-runner (with the implication that if it had been X v Trump all along, X might have won).

    By what mechanism, though? Decisions will be taken by the delegates. The Chairman and the shadowy figures can no doubt fiddle it a bit, but they can't fiddle it to an unlimited extent. A significant proportion of those delegates will not only be formally bound to Trump on the first round, but will remain with him on subsequent rounds. Only with the agreement of a huge number of both Trump and Cruz delegates could a non-runner (or Kasich) end up as the nominee, and I don't see that happening.

    What I can see happening, possibly, is Cruz winning over enough of the Trump delegates to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, if he's already reasonably close and Trump doesn't have the 1,237 he needs to win on the first round of voting. One thing we have learned is that the Cruz campaign is very well organised, and they will no doubt be studying the Byzantine state-specific rules governing how delegates can behave in order to stuff the convention with as many Cruz-friendly people as possible. No-one else is likely to be making much progress in doing the same.

    It's a long-shot for Cruz, of course, but perhaps just possible. Much more likely, though, is that Trump will take on, and lose to, Hillary.
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670

    malcolmg said:

    FPT

    Andrew Neil
    Deep in Treasury Red Book:
    Oil revenues £2.2bn 2014/15
    Oil revs close to zero 2015/16
    Oil revs MINUS £1bn 2016/17 (oil cos get tax credits)

    Almost makes you think HMG should have been doing something to offset the inevitable hit.

    As for Nicola .......
    Peanuts given they have had £360B from it and Tories have pissed it away unlike Norway who now have 755B in the bank.
    Tories? I think we have the Scottish Brown to blame the most for the nation's deficit. Your lot elected him by a landslide too.
    Not to mention RBS and BoS, no slouches in pissing away vast sums.
    You mean NatWest and Halifax?
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,921

    JonathanD said:

    I was ready to have a punt.

    As I posted last night, I put £20 on Michael Gove as Next Chancellor at 6/1 with Ladbrokes.

    I found the D'Ancona article in the ES last night (who is personally and socially very close to the Cameroons) convincing: there is an emerging alliance between Gove and Osborne IMHO.

    http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/matthew-dancona-the-budget-reveals-the-kind-of-britain-that-george-osborne-wants-a3204991.html

    I'm not saying Osborne *will* be leader but, if he is, it will be with Gove as his No.2 and that'll be either as Chancellor, or Foreign Secretary.

    It will all become clear after the referendum but, by then, these odds will be gone.


    An Osborne - Gove top two for the Tory party would be electorally unappealing to a lot of the country. Sadly the current Tory party behaviour shows they seem to have forgot a lot of the lessons of the 90's / 00's.
    Last night I met up with someone who worked for the Tories in the 90s and is back again working for them. He said there's one palpable difference between then and now. The Tories retain their bloodlust for power, they lost it in the 90s, plus Corbyn is a very unifying force for the Tory party. The view is we're not letting him become PM on our watch.
    You talk a good talk. I see not the slightest evidence in the Conservatives' current behaviour that they're ready to walk the walk. They seem supremely and unjustifiably complacent.

    With Corbyn as leader of Labour the Tories can tear themselves apart and they will still win the election in 2020. That is the major difference between then and now. They have a free ticket to do exactly as they wish. Of course, there is a chance that Labour might decide it is serious about wanting to win elections again at some stage, but you wouldn't bet on it.

    I remain of the view that there is a substantial chance of a split in one or both main parties, precisely because each can see that the other is feuding madly.

    Labour could well split after 2020 as there is nowhere for moderate Labour MPs or supporters to go. They'll need a new party. The Tories won't split because they have UKIP.

  • Options
    RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 3,223
    New TNS poll out

    36% Remain
    36% Leave
    28% Don't Know
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    These might be famous last words but in my view betting on anyone other than Donald Trump or Ted Cruz to be the Republican nominee looks like a very poor bet.

    If you assume, as I do, that even if there is a brokered convention then no majority at the convention can be constructed without one of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, it seems highly implausible to me that the nominee will not be one of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz.

    What motivation does Donald Trump have for standing aside? I can't think of any.

    What motivation does Ted Cruz have for backing any candidate other than himself or Donald Trump? He's a young man, obviously highly ambitious, who will have his eye on future opportunities. Being part of an establishment stitch-up against Donald Trump that does not directly benefit him would do him no favours at all. And it's hardly as if the establishment are fond of him in the first place. They hate him almost as much as Donald Trump - more in some cases, I think - so he's not going to believe that they're going to smooth his path at any point in the future, even if they can (which personally I doubt, given this election round).

    I appreciate that not all delegates are bound after the first vote but the idea of huge numbers of faithless delegates switching to entirely new candidates in later rounds seems strictly Hollywood fantasy to me.

    So it will be one or other of these two.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,859
    edited March 2016

    You'll like it, but not a lot

    /youtu.be/1d09MsMkBuI

    Very good. Amazing showmanship and of course misdirection.

    Off to the big top hat in the sky. RIP.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,910
    edited March 2016

    Pulpstar said:

    On political betting, I'm swimming in a nice green sea of Cruz/Trump then Ryan/Romney/Kasich/ (In that order more or less). Should Trump be longer or shorter, how certain is he to get the nomination really.

    Also was a tax on sugary drinks REALLY the biggest item from the budget yesterday ?! Seems small beer to me but yet it was getting all the morning news. Unless you spend a horrendous amount on sugary drinks surely the other changes are alot more relevant.

    I absoutely agree - I couldn't believe that the so-called sugar tax received top billing on all the major news programmes last night as well as in this morning's newspapers. In the overall scheme of things it's really a very insignificant measure from a fiscal perspective and there were at least 10, possibly 20 other aspects in the Budget which warranted greater coverage. Just like the old days when we used to get over-excited by the prospect of beer going up tuppence a pint, or fags by 4p a packet .... pathetic!

    It's at times like this when I realise what a short-sighted, petty minded island people we really are.
    The one truly stinging sales tax which sticks like a craw in the mind was Labour's relentless fuel escalator. I assume since everyone at the top of Labour lived in London and were millionaires who barely drove they barely noticed the pump misery it created for millions. Just a bit every year = ALOT.

    In fairness this has been stopped by George.
This discussion has been closed.