Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » This betting strategy is guaranteed to return you a profit

SystemSystem Posts: 3,967
edited November 24 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » This betting strategy is guaranteed to return you a profit

By backing Philip Hammond to deliver the 2018 Autumn budget with Ladbrokes at 5/4 and simultaneously backing Philip Hammond not to deliver the 2018 Autumn budget at 2/1 with Paddy Power with the same stake amount, and you’re guaranteed a profit at these odds.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • This is some test cricket...
  • RogerRoger Posts: 8,485
    edited November 24
  • RogerRoger Posts: 8,485
    Cut out the middleman. Robert Chote for Chancellor
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 14,976

    This is some test cricket...

    Even Betfair now have England as favourites. A great recovery with the ball from the visitors.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 8,896
    edited November 24
    Fourth!

    Another poll showing a slight falling back of both main parties.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 15,056
    Labour didn't have a good Budget. No workable answer to "so, what would you do instead?" If only they had been grilled on that in the GE election, rather than getting a free ride...

    Labour needs a better Shadow Chancellor. Reshufle time, if they are serious about power.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 14,976
    edited November 24

    Labour didn't have a good Budget. No workable answer to "so, what would you do instead?" If only they had been grilled on that in the GE election, rather than getting a free ride...

    Labour needs a better Shadow Chancellor. Reshufle time, if they are serious about power.

    But are any of Corbyn’s friends better with numbers though? I’m not sure any of them can add up.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 15,056
    Sandpit said:

    Labour didn't have a good Budget. No workable answer to "so, what would you do instead?" If only they had been grilled on that in the GE election, rather than getting a free ride...

    Labour needs a better Shadow Chancellor. Reshufle time, if they are serious about power.

    But are any of Corbyn’s friends better with numbers though? I’m not sure any of them can add up.
    This is where Labour's problems start to emerge.....
  • FF43 you asked me about our longer term investment plans after brexit last night. I have thought about the answer. As a high tech manufacturer in the global healthcare supply chain we are less and less dependent on Nhs. The uk may be an attractive place to invest after brexit but only if the uk government provides strong incentives to us. The reality is that I don't see it having the money or the willpower to do so. As such we will most likely slowly transfer new investment to the rest of the EU. In the end the UK will have to fight for our investment not rely on it.

    I feel brexiters don't really understand that they need to prove to business that they will look after them post brexit not just assume we will be there.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 15,056
    edited November 24

    FF43 you asked me about our longer term investment plans after brexit last night. I have thought about the answer. As a high tech manufacturer in the global healthcare supply chain we are less and less dependent on Nhs. The uk may be an attractive place to invest after brexit but only if the uk government provides strong incentives to us. The reality is that I don't see it having the money or the willpower to do so. As such we will most likely slowly transfer new investment to the rest of the EU. In the end the UK will have to fight for our investment not rely on it.

    I feel brexiters don't really understand that they need to prove to business that they will look after them post brexit not just assume we will be there.

    I expect that to be forthcoming. But the Government can't be specific about it yet, because the EU will either require us to close down such measures in the negotiations - or try and demand additional exit fees, aimed at reducing the cash available to make that assistance to business.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 15,056
    50 up for Smith. Aussies have steadied the ship.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 17,801
    Roger said:
    Not, of course, the same as the unlimited rights that EU citizens currently have
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 3,030
    Sandpit said:

    This is some test cricket...

    Even Betfair now have England as favourites. A great recovery with the ball from the visitors.
    I'm a little worried actually.
    It feels like momentum is shifting again back towards Aus...
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 14,976
    edited November 24

    50 up for Smith. Aussies have steadied the ship.

    Yeah, looks like advantage back to them. Betfair have them back odds-on now, 1.98

    Apparently Australia haven’t lost a Test at this ground since 1988, 29 matches ago!
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 16,177
    edited November 24

    FF43 you asked me about our longer term investment plans after brexit last night. I have thought about the answer. As a high tech manufacturer in the global healthcare supply chain we are less and less dependent on Nhs. The uk may be an attractive place to invest after brexit but only if the uk government provides strong incentives to us. The reality is that I don't see it having the money or the willpower to do so. As such we will most likely slowly transfer new investment to the rest of the EU. In the end the UK will have to fight for our investment not rely on it.

    I feel brexiters don't really understand that they need to prove to business that they will look after them post brexit not just assume we will be there.

    brexiters dont have to, the government does and no UK government has given a toss about manufacturing for 30 years

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 14,976

    FF43 you asked me about our longer term investment plans after brexit last night. I have thought about the answer. As a high tech manufacturer in the global healthcare supply chain we are less and less dependent on Nhs. The uk may be an attractive place to invest after brexit but only if the uk government provides strong incentives to us. The reality is that I don't see it having the money or the willpower to do so. As such we will most likely slowly transfer new investment to the rest of the EU. In the end the UK will have to fight for our investment not rely on it.

    I feel brexiters don't really understand that they need to prove to business that they will look after them post brexit not just assume we will be there.

    I expect that to be forthcoming. But the Government can't be specific about it yet, because the EU will either require us to close down such measures in the negotiations - or try and demand additional exit fees, aimed at reducing the cash available to make that assistance to business.
    Indeed so. What worries the EU more than anything else is that Britain will make a succes of Brexit. Plans for regulatory divergence and incentives to attract businesses will have to wait until after the deal is signed.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 25,806
    Interesting argument on Scottish Tories:

    Armed with the Budget, the Tories are now arguing that their 13 MPs have delivered more for Scottish voters than the SNP’s huge caucus has ever managed. What makes this such a particular triumph for Davidson is that this argument hinges on making a virtue of precisely what she based her leadership pitch on: membership of the national Conservative Party.

    That Scotland’s interests are best served through friendly and effective cooperation in British politics and institutions must be the very essence of the unionist case. In 2011 this crucial argument was almost abandoned, but Wednesday’s events showed that the Conservatives can now press it in earnest.


    https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2017/11/the-budget-has-vindicated-davidsons-rejection-of-a-separate-scottish-party.html?utm_campaign=twitter&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitter
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 12,828

    Interesting argument on Scottish Tories:

    Armed with the Budget, the Tories are now arguing that their 13 MPs have delivered more for Scottish voters than the SNP’s huge caucus has ever managed. What makes this such a particular triumph for Davidson is that this argument hinges on making a virtue of precisely what she based her leadership pitch on: membership of the national Conservative Party.

    That Scotland’s interests are best served through friendly and effective cooperation in British politics and institutions must be the very essence of the unionist case. In 2011 this crucial argument was almost abandoned, but Wednesday’s events showed that the Conservatives can now press it in earnest.


    https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2017/11/the-budget-has-vindicated-davidsons-rejection-of-a-separate-scottish-party.html?utm_campaign=twitter&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitter

    That doesn't really make sense. A Scottish Unionist party in permanent alliance, as the CDU/CSU are, could make the same claims. Whether that sort of arrangement would make sense is a moot point but the parliamentary maths would be largely the same.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 25,806

    Interesting argument on Scottish Tories:

    Armed with the Budget, the Tories are now arguing that their 13 MPs have delivered more for Scottish voters than the SNP’s huge caucus has ever managed. What makes this such a particular triumph for Davidson is that this argument hinges on making a virtue of precisely what she based her leadership pitch on: membership of the national Conservative Party.

    That Scotland’s interests are best served through friendly and effective cooperation in British politics and institutions must be the very essence of the unionist case. In 2011 this crucial argument was almost abandoned, but Wednesday’s events showed that the Conservatives can now press it in earnest.


    https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2017/11/the-budget-has-vindicated-davidsons-rejection-of-a-separate-scottish-party.html?utm_campaign=twitter&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitter

    That doesn't really make sense. A Scottish Unionist party in permanent alliance, as the CDU/CSU are, could make the same claims. Whether that sort of arrangement would make sense is a moot point but the parliamentary maths would be largely the same.
    Surely the argument is that members of the same party have more of an inside track with a government than members of a coalition party? And are also less likely to face criticism of “buying off greedy (fill in nationality as appropriate )
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 17,321
    Disappointing score for England overnight. Seem to have started well with the ball but badly need a wicket now.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 22,049
    Sandpit said:

    FF43 you asked me about our longer term investment plans after brexit last night. I have thought about the answer. As a high tech manufacturer in the global healthcare supply chain we are less and less dependent on Nhs. The uk may be an attractive place to invest after brexit but only if the uk government provides strong incentives to us. The reality is that I don't see it having the money or the willpower to do so. As such we will most likely slowly transfer new investment to the rest of the EU. In the end the UK will have to fight for our investment not rely on it.

    I feel brexiters don't really understand that they need to prove to business that they will look after them post brexit not just assume we will be there.

    I expect that to be forthcoming. But the Government can't be specific about it yet, because the EU will either require us to close down such measures in the negotiations - or try and demand additional exit fees, aimed at reducing the cash available to make that assistance to business.
    Indeed so. What worries the EU more than anything else is that Britain will make a succes of Brexit. Plans for regulatory divergence and incentives to attract businesses will have to wait until after the deal is signed.
    Correct, which is why they want several pounds of flesh, and our arms handcuffed behind our back, before they'll do a "deal".
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 8,896
    edited November 24

    Interesting argument on Scottish Tories:

    Armed with the Budget, the Tories are now arguing that their 13 MPs have delivered more for Scottish voters than the SNP’s huge caucus has ever managed. What makes this such a particular triumph for Davidson is that this argument hinges on making a virtue of precisely what she based her leadership pitch on: membership of the national Conservative Party.

    That Scotland’s interests are best served through friendly and effective cooperation in British politics and institutions must be the very essence of the unionist case. In 2011 this crucial argument was almost abandoned, but Wednesday’s events showed that the Conservatives can now press it in earnest.


    https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2017/11/the-budget-has-vindicated-davidsons-rejection-of-a-separate-scottish-party.html?utm_campaign=twitter&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitter

    The DUP seems to be getting lots of £ for NI without membership of the national Conservative party!

    Besides, in times past how did Scotland get rewarded for electing a batch of Tory MPs? With experiments like the poll tax? The real reason the Tories are paying attention to Scotland is that they got wiped out and now see themselves recovering. Those who wiped them out can take a good share of the credit.

    And of course it is an argument for governments with small or no majorities. With a big Tory majority Scotland would find itself once again ignored.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 7,729
    DavidL said:

    Disappointing score for England overnight. Seem to have started well with the ball but badly need a wicket now.

    I did say Cameron Bancroft wasn't a wise pick, didn't I? Going fishing outside off with no foot movement is pretty careless for an opener.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 22,049

    Interesting argument on Scottish Tories:

    Armed with the Budget, the Tories are now arguing that their 13 MPs have delivered more for Scottish voters than the SNP’s huge caucus has ever managed. What makes this such a particular triumph for Davidson is that this argument hinges on making a virtue of precisely what she based her leadership pitch on: membership of the national Conservative Party.

    That Scotland’s interests are best served through friendly and effective cooperation in British politics and institutions must be the very essence of the unionist case. In 2011 this crucial argument was almost abandoned, but Wednesday’s events showed that the Conservatives can now press it in earnest.


    https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2017/11/the-budget-has-vindicated-davidsons-rejection-of-a-separate-scottish-party.html?utm_campaign=twitter&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitter

    That doesn't really make sense. A Scottish Unionist party in permanent alliance, as the CDU/CSU are, could make the same claims. Whether that sort of arrangement would make sense is a moot point but the parliamentary maths would be largely the same.
    She does attend Cabinet directly, though, and is trusted as being a member of the same political party.

    Incidentally, I note the Scottish Tories held on in Perth last night.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 14,976

    Interesting argument on Scottish Tories:

    Armed with the Budget, the Tories are now arguing that their 13 MPs have delivered more for Scottish voters than the SNP’s huge caucus has ever managed. What makes this such a particular triumph for Davidson is that this argument hinges on making a virtue of precisely what she based her leadership pitch on: membership of the national Conservative Party.

    That Scotland’s interests are best served through friendly and effective cooperation in British politics and institutions must be the very essence of the unionist case. In 2011 this crucial argument was almost abandoned, but Wednesday’s events showed that the Conservatives can now press it in earnest.


    https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2017/11/the-budget-has-vindicated-davidsons-rejection-of-a-separate-scottish-party.html?utm_campaign=twitter&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitter

    That doesn't really make sense. A Scottish Unionist party in permanent alliance, as the CDU/CSU are, could make the same claims. Whether that sort of arrangement would make sense is a moot point but the parliamentary maths would be largely the same.
    She does attend Cabinet directly, though, and is trusted as being a member of the same political party.

    Incidentally, I note the Scottish Tories held on in Perth last night.
    Certainly better than England’s batsmen in Brisbane.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 14,976
    edited November 24
    Enough cricket for one day, off to the F1 for the afternoon. P1 at 9am and P2 at 1pm, UK time. Doesn’t look like there’s any rain coming, a bright sunny day. Laters.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 7,351
    No government is better than a bad government?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 7,729
    Jonathan said:

    No government is better than a bad government?
    The Belgians would agree :smiley:
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 11,318

    FF43 you asked me about our longer term investment plans after brexit last night. I have thought about the answer. As a high tech manufacturer in the global healthcare supply chain we are less and less dependent on Nhs. The uk may be an attractive place to invest after brexit but only if the uk government provides strong incentives to us. The reality is that I don't see it having the money or the willpower to do so. As such we will most likely slowly transfer new investment to the rest of the EU. In the end the UK will have to fight for our investment not rely on it.

    I feel brexiters don't really understand that they need to prove to business that they will look after them post brexit not just assume we will be there.

    Good post thanks; this is the reality of Brexit.

    A cataclysmic bang or cliff edge is a tail event; and few Remainers said there would be one. Much more likely is the imperceptible diminution in our wealth, the opportunities foregone, the investments made elsewhere. We will be fine, just not as well off as otherwise.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 22,049
    Jonathan said:

    No government is better than a bad government?
    Mate, your gags haven't been up to your usual standard over the last few days.

    Time for a break?
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 7,006
    Roger said:
    I do not understand the rhetoric around immigration and Brexit. The position appears to be that we demand the right to limit immigration while at the same time trying to attract more immigration, especially professional and skilled (which are the groups driving down wages).
  • Roger said:
    I do not understand the rhetoric around immigration and Brexit. The position appears to be that we demand the right to limit immigration while at the same time trying to attract more immigration, especially professional and skilled (which are the groups driving down wages).
    No unskilled drive down wages, professional and skilled migrants boost productivity and boost average wages.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 25,806
    ydoethur said:

    Jonathan said:

    No government is better than a bad government?
    The Belgians would agree :smiley:
    How about the Dutch or Germans.....
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 17,321

    Interesting argument on Scottish Tories:

    Armed with the Budget, the Tories are now arguing that their 13 MPs have delivered more for Scottish voters than the SNP’s huge caucus has ever managed. What makes this such a particular triumph for Davidson is that this argument hinges on making a virtue of precisely what she based her leadership pitch on: membership of the national Conservative Party.

    That Scotland’s interests are best served through friendly and effective cooperation in British politics and institutions must be the very essence of the unionist case. In 2011 this crucial argument was almost abandoned, but Wednesday’s events showed that the Conservatives can now press it in earnest.


    https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2017/11/the-budget-has-vindicated-davidsons-rejection-of-a-separate-scottish-party.html?utm_campaign=twitter&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitter

    That doesn't really make sense. A Scottish Unionist party in permanent alliance, as the CDU/CSU are, could make the same claims. Whether that sort of arrangement would make sense is a moot point but the parliamentary maths would be largely the same.
    Surely the argument is that members of the same party have more of an inside track with a government than members of a coalition party? And are also less likely to face criticism of “buying off greedy (fill in nationality as appropriate )
    The Chancellor went out of his way to give them more than one boost in the Budget speech. The more important factor was the transferability of reliefs in the north sea which I thought Hammond could have made more of. I was in Aberdeen yesterday and more than one person mentioned how important that was for the city.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 25,806

    Roger said:
    I do not understand the rhetoric around immigration and Brexit. The position appears to be that we demand the right to limit immigration while at the same time trying to attract more immigration, especially professional and skilled (which are the groups driving down wages).
    It’s simple really. We control immigration - rather than accept anyone who turns up holding an EU passport - and focus it on skilled and professional - it’s the unskilled which are perceived to drive down wages...
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 25,806
    DavidL said:
    Matt is easily consistently the best cartoonist out there - the only readable thing left in the Telegraph...
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 33,339

    It’s simple really. We control immigration

    This doesn't look much like control to me

    Britain must accept more immigrants if it wants a free trade deal
  • EssexitEssexit Posts: 1,523
    Thanks for the tip TSE - first bets I've placed in a while.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 25,806
    Scott_P said:

    It’s simple really. We control immigration

    This doesn't look much like control to me

    Britain must accept more immigrants if it wants a free trade deal
    It is if we choose who they are.

    Highly qualified Indian scientists and doctors or unskilled Romanian turnip pickers - which would you choose?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 8,896

    Scott_P said:

    It’s simple really. We control immigration

    This doesn't look much like control to me

    Britain must accept more immigrants if it wants a free trade deal
    It is if we choose who they are.

    Highly qualified Indian scientists and doctors or unskilled Romanian turnip pickers - which would you choose?
    We appear to have a pressing need for both.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 17,321

    DavidL said:
    Matt is easily consistently the best cartoonist out there - the only readable thing left in the Telegraph...
    Alex is sometimes on the mark. These days it is the only reason to pick up the business section.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,328
    Scott_P said:

    It’s simple really. We control immigration

    This doesn't look much like control to me

    Britain must accept more immigrants if it wants a free trade deal
    A free trade deal with the EU will require compliance with many EU rules too:



    The problem that we have is that beggar's cannot be choosers. For each trade negotiation we are in a weak negotiating position, like an addict needing a fix.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,328
    edited November 24
    duplicate
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 4,083
    Mr P,

    "Britain must accept more immigrants if it wants a free trade deal."

    Who has said this?

    Inability to control your own borders is the definition of a vassal country. I'm sure not even the most fanatical Remainer would suggest this.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,328
    IanB2 said:

    Scott_P said:

    It’s simple really. We control immigration

    This doesn't look much like control to me

    Britain must accept more immigrants if it wants a free trade deal
    It is if we choose who they are.

    Highly qualified Indian scientists and doctors or unskilled Romanian turnip pickers - which would you choose?
    We appear to have a pressing need for both.
    The 2 poles of skill levels are where jobs will continue to exist, it is the middle that is shrinking:

    https://medium.com/basic-income/the-real-story-of-automation-beginning-with-one-simple-chart-8b95f9bad71b
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 17,321

    Scott_P said:

    It’s simple really. We control immigration

    This doesn't look much like control to me

    Britain must accept more immigrants if it wants a free trade deal
    A free trade deal with the EU will require compliance with many EU rules too:



    The problem that we have is that beggar's cannot be choosers. For each trade negotiation we are in a weak negotiating position, like an addict needing a fix.
    If we want to export into the single market we have to comply with single market rules. What we choose to do in our own market is up to us but some manufacturers will pressure for a single standard to avoid any complications.

    But we are not beggars. They export £6bn a week to us in exchange for the £5bn that we export to them. If they want to keep doing that they will have to give us some services access as well as goods. To make the point yet again free trade in the single market has worked consistently in favour of the rEU, not us.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,328
    CD13 said:

    Mr P,

    "Britain must accept more immigrants if it wants a free trade deal."

    Who has said this?

    Inability to control your own borders is the definition of a vassal country. I'm sure not even the most fanatical Remainer would suggest this.

    It was the Indian High Commissioner, as quoted in the Telegraph:

    YK Sinha, India’s High Commissioner to the UK, said "freer movement of people and professionals" had to form part of any future deal to ensure it was “mutually beneficial.”

    Speaking to Indian business leaders in London, Mr Sinha said he was “very confident” that a “winning partnership” between the two countries would emerge after Britain's departure from the EU.

    However, he also warned that signing a free trade agreement was “obviously not going to be easy” and suggested that the deal may not be complete until 2030.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 33,339
    CD13 said:

    Mr P,

    "Britain must accept more immigrants if it wants a free trade deal."

    Who has said this?

    Inability to control your own borders is the definition of a vassal country. I'm sure not even the most fanatical Remainer would suggest this.

    It's the headline in the telegraph story linked upthread

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/23/britain-must-accept-immigrants-wants-free-trade-deal-warns-senior/
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 16,291

    Scott_P said:

    It’s simple really. We control immigration

    This doesn't look much like control to me

    Britain must accept more immigrants if it wants a free trade deal
    A free trade deal with the EU will require compliance with many EU rules too:



    The problem that we have is that beggar's cannot be choosers. For each trade negotiation we are in a weak negotiating position, like an addict needing a fix.
    The prize is there for May's government in that if they can knuckle down until after Brexit then they will have survived the greatest onslaught in the media including significant help from inside their own country via useful idiots in many a year.

    Once Brexit is done don't be surprised if the anit-May media blitz slithers off into the night and the uplands will be a lot more sunlit.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 7,006
    Scott_P said:

    CD13 said:

    Mr P,

    "Britain must accept more immigrants if it wants a free trade deal."

    Who has said this?

    Inability to control your own borders is the definition of a vassal country. I'm sure not even the most fanatical Remainer would suggest this.

    It's the headline in the telegraph story linked upthread

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/23/britain-must-accept-immigrants-wants-free-trade-deal-warns-senior/
    And India has not yet been admitted to the EU.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 7,006

    Roger said:
    I do not understand the rhetoric around immigration and Brexit. The position appears to be that we demand the right to limit immigration while at the same time trying to attract more immigration, especially professional and skilled (which are the groups driving down wages).
    It’s simple really. We control immigration - rather than accept anyone who turns up holding an EU passport - and focus it on skilled and professional - it’s the unskilled which are perceived to drive down wages...
    I don't think that is right. Plumbers, electricians and brickies are skilled and have seen their rates undercut. This may also be true of the unskilled car windscreen washers but I'm not sure anyone cares about them. Brexit is endangered while politicians fight for the right to limit what they have no intention of limiting.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 39,452
    Good morning, everyone.

    Just be careful in case he starts from the pit lane.

    Speaking of which, first practice kicks off at 9am.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 33,339
    TGOHF said:

    they will have survived the greatest onslaught in the media including significant help from inside their own country via useful idiots in many a year.

    May promoted many of the useful idiots into her cabinet
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 7,006
    Essexit said:

    Thanks for the tip TSE - first bets I've placed in a while.

    TSE forgot to mention that repeatedly taking arbs encourages bookies to close accounts (or these days, restrict them to 5p stakes so they can say they are not closing accounts).
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 7,729
    TGOHF said:

    Scott_P said:

    It’s simple really. We control immigration

    This doesn't look much like control to me

    Britain must accept more immigrants if it wants a free trade deal
    A free trade deal with the EU will require compliance with many EU rules too:



    The problem that we have is that beggar's cannot be choosers. For each trade negotiation we are in a weak negotiating position, like an addict needing a fix.
    The prize is there for May's government in that if they can knuckle down until after Brexit then they will have survived the greatest onslaught in the media including significant help from inside their own country via useful idiots in many a year.

    Once Brexit is done don't be surprised if the anit-May media blitz slithers off into the night and the uplands will be a lot more sunlit.
    As they are for Corbyn?

    I do think Labour are kidding themselves about an easy win next time. As long as Corbyn and McDonnell are significant players I really think they will struggle to breach 280.

    But equally to say the government will get through Brexit and then things will improve is to focus on one thing. Grenfell is not linked to Brexit but there are very awkward questions for all parties - especially the government- as to why sprinklers were not installed, and May is being evasive on that. The economy is due a downturn. There is the serious threat of war in the Far East.

    I can foresee many ways the government can go tits up. What I struggle to see is Labour replacing them unless something career-ending happens to those two who are wrecking it. Which is a bit of a nightmare scenario really.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 7,006

    Good morning, everyone.

    Just be careful in case he starts from the pit lane.

    Speaking of which, first practice kicks off at 9am.

    Is this the Ashes? That would be a very long run-up. Who might start in the pit lane?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 7,729

    Good morning, everyone.

    Just be careful in case he starts from the pit lane.

    Speaking of which, first practice kicks off at 9am.

    Is this the Ashes? That would be a very long run-up. Who might start in the pit lane?
    Fred Trueman?
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 16,291
    Scott_P said:

    TGOHF said:

    they will have survived the greatest onslaught in the media including significant help from inside their own country via useful idiots in many a year.

    May promoted many of the useful idiots into her cabinet
    Prime example - I'd imagine Scott's retweets for example will focus on Corbyn and less on the govt after Brexit.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 17,321

    Scott_P said:

    CD13 said:

    Mr P,

    "Britain must accept more immigrants if it wants a free trade deal."

    Who has said this?

    Inability to control your own borders is the definition of a vassal country. I'm sure not even the most fanatical Remainer would suggest this.

    It's the headline in the telegraph story linked upthread

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/23/britain-must-accept-immigrants-wants-free-trade-deal-warns-senior/
    And India has not yet been admitted to the EU.
    They're right behind Turkey in the queue...
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 17,321
    Astonishing the government have managed to maintain that record given the position they were left in in 2010. And the increases in 2000-2006 created much of the structural deficit we are still trying to fix to this day. Grossly irresponsible and incompetent. Brown in a nutshell.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 25,806
    Arlene Foster taking hard line on R4 “most important single market for NI is the U.K. single market” - and pointing out that Ireland’s biggest trading partner is also the U.K.....
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 12,701
    ydoethur said:

    TGOHF said:

    Scott_P said:

    It’s simple really. We control immigration

    This doesn't look much like control to me

    Britain must accept more immigrants if it wants a free trade deal
    A free trade deal with the EU will require compliance with many EU rules too:



    The problem that we have is that beggar's cannot be choosers. For each trade negotiation we are in a weak negotiating position, like an addict needing a fix.
    The prize is there for May's government in that if they can knuckle down until after Brexit then they will have survived the greatest onslaught in the media including significant help from inside their own country via useful idiots in many a year.

    Once Brexit is done don't be surprised if the anit-May media blitz slithers off into the night and the uplands will be a lot more sunlit.
    As they are for Corbyn?

    I do think Labour are kidding themselves about an easy win next time. As long as Corbyn and McDonnell are significant players I really think they will struggle to breach 280.

    But equally to say the government will get through Brexit and then things will improve is to focus on one thing. Grenfell is not linked to Brexit but there are very awkward questions for all parties - especially the government- as to why sprinklers were not installed, and May is being evasive on that. The economy is due a downturn. There is the serious threat of war in the Far East.

    I can foresee many ways the government can go tits up. What I struggle to see is Labour replacing them unless something career-ending happens to those two who are wrecking it. Which is a bit of a nightmare scenario really.
    Don't think we can say this far out. I think Jezza is an extremely marmite leader, and if normal political gravity was in operation then he will lose. But, the voters are in a volatile mood, and it is possible that a generational sea change is happening and Jezza will be swept to power with a ticket to change everything.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 4,083
    Mr P,

    "It's the headline in the telegraph story linked upthread"

    It sounds like Brexit PR.

    I'm sure no one seriously is suggesting that EU countries could be forced to accept artificially high levels of immigration imposed by a central Authority.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 12,701
    DavidL said:

    Astonishing the government have managed to maintain that record given the position they were left in in 2010. And the increases in 2000-2006 created much of the structural deficit we are still trying to fix to this day. Grossly irresponsible and incompetent. Brown in a nutshell.
    Actually, Rentoul's accompanying tweet was:

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 17,321
    CD13 said:

    Mr P,

    "It's the headline in the telegraph story linked upthread"

    It sounds like Brexit PR.

    I'm sure no one seriously is suggesting that EU countries could be forced to accept artificially high levels of immigration imposed by a central Authority.

    As I am sure you are aware the ECJ recently did exactly that in respect of refugees.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 17,768
    Do you think that in the run-up to an Irish general election that being seen to back down to the UK would be a vote-winning strategy?

    As a general rule of thumb, those hoping for a deal with the EU should be hoping that foreign heads of government are untroubled domestically, so they are not distracted from the negotiations and politically strong enough to sell a compromise.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 17,321

    DavidL said:

    Astonishing the government have managed to maintain that record given the position they were left in in 2010. And the increases in 2000-2006 created much of the structural deficit we are still trying to fix to this day. Grossly irresponsible and incompetent. Brown in a nutshell.
    Actually, Rentoul's accompanying tweet was:

    Rentoul thinks he wasn't really a Tory because his government spent money it didn't have during a financial bubble in a grossly irresponsible and incompetent way? He may have a point but how much say did he have over economic policy in his Faustian bargain?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 9,540

    Roger said:
    I do not understand the rhetoric around immigration and Brexit. The position appears to be that we demand the right to limit immigration while at the same time trying to attract more immigration, especially professional and skilled (which are the groups driving down wages).
    It’s simple really. We control immigration - rather than accept anyone who turns up holding an EU passport - and focus it on skilled and professional - it’s the unskilled which are perceived to drive down wages...
    I don't think that is right. Plumbers, electricians and brickies are skilled and have seen their rates undercut. This may also be true of the unskilled car windscreen washers but I'm not sure anyone cares about them. Brexit is endangered while politicians fight for the right to limit what they have no intention of limiting.
    Didn't someone post on here a while ago that before the Romanian car washers arrived they’d done quite a lot of bisuness selling automatic car-wash machines, and it had all gone up the Swanee. Or something like that? Reverse Luddism.

    There was also certainly a feeling among community phamacists ...... the pharmacists who work in shops, supernarkets and so on..... that some supermatket companies were deliberatly recruiting in the the EU ....in the Czech Republic in particular IIRC ...... because, initially at any rate,10% or so less than British pharmacists normally got was a fortune to the ‘immigrants’. TBH, don’t see the same sort of complaint on pharmacy websites now.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 1,970
    DavidL said:

    Astonishing the government have managed to maintain that record given the position they were left in in 2010. And the increases in 2000-2006 created much of the structural deficit we are still trying to fix to this day. Grossly irresponsible and incompetent. Brown in a nutshell.
    That's tosh - the financial crisis followed by GO's failed austerity experiment and the consequent decade of poor growth has led to our current debt predicament.

    Good to see that the Tories are quietly sweeping their neo-liberal ideological approach under the carpet and (whisper it quietly) returning to Keynesian common-sense.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 41,925
    edited November 24
    I'd suggest (Unusually) that the Paddy Power side of this bet is more correct (Hammond being around 1-2) to deliver the budget. So if you're restricted then you might want to stake more on Ladbrokes side rather than Paddy.

    There are also some tasty odds on Boris @ Paddy Power.

    11-10 to go in 2018
    8-1 to go in 2019
    12-1 to go in 2020 or later.

    I'd suggest going for the maximum stake in both the 2019 and 2020 boxes, and then putting the sum of those amounts in 2018.

    Yes you'll lose the lot if he gets sacked this year, but the whole Iran thing seems to have gone off the boil a bit.
    11-10 for him to go this year is simply wrong

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 15,056
    DavidL said:

    CD13 said:

    Mr P,

    "It's the headline in the telegraph story linked upthread"

    It sounds like Brexit PR.

    I'm sure no one seriously is suggesting that EU countries could be forced to accept artificially high levels of immigration imposed by a central Authority.

    As I am sure you are aware the ECJ recently did exactly that in respect of refugees.
    Doing the bidding of the German Govt......
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 36,073
    edited November 24
    Based on the new yougov poll the next general election would lead to a result of Tories 288 seats, Labour 290, LDs 14 on UNS so still almost neck and neck. That would also be the closest ever general election result since WW2 just ahead of February 1974 where Labour were 4 seats ahead of the Tories (though the Tories won the popular vote)
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 41,925
    edited November 24


    That's tosh - the financial crisis followed by GO's failed austerity experiment and the consequent decade of poor growth has led to our current debt predicament.

    WRONG.

    And no Gordon Brown wasn't entirely to blame either(*), it was the global financial crisis.

    *The Tories didn't exactly see it coming in 2008, and would have taken very similiar measures to the ones Labour did post crisis so counterfactually it is a wash.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 17,768
    CD13 said:

    Mr P,

    "Britain must accept more immigrants if it wants a free trade deal."

    Who has said this?

    Inability to control your own borders is the definition of a vassal country. I'm sure not even the most fanatical Remainer would suggest this.

    Sandpit said:


    I expect that to be forthcoming. But the Government can't be specific about it yet, because the EU will either require us to close down such measures in the negotiations - or try and demand additional exit fees, aimed at reducing the cash available to make that assistance to business.

    Indeed so. What worries the EU more than anything else is that Britain will make a succes of Brexit. Plans for regulatory divergence and incentives to attract businesses will have to wait until after the deal is signed.
    Correct, which is why they want several pounds of flesh, and our arms handcuffed behind our back, before they'll do a "deal".
    Sandpit said:

    FF43 you asked me about our longer term investment plans after brexit last night. I have thought about the answer. As a high tech manufacturer in the global healthcare supply chain we are less and less dependent on Nhs. The uk may be an attractive place to invest after brexit but only if the uk government provides strong incentives to us. The reality is that I don't see it having the money or the willpower to do so. As such we will most likely slowly transfer new investment to the rest of the EU. In the end the UK will have to fight for our investment not rely on it.

    I feel brexiters don't really understand that they need to prove to business that they will look after them post brexit not just assume we will be there.

    I expect that to be forthcoming. But the Government can't be specific about it yet, because the EU will either require us to close down such measures in the negotiations - or try and demand additional exit fees, aimed at reducing the cash available to make that assistance to business.
    Indeed so. What worries the EU more than anything else is that Britain will make a succes of Brexit. Plans for regulatory divergence and incentives to attract businesses will have to wait until after the deal is signed.
    You can tell it's pantomime season. Bang on cue, pantomime demons are being conjured up.

    "EU's behind it!"
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 12,701

    DavidL said:

    Astonishing the government have managed to maintain that record given the position they were left in in 2010. And the increases in 2000-2006 created much of the structural deficit we are still trying to fix to this day. Grossly irresponsible and incompetent. Brown in a nutshell.
    That's tosh - the financial crisis followed by GO's failed austerity experiment and the consequent decade of poor growth has led to our current debt predicament.

    Good to see that the Tories are quietly sweeping their neo-liberal ideological approach under the carpet and (whisper it quietly) returning to Keynesian common-sense.
    "returning to Keynesian common-sense"

    Well, up to a point Lord Cropper. Keynes would have said spending should have been done during the worst of the downturn, not ten years later.

    Any spending that Hammond is doing as been entirely forced on him by Jezza's unexpected success campaigning against austerity.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 4,083
    edited November 24
    Mr L,

    "As I am sure you are aware the ECJ recently did exactly that in respect of refugees."

    Ah, but they were vassal states, not free countries.

    PS I was teasing Mr P a little.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 12,701
    Pulpstar said:


    That's tosh - the financial crisis followed by GO's failed austerity experiment and the consequent decade of poor growth has led to our current debt predicament.

    WRONG.

    And no Gordon Brown wasn't entirely to blame either(*), it was the global financial crisis.

    *The Tories didn't exactly see it coming in 2008, and would have taken very similiar measures to the ones Labour did post crisis so counterfactually it is a wash.
    Tories argued for more deregulation of finance at every opportunity they got pre-2007.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 41,925
    Here are the massive sums Paddy allows me online:

    24/11/2017 Single To Win
    2018 @ 11/10
    Boris Johnson Special
    What year will Boris cease to be Foreign Secretary? £2.44 Pending
    24/11/2017 Single To Win
    2020 or later @ 12/1
    Boris Johnson Special
    What year will Boris cease to be Foreign Secretary? £1.11 Pending
    24/11/2017 Single To Win
    2019 @ 8/1
    Boris Johnson Special
    What year will Boris cease to be Foreign Secretary? £1.33 Pending
    24/11/2017 Single To Win
    Hammond NOT to deliver the 2018 Autumn Budget @ 2/1
    Philip Hammond Specials
    Philip Hammond Specials £4.67 Pending xD
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 27,407

    Do you think that in the run-up to an Irish general election that being seen to back down to the UK would be a vote-winning strategy?

    As a general rule of thumb, those hoping for a deal with the EU should be hoping that foreign heads of government are untroubled domestically, so they are not distracted from the negotiations and politically strong enough to sell a compromise.
    I imagine that's true, but leaders running minority governments or fragile coalitions also probably need to be seen not to back down from things I should think, so it's a bit of a mortons fork as far as we're concerned.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 33,339
    TGOHF said:

    I'd imagine Scott's retweets for example will focus on Corbyn and less on the govt after Brexit.

    I imagine Brexit will be a roaring success before you work out what retweet means
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 12,701
    A small piece of personal news. I shall only be posting for the next hour or so, as later today:

    I get married!!!

    There is to be a Mrs Borough!
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,328
    ydoethur said:

    TGOHF said:

    Scott_P said:

    It’s simple really. We control immigration

    This doesn't look much like control to me

    Britain must accept more immigrants if it wants a free trade deal
    A free trade deal with the EU will require compliance with many EU rules too:



    The problem that we have is that beggar's cannot be choosers. For each trade negotiation we are in a weak negotiating position, like an addict needing a fix.
    The prize is there for May's government in that if they can knuckle down until after Brexit then they will have survived the greatest onslaught in the media including significant help from inside their own country via useful idiots in many a year.

    Once Brexit is done don't be surprised if the anit-May media blitz slithers off into the night and the uplands will be a lot more sunlit.
    As they are for Corbyn?

    I do think Labour are kidding themselves about an easy win next time. As long as Corbyn and McDonnell are significant players I really think they will struggle to breach 280.

    But equally to say the government will get through Brexit and then things will improve is to focus on one thing. Grenfell is not linked to Brexit but there are very awkward questions for all parties - especially the government- as to why sprinklers were not installed, and May is being evasive on that. The economy is due a downturn. There is the serious threat of war in the Far East.

    I can foresee many ways the government can go tits up. What I struggle to see is Labour replacing them unless something career-ending happens to those two who are wrecking it. Which is a bit of a nightmare scenario really.
    I don't think anyone on the Labour side is predicting an easy win, indeed Momentum seem to have taken to the cult of shoe leather more than an LD Focus team.

    It may seem difficult to find Lab gains, but that was near universal opinion here in May 2017, and many were predicting massive losses (Bolsover hubris!).

    Labour is certainly back in the game and has its mojo back.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 8,494

    Roger said:
    I do not understand the rhetoric around immigration and Brexit. The position appears to be that we demand the right to limit immigration while at the same time trying to attract more immigration, especially professional and skilled (which are the groups driving down wages).
    It’s simple really. We control immigration - rather than accept anyone who turns up holding an EU passport - and focus it on skilled and professional - it’s the unskilled which are perceived to drive down wages...
    I don't think that is right. Plumbers, electricians and brickies are skilled and have seen their rates undercut. This may also be true of the unskilled car windscreen washers but I'm not sure anyone cares about them. Brexit is endangered while politicians fight for the right to limit what they have no intention of limiting.
    Didn't someone post on here a while ago that before the Romanian car washers arrived they’d done quite a lot of bisuness selling automatic car-wash machines, and it had all gone up the Swanee. Or something like that? Reverse Luddism.

    There was also certainly a feeling among community phamacists ...... the pharmacists who work in shops, supernarkets and so on..... that some supermatket companies were deliberatly recruiting in the the EU ....in the Czech Republic in particular IIRC ...... because, initially at any rate,10% or so less than British pharmacists normally got was a fortune to the ‘immigrants’. TBH, don’t see the same sort of complaint on pharmacy websites now.
    The problem (in the case of the pharmacy issue you describe() isn't just wages; it's the consequent skills gap that breaking the social contract between governments, employers, and Britons entails.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 17,768

    A small piece of personal news. I shall only be posting for the next hour or so, as later today:

    I get married!!!

    There is to be a Mrs Borough!

    Congratulations!
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 9,540

    A small piece of personal news. I shall only be posting for the next hour or so, as later today:

    I get married!!!

    There is to be a Mrs Borough!

    Congratulations. Hope the day goes well, and best wishes for both of you for the future, too.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 12,701

    A small piece of personal news. I shall only be posting for the next hour or so, as later today:

    I get married!!!

    There is to be a Mrs Borough!

    Congratulations. Hope the day goes well, and best wishes for both of you for the future, too.
    Thank you all.

    We've been together twenty years. Marriage been talked about off and on for many years, but the day has finally come.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 27,407
    Scott_P said:

    TGOHF said:

    I'd imagine Scott's retweets for example will focus on Corbyn and less on the govt after Brexit.

    I imagine Brexit will be a roaring success before you work out what retweet means
    Not that crap again - yes the literal meaning is different, but the meaning is perfectly clear and I would be very unsurprised if in time retweet has a broader meaning of 'reproduce a tweet' since its convenient shorthand for what happens. Being hyper literal doesn't matter.

    I bet you correct people who use Google as a verb too, since they might be using a different search engine.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 4,083
    Mr Borough,

    Many congratulations.

  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,328

    A small piece of personal news. I shall only be posting for the next hour or so, as later today:

    I get married!!!

    There is to be a Mrs Borough!

    Congratulations! a beautiful day for it.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 16,291
    Scott_P said:

    TGOHF said:

    I'd imagine Scott's retweets for example will focus on Corbyn and less on the govt after Brexit.

    I imagine Brexit will be a roaring success before you work out what retweet means
    Roar.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 36,073

    A small piece of personal news. I shall only be posting for the next hour or so, as later today:

    I get married!!!

    There is to be a Mrs Borough!

    Many congratulations Mr and Mrs Borough!
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 8,494

    A small piece of personal news. I shall only be posting for the next hour or so, as later today:

    I get married!!!

    There is to be a Mrs Borough!

    Wooo! Congratulations.
This discussion has been closed.