Brexit: Now What? Part IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
Brexiteers putting pressure on Theresa May to make sure that Brexit is diamond hard:

More than 60 Conservative MPs have signed a letter to Theresa May making a series of "suggestions" about the government's Brexit strategy.

The letter from the European Research Group says the UK should be free to negotiate and sign trade deals with other countries as soon as it leaves.

The MPs also want "full regulatory autonomy" for the UK after March 2019.
Click to expand...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43131446

Well that's goodbye to any hope of a transition period then :(
 
jimbob said:
And as Ken Clarke has said, Corbyn would be less of a disaster than this current government's course.
Click to expand...

I'm not even sure of that. Labour give little impression that they have any more of idea of what they want out of Brexit than the Tories, and indeed Corbyn seems to be a something of a hard brexiteer nutjob himself.

And then there's their attitude towards business. Lets face it, the only reason the business community isn't shouting apoplecticaly at the Tories for the mess they're making of Brexit is because they're even more worried about what a Corbyn/McDonnell government might do in its place.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Seems like a no deal brexit is the most likely outcome.
Click to expand...

It seems bizarre to me that the 60 or so members of the European Research Group seem to have more influence and leverage than the Remainers within the Conservative Party even though they are more numerous. Perhaps it's because the ERG members are intransigent whereas the Remainers lack backbone. :(
 
The Don said:
It seems bizarre to me that the 60 or so members of the European Research Group seem to have more influence and leverage than the Remainers within the Conservative Party even though they are more numerous. Perhaps it's because the ERG members are intransigent whereas the Remainers lack backbone. :(
Click to expand...

48 letters to the 1922 committee would suffice to trigger a leadership election. If May's main purpose is to remain leader then those 60 have her over a barrel.

eta: and if the Remainers tried the same thing they'd find JRM or Johnson in #10.
 
Last edited:
The Don said:
It seems bizarre to me that the 60 or so members of the European Research Group seem to have more influence and leverage than the Remainers within the Conservative Party even though they are more numerous. Perhaps it's because the ERG members are intransigent whereas the Remainers lack backbone. :(
Click to expand...

Brexit means brexit and a no deal exit was what everyone voted for. I keep wondering when someone will show some common sense,

Probably just after the no deal exit.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Brexit means brexit and a no deal exit was what everyone voted for. I keep wondering when someone will show some common sense,

Probably just after the no deal exit.
Click to expand...

When it will be too late :(

Then the Brexiteers will claim it's all the EU's fault and enough of the electorate are the kind of mugs who will fall for it and declare us "better out than in" despite the considerable economic hardships.

Those who point out the folly of it all will be branded defeatist and unpatriotic :mad:
 
The Don said:
When it will be too late :(

Then the Brexiteers will claim it's all the EU's fault and enough of the electorate are the kind of mugs who will fall for it and declare us "better out than in" despite the considerable economic hardships.

Those who point out the folly of it all will be branded defeatist and unpatriotic :mad:
Click to expand...

I don't think so. I strongly suspect it will be more "Oh ****, what have we done?"
 
GlennB said:
eta: and if the Remainers tried the same thing they'd find JRM or Johnson in #10.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure either would win a leadership contest.
One of them might get into the run off, but I expect there'd be a non-loon there as well.
 
Tolls said:
I'm not sure either would win a leadership contest.
One of them might get into the run off, but I expect there'd be a non-loon there as well.
Click to expand...

If it comes to it, I really hope you're right.

The current odds on "PM to succeed May" seem a little counter-intuitive:
JRM 4-1
Corbyn 6-1
Johnson 8-1
Rudd/Leadsom/Gove, each 11-1

Corbyn can win that bet by beating May in the next election or the one that follows it while May is still PM. I'd say the first possibility is the only realistic one.

Meanwhile, any of those 5 main Tory alternatives can win by replacing May before the next election, or prior to the one that follows it after a May victory.

All that comes to 86% of the odds, so "Something not described above" is roughly as likely as BoJo to follow May as PM :D Madness reigns.
 
Last edited:
GlennB said:
If it comes to it, I really hope you're right.

The current odds on "PM to succeed May" seem a little counter-intuitive:
JRM 4-1
Corbyn 6-1
Johnson 8-1
Rudd/Leadsom/Gove, each 11-1
<snip>
All that comes to 86% of the odds, so "Something not described above" is roughly as likely as BoJo to follow May as PM :D Madness reigns.
Click to expand...
Maybe I'm misinterpreting the word "odds" - it's not a way of expressing probabilities I'm used to - but I thought that odds 4-1 means there's a 1 in 5 probability of the thing occurring. That then gives probabilities:
JRM: 20%
Corbyn: 14.3%
Johnson: 11.1%
Rudd/Leadsom/Gove: each 8.3%
which add up to only 70.4%. Then "something else" is considered more likely than any of those most likely choices. :eye-poppi
 
Last edited:
ddt said:
Maybe I'm misinterpreting the word "odds" - it's not a way of expressing probabilities I'm used to - but I thought that odds 4-1 means there's a 1 in 5 probability of the thing occurring. That then gives probabilities:

<snip>
Click to expand...


This might help.

In gambling, odds represent the ratio between the amounts staked by parties to a wager or bet.[3] Thus, odds of 6 to 1 mean the first party (normally a bookmaker) stakes six times the amount staked by the second party. In simplest terms, 6 to 1 odds means if you bet a dollar (the "1" in the expression), and you win you get paid six dollars (the "6" in the expression), or 6 x 1.
Click to expand...

GlennB's percentages are expressed correctly by that interpretation.
 
quadraginta said:
This might help.

​

GlennB's percentages are expressed correctly by that interpretation.
Click to expand...
I did take a look at that page and, AFAICS, it supports my interpretation:
Fractional odds
Favoured by bookmakers in the United Kingdom and Ireland, and also common in horse racing, fractional odds quote the net total that will be paid out to the bettor, should he or she win, relative to the stake.[11] Odds of 4/1 would imply that the bettor stands to make a £400 profit on a £100 stake. If the odds are 1/4, the bettor will make £25 on a £100 stake. In either case, having won, the bettor always receives the original stake back; so if the odds are 4/1 the bettor receives a total of £500 (£400 plus the original £100). Odds of 1/1 are known as evens or even money.
Click to expand...
A bookie (who is not interested in making a profit) would give you 5-1 odds on rolling a 6 on your next die roll. Odds of n-1 correspond to a probability of 1/(n+1). Not rolling a 6 on the next die roll has odds 1-5; odds of 1-m correspond to a probability of m/(m+1). In general, odds of n-m correspond to a probability of m/(m+n).

And I selected this paragraph because, well, GlennB is British, so he would use "British odds".

FWIW, if odds of n-1 would correspond to a probability of 1/n, then still the numbers that GlennB cites only add up to 81.4%.

And of course, the probabilities that the bookies guesstimate for those events to happen are lower than that: they have to make a living, so they have to not just get out even, but to make a profit from the venture.
 
ddt said:
I did take a look at that page and, AFAICS, it supports my interpretation:

A bookie (who is not interested in making a profit) would give you 5-1 odds on rolling a 6 on your next die roll. Odds of n-1 correspond to a probability of 1/(n+1). Not rolling a 6 on the next die roll has odds 1-5; odds of 1-m correspond to a probability of m/(m+1). In general, odds of n-m correspond to a probability of m/(m+n).

And I selected this paragraph because, well, GlennB is British, so he would use "British odds".

FWIW, if odds of n-1 would correspond to a probability of 1/n, then still the numbers that GlennB cites only add up to 81.4%.

And of course, the probabilities that the bookies guesstimate for those events to happen are lower than that: they have to make a living, so they have to not just get out even, but to make a profit from the venture.
Click to expand...


When someone offers you a gamble of 6 to 1 odds he is proposing that the likelihood of his winning is six times the likelihood of you winning.

Not seven times.
 
quadraginta said:
When someone offers you a gamble of 6 to 1 odds he is proposing that the likelihood of his winning is six times the likelihood of you winning.

Not seven times.
Click to expand...

Which means your chance of winning is 1/7 or 14% and his is 6/7 or 86%

If JRM's odds are 4/1, he has a 20% chance of winning.

1/5 chance of him winning, 4/5 chance of someone else winning.
 
quadraginta said:
When someone offers you a gamble of 6 to 1 odds he is proposing that the likelihood of his winning is six times the likelihood of you winning.

Not seven times.
Click to expand...
When a bookie offers me that gamble, that means:
- my probability of winning is p
- the bookie's probability of winning is 6p
and because either of those wins:
p + 6p = 1
7p = 1
The Don said:
Which means your chance of winning is 1/7 or 14% and his is 6/7 or 86%
Click to expand...
This.
The Don said:
If JRM's odds are 4/1, he has a 20% chance of winning.

1/5 chance of him winning, 4/5 chance of someone else winning.
Click to expand...
Which means my calculations were correct and those odds offered on various people succeeding May only add up to 70%.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom