I think people have a misunderstanding of how the Deputy Leader works, he's not just a Shadow Cabinet Minister appointed by Corbyn, he has a separate democratic mandate from the PLP and he's allowed to roam freer on policy. I doubt Corbyn even can sack him. He represents what the PLP feel more than Corbyn I expect, so his position is significant.
Parliament could easily no confidence Corbyn in that instance.
Well he would have to win 50%+1 of parliament. He would probably be willing to trade remain for confidence and supply with the remain parties for a chance to stay PM, the question would be if the Tory defectors would come over. Probably not, but then their other option is to go home, so maybe a few would go over?
Well alright, if they are equally obtuse on the matter, then I'll go with the party who's policies I actually support.
But they're not. Lib Dems will revoke article 50. Labour will renegotiate and then have a referendum, and then maybe back leave and maybe back remain. Maybe now that Parliament is closed they can go away and come up with a coherent policy, because right now it's garbage.
Their policy has been restated today and it's just as ridiculous as usual:
You have to admit that saying in advance that you won't support the deal you yourself negotiated is also ridiculous, and perhaps a bad way to start of a negotiation.
Like, what is supposed to be your strategy there? Why would the EU bother to make concessions if you say you don't care about it? Why would anyone believe you had made a good faith effort to negotiate the best possible deal? Why would you have bothered?
You don't negotiate a salary for a new job by saying you don't want the job anyway. Labour's position of "We will try and get the best deal and if that sucks we will back Remain." is absolutely the best and most logical strategy here. Committing to Remain beforehand is absolute bonkers dumb.
The redacted part of the yellowhammer document is allegedly the UK petroleum refining industry becoming uncompetitive, leading to the closure of the UK's two main refineries and disruption of fuel supplies for 1-2 weeks
There are various screenshots circulating of what appears to be the same document without redaction but I'm unsure of the source
The redacted part of the yellowhammer document is allegedly the UK petroleum refining industry becoming uncompetitive, leading to the closure of the UK's two main refineries and disruption of fuel supplies for 1-2 weeks
There are various screenshots circulating of what appears to be the same document without redaction but I'm unsure of the source
It also speculates on 2000 job losses as a result of those closures.
Redacted either because that scenario is no longer likely, or that the Conservatives know that people didn't vote Leave in order to lose their jobs.
0
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
15. Facing EU tariffs makes petrol exports to the EU uncompetitive. Industry had plans to mitigate the impact on refinery margins and profitability but UK Government policy to set petrol import tariffs at 0% inadvertently undermines these plans. This leads to significant financial losses and announcement of two refinery closures (and transition to import terminals) and direct job losses (about 2000). Resulting strike action at refineries would lead to disruptions to fuel availability for 1-2 weeks in the regions directly supplied by the refineries.
Well alright, if they are equally obtuse on the matter, then I'll go with the party who's policies I actually support.
But they're not. Lib Dems will revoke article 50. Labour will renegotiate and then have a referendum, and then maybe back leave and maybe back remain. Maybe now that Parliament is closed they can go away and come up with a coherent policy, because right now it's garbage.
Their policy has been restated today and it's just as ridiculous as usual:
You have to admit that saying in advance that you won't support the deal you yourself negotiated is also ridiculous, and perhaps a bad way to start of a negotiation.
Like, what is supposed to be your strategy there? Why would the EU bother to make concessions if you say you don't care about it? Why would anyone believe you had made a good faith effort to negotiate the best possible deal? Why would you have bothered?
You don't negotiate a salary for a new job by saying you don't want the job anyway. Labour's position of "We will try and get the best deal and if that sucks we will back Remain." is absolutely the best and most logical strategy here. Committing to Remain beforehand is absolute bonkers dumb.
No, it's not the best or most logical strategy. Because the best outcome is to not Brexit.
Quantity. For those of you following along at home, about a year ago the Brexit secretary stated - fairly out of the blue - that the government would ensure that there's an adequate food supply in the event of no deal. This caused some alarm because wait why the fuck is that a genuine concern in a first world country?
Quantity. For those of you following along at home, about a year ago the Brexit secretary stated - fairly out of the blue - that the government would ensure that there's an adequate food supply in the event of no deal. This caused some alarm because wait why the fuck is that a genuine concern in a first world country?
A minister has been criticised for suggesting that "many people" believe judges are biased about Brexit.
Kwasi Kwarteng said it is "fact" that people think judges are not impartial after a Scottish court ruled that suspending Parliament was illegal.
The business minister told the BBC's Andrew Neil Show: "I'm not saying this, but, many people... are saying that the judges are biased."
Ex-Lib Dem leader Sir Menzies Campbell said the comments were "ill-judged".
Mr Kwarteng, who campaigned for Brexit in 2016, told Andrew Neil that there was concern about the extent to which judges are "interfering in politics".
Within the profanity rules of the thread I can't adequately describe how much I hate the 'many people think' statements. Can't sue me for slander, I'm just saying what undefined other people think.
In fact, many people (not me, but a lot of other people I won't name) think that judges are biased. In favour of the Law.
It's how both malevolent pieces of shit like Trump speak and how gutless cowards who want to dodge responsibility speak. I suspect Kwarteng is more the latter than the former, but the effect is exactly the same. Something goes against them and they claim it's because it's rigged or unfair. Anything to avoid admitting a mistake. Deeply polarising, destablising important pillars of society, casually wrecking stuff just to get through another day: the modern Conservative party is the single most destructive force in politics I have ever seen in this country.
I'm starting to think that the internet/media in general is one of those things that need self-discipline.
Particularly when looking at things that want to bully through an extreme agenda.
Things like Farage's LBC slot is to information what mcdonalds is to food.
It's cheap, easy to prepare, quick to consume but really really bad for your (mental) health.
Particularly when the interviewer isn't trimming the fat for you.
That interviewer should have pushed the MP harder.
You can't let him get away with that sort of stuff. Because the consequence of believing that the judges are impartial is to address the audience and tell them so.
The man would either be demonstrated to be craven (as he doesn't want to tell supporters something they do not ostensibly want to hear) or is being disingenuous by using hearsay as a means to provide facts.
Both disqualify him for the job he currently holds.
Apparently no small amount of money has been bet on the stock exchange on a no-deal brexit, including Boris Johnson. If this sounds too much like a conspiracy theory, feel free to dismiss it .
As for the source - Stross is a British author. I don't really know Byline, so can't make a comment to the validity of the claims.
Asking for a friend, how easy is it to bet on the economy becoming a shitshow and make money from it? That sounds like a better return than lottery tickets.
Nobody remembers the singer. The song remains.
0
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
Asking for a friend, how easy is it to bet on the economy becoming a shitshow and make money from it? That sounds like a better return than lottery tickets.
Almost as easy as betting on the economy becoming a shitshow and losing your investment (or bet, really). There's bear ETF's for most everything, some of them leveraged, and options are always a fun way to lose money.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
Can't wait for the spin on that one.
Labour can't go to Brussels and negotiate a deal AND vote against it back at home effectively
BUT
the tories can definitely try get a deal and, at the same, bet against it to the tune of sums people get killed over!
Asking for a friend, how easy is it to bet on the economy becoming a shitshow and make money from it? That sounds like a better return than lottery tickets.
Not easy. Ok so imagine you want to short a stock. Simple method is
1) borrow a stock
2) sell the stock
3) stock goes down, repay the stock.
But borrowing a stock is not an easy thing to do because its not much of a win proposition for the guy who has it. So usually youre going to set up an account with the holder that is equal to to value of the stock plus interest. They sell the stock and keep your money as collateral and collect interest. When the price of the stock changes a margin is created between the value of the account and the value of the stock. And this margin can be called any any point.
So if the stock goes UP youre more or less immediately on the hook for that money to be placed in the account. And if you cant pay you lose the position(the holder liquifies the account to repurchase the stock)
So upsides are high, yes, but downsides are potentially huge. (Technically infinte but not really).
You could also naked short. Which is now illegal in the US (not sure about UK) where you essentially sell a stock you dont have and then fill that order later. Similar risks are involved but it does not involve a counterparty that owns the stock.
Now the positions that brexiters are holding are probably no longer all that difficult to hold since they already won brexit and the referendum itself put downward pressure on the market. (Ie their account should be less than the sell value of whatever they were shorting and theyre holding the position because they think it will fall more not because they havent made money)
So i suppose the answer is “if you have enough money to purchae an ection and not enough scruples to prevent you from doing that then its probably pretty easy
+1
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
Honestly it wouldn't surprise me if some of these guys have positions that will profit no matter what the outcome. Buy a put and a call option for the same underlying product (say the Pound or the FTSE index) and you'll make money whether it tanks or skyrockets. The value just needs to increase or decrease a bit more because you need to cover the cost of the option that'll be out of the money. Going all in on crashing out is risky, pushing things to this point where it looks like a crash out but there's still a ray of hope means that they can take a position that would let them profit no matter what happens. About the only thing finance peeps like more than profit is risk-free profit, so given the connections between these firms and the government, you could probably get a good feeling for what is going to happen with Brexit if you knew exactly what their holdings are.
Or you could always make money the old fashioned way, by selling people overpriced emergency supplies. The Morissette ironic bit being that the hard-core Brexit supporters think that the Yellowhammer document is just more Project Fear, so they're not actually the target customers.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
Apparently no small amount of money has been bet on the stock exchange on a no-deal brexit, including Boris Johnson. If this sounds too much like a conspiracy theory, feel free to dismiss it .
As for the source - Stross is a British author. I don't really know Byline, so can't make a comment to the validity of the claims.
I would be very very surprised if the long options for those hedge funds doesn't dwarf their short options
Apparently no small amount of money has been bet on the stock exchange on a no-deal brexit, including Boris Johnson. If this sounds too much like a conspiracy theory, feel free to dismiss it .
As for the source - Stross is a British author. I don't really know Byline, so can't make a comment to the validity of the claims.
But their charts seem to indicate that bulk of the shorts came after Boris announced; and I don't know that it's necessarily nefarious to think you can see the writing on the wall at that point.
At least not more nefarious than donating a few hundred thousand pounds to his campaign for any reason.
0
Options
KakodaimonosCode fondlerHelping the 1% get richerRegistered Userregular
There's much better ways to short an entire country's economy. Namely forex and gilt. Now I'm curious just how much the Bank of England would be willing to let the currency drop before they'd step in and try to stabilize it. And if they'd have the resources to handle another Soros scenario? And is Britain going to be part of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism after brexit?
+1
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
the number is suspect as far as I can tell ( saw one suggestion only way you can reach that number is if you measure the movement in shorts summing both directions.... ) - broadly the banks want Brexit to do a capitalism story keeps getting pushed out because they are the villain du jour but barring a few boutique places its a tough money making prospect, certainly for big institutions, and the connections that tend to be outlined are either more class related ( lots of finance adjacent cons ) or risk mitigation ( eg moving assets, various forms of hedging, etc )
other things being equal finance types hate Brexit
+7
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
There's much better ways to short an entire country's economy. Namely forex and gilt. Now I'm curious just how much the Bank of England would be willing to let the currency drop before they'd step in and try to stabilize it. And if they'd have the resources to handle another Soros scenario? And is Britain going to be part of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism after brexit?
Nobody has the resources to hold out against international currency markets. Especially since Brexit will be such a fundamental change to things that everyone will be moving in the same direction. The BOE would be much better off letting the Pound float (sink) and using their resources to support industries that are getting hit by the results.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
0
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
boe knows it cant stop pound eating shit in event of no deal and most discussion I have seen is how to mitigate the col effects especially on food imports in policy circles cos it will look real bad for gov especially after promises of tariff reductions....
Hedge funds contain multitudes. Take Marshall Wace, which boasts £40bn of assets under management. It’s run by pro-Brexit Paul Marshall (cited in the article), and pro-Remain Ian Wace (not cited in the article).
UK stocks often have little exposure to the UK economy. Take Cineworld, which according to the data Byline Times cited, has seen the biggest increase in short interest in the past month. But 75 per cent of its revenue was from the US in the first half of 2019, according to the company’s latest interim results.
Equity outcomes are explicitly uncertain — what is a short position on a “no deal Brexit”? A short position on any company? A short position could also be a play on remain. For instance, a company might benefit from a stronger dollar, or less EU regulation.
Hedge fund strategies are not simply running grand macro strategies on the fate of a nation. To mention Marshall Wace again, it runs a quantitative strategy called TOPS, which aggregates and makes decisions based on external investment research.
The most-shorted companies have short theses which have nothing to do with Brexit, like Thomas Cook (over-leveraged) or Kier Group (over-leveraged).
A fund might be short because of arbitrage opportunities, or to hedge a long position (which might contradict the notion it is betting on no deal).
Posts
McCluskey can do one though. Fucking prick.
Well he would have to win 50%+1 of parliament. He would probably be willing to trade remain for confidence and supply with the remain parties for a chance to stay PM, the question would be if the Tory defectors would come over. Probably not, but then their other option is to go home, so maybe a few would go over?
I half suspect this is propped up by Russian bots.
its a 5-page document with redactions
not quite enough one feels...
(economics editor bbc)
So do we know if they tried "kill the poor," or is that probably redacted?
You have to admit that saying in advance that you won't support the deal you yourself negotiated is also ridiculous, and perhaps a bad way to start of a negotiation.
Like, what is supposed to be your strategy there? Why would the EU bother to make concessions if you say you don't care about it? Why would anyone believe you had made a good faith effort to negotiate the best possible deal? Why would you have bothered?
You don't negotiate a salary for a new job by saying you don't want the job anyway. Labour's position of "We will try and get the best deal and if that sucks we will back Remain." is absolutely the best and most logical strategy here. Committing to Remain beforehand is absolute bonkers dumb.
There are various screenshots circulating of what appears to be the same document without redaction but I'm unsure of the source
Eventually.
(For government use only.)
It also speculates on 2000 job losses as a result of those closures.
Redacted either because that scenario is no longer likely, or that the Conservatives know that people didn't vote Leave in order to lose their jobs.
brexit reporter at sunday times
ho ho ho indeed
from same source redacted section exact text:
the humble address requested both personal communications and yellowhammer "in full" so either way gov has not complied
This is my surprised face.
Steam | XBL
Yeah I think I'm almost as surprised as you are. Just wanted to double check.
Gotta fight climate change somehow
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
No, it's not the best or most logical strategy. Because the best outcome is to not Brexit.
The juice, the precious juice...
Steam | XBL
Mad Max is supposed to be in Australia.
Yeah, supposed to be.
Steam | XBL
Adequate in quantity or quality?
Cause I think the ship sailed on British food quality so long ago, it could have had my ancestors on it, bound for Australia.
and now we know!
In fact, many people (not me, but a lot of other people I won't name) think that judges are biased. In favour of the Law.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Particularly when looking at things that want to bully through an extreme agenda.
Things like Farage's LBC slot is to information what mcdonalds is to food.
It's cheap, easy to prepare, quick to consume but really really bad for your (mental) health.
Particularly when the interviewer isn't trimming the fat for you.
That interviewer should have pushed the MP harder.
You can't let him get away with that sort of stuff. Because the consequence of believing that the judges are impartial is to address the audience and tell them so.
The man would either be demonstrated to be craven (as he doesn't want to tell supporters something they do not ostensibly want to hear) or is being disingenuous by using hearsay as a means to provide facts.
Both disqualify him for the job he currently holds.
Apparently no small amount of money has been bet on the stock exchange on a no-deal brexit, including Boris Johnson. If this sounds too much like a conspiracy theory, feel free to dismiss it
As for the source - Stross is a British author. I don't really know Byline, so can't make a comment to the validity of the claims.
Almost as easy as betting on the economy becoming a shitshow and losing your investment (or bet, really). There's bear ETF's for most everything, some of them leveraged, and options are always a fun way to lose money.
Labour can't go to Brussels and negotiate a deal AND vote against it back at home effectively
BUT
the tories can definitely try get a deal and, at the same, bet against it to the tune of sums people get killed over!
Not easy. Ok so imagine you want to short a stock. Simple method is
1) borrow a stock
2) sell the stock
3) stock goes down, repay the stock.
But borrowing a stock is not an easy thing to do because its not much of a win proposition for the guy who has it. So usually youre going to set up an account with the holder that is equal to to value of the stock plus interest. They sell the stock and keep your money as collateral and collect interest. When the price of the stock changes a margin is created between the value of the account and the value of the stock. And this margin can be called any any point.
So if the stock goes UP youre more or less immediately on the hook for that money to be placed in the account. And if you cant pay you lose the position(the holder liquifies the account to repurchase the stock)
So upsides are high, yes, but downsides are potentially huge. (Technically infinte but not really).
You could also naked short. Which is now illegal in the US (not sure about UK) where you essentially sell a stock you dont have and then fill that order later. Similar risks are involved but it does not involve a counterparty that owns the stock.
Now the positions that brexiters are holding are probably no longer all that difficult to hold since they already won brexit and the referendum itself put downward pressure on the market. (Ie their account should be less than the sell value of whatever they were shorting and theyre holding the position because they think it will fall more not because they havent made money)
So i suppose the answer is “if you have enough money to purchae an ection and not enough scruples to prevent you from doing that then its probably pretty easy
Or you could always make money the old fashioned way, by selling people overpriced emergency supplies. The Morissette ironic bit being that the hard-core Brexit supporters think that the Yellowhammer document is just more Project Fear, so they're not actually the target customers.
I would be very very surprised if the long options for those hedge funds doesn't dwarf their short options
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
But their charts seem to indicate that bulk of the shorts came after Boris announced; and I don't know that it's necessarily nefarious to think you can see the writing on the wall at that point.
At least not more nefarious than donating a few hundred thousand pounds to his campaign for any reason.
other things being equal finance types hate Brexit
Nobody has the resources to hold out against international currency markets. Especially since Brexit will be such a fundamental change to things that everyone will be moving in the same direction. The BOE would be much better off letting the Pound float (sink) and using their resources to support industries that are getting hit by the results.
Here are a few of the problems with the article:
Hedge funds contain multitudes. Take Marshall Wace, which boasts £40bn of assets under management. It’s run by pro-Brexit Paul Marshall (cited in the article), and pro-Remain Ian Wace (not cited in the article).
UK stocks often have little exposure to the UK economy. Take Cineworld, which according to the data Byline Times cited, has seen the biggest increase in short interest in the past month. But 75 per cent of its revenue was from the US in the first half of 2019, according to the company’s latest interim results.
Equity outcomes are explicitly uncertain — what is a short position on a “no deal Brexit”? A short position on any company? A short position could also be a play on remain. For instance, a company might benefit from a stronger dollar, or less EU regulation.
Hedge fund strategies are not simply running grand macro strategies on the fate of a nation. To mention Marshall Wace again, it runs a quantitative strategy called TOPS, which aggregates and makes decisions based on external investment research.
The most-shorted companies have short theses which have nothing to do with Brexit, like Thomas Cook (over-leveraged) or Kier Group (over-leveraged).
A fund might be short because of arbitrage opportunities, or to hedge a long position (which might contradict the notion it is betting on no deal).
As Louis Goddard from Global Witness pointed out on Twitter, there also fundamental problems with how the data has been presented.