the snap general election thread

fun4everyone

Actually I just checked, something must have happened because she is now 1.06 again (can immediately lay at 1.08). Your accusation of after timing regarding price is quite uncalled for.

https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.131081434

chucknorris

fun4everyone wrote: »

No I did not post that at the time and you brought it up not me. You can still lay her at 1.17 just now not a huge difference

I'm well aware of betfair prices, you should know I have been quoting current prices to you in my last few posts!

Not a huge difference? Are you mad!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! There is a huge diffrence between 1.08 and 1.17 (more than double!!!!!!!).

fun4everyone

chucknorris wrote: »

I'm well aware of betfair prices, you should know I have been quoting current prices to you in my last few posts!

Not a huge difference? Are you mad!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! There is a huge diffrence between 1.08 and 1.17 (more than double!!!!!!!).

It's now trading at 1.06 and you claimed after timing when I said I laid 1.08?

chucknorris

fun4everyone wrote: »

Actually I just checked, something must have happened because she is now 1.06 again (can immediately lay at 1.08). Your accusation of after timing regarding price is quite uncalled for.

https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.131081434

LOL, you just don't understand do you? The fact that the price has now reduced again has nothing to do with the fact that you were after timing.

chucknorris

fun4everyone wrote: »

It's now trading at 1.06 and you claimed after timing when I said I laid 1.08?

yes but what has that got to do with being an 'after timer'? I'm beginning to think that you actually don't know what an after timer is, the fact that the lower price has returned changes nothing (it could have lengthened).

fun4everyone

chucknorris wrote: »

LOL, you just don't understand do you? The fact that the price has now reduced again has nothing to do with the fact that you were after timing.

i understand perfectly well, and like I already said I have laid TM to be next prime minister at 1.08. Its now trading at 1.06. I dont know what your problem is except you dislike the fact JC will be our next PM. Have a good one.

steampowered

antrobus wrote: »

Labour was responsible for sub-prime lending by UK banks. Oddly enough, Northern Rock Plc didn't have a US operation.

No, no they aren't.

This is a key point. We live in a capitalist society with a free market economy. Sometimes businesses fail.

The government isn't responsible for that - that's just what happens in the real world.

Admittedly there are lessons to be learned for regulators - but given that no regulator anywhere in the world really saw the crisis coming it seems extremely unlikely that leaving regulation with the Bank of England would have made any difference.

Also, regulation should not decide the business plan for private sector businesses. If you try to blame the government for private sector failures, you very soon have an economy which is massively over-regulated in which any innovation or risk-taking is stamped out.

fun4everyone

chucknorris wrote: »

Can you please stop sending me PM's.

I sent you a single one, politely asking you to stop accusing me of lying. You replied asking me not to PM you and I havent sent a single one since so I really dont know what your problem is. Just drop it please.

chucknorris

fun4everyone wrote: »

I sent you a single one, politely asking you to stop accusing me of lying. You replied asking me not to PM you and I havent sent a single one since so I really dont know what your problem is. Just drop it please.

If you don't PM me again, consider it dropped.

Zero_Gravitas

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40251999

It must be a little discomforting for those on here who claim that the Conservatives "won" for their leader to admit that she "got them into this mess"...