Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

Boris Johnson learned nothing from Pinchergate – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited July 2022 in General
Boris Johnson learned nothing from Pinchergate – politicalbetting.com

That's Zahawi more fucked than a stepmom on Pornhub. Clear lay on the betting marketsChancellor Nadhim Zahawi’s tax affairs under investigation by HMRCExclusive: Revelation comes as Mr Zahawi launches bid to succeed Boris Johnson as prime ministerhttps://t.co/6PpdNJnYmU

Read the full story here

«134567

Comments

  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 24,219
    Betfair next prime minister prices

    2.8 Rishi Sunak
    6.8 Penny Mordaunt
    7 Liz Truss
    8.6 Jeremy Hunt
    13 Tom Tugendhat
    21 Sajid Javid
    24 Kemi Badenoch
    24 Nadhim Zahawi
    38 Dominic Raab
    38 Suella Braverman
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 24,219
    Never mind taxes, when do we get to the traditional highlight of Conservative leadership elections when candidates boast about taking class A drugs (but only once and a long time ago) to show they are down with the kids?
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 24,219
    Dirty dossiers on S&M and affairs as Tory rivals turn on each other
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dirty-dossiers-on-s-amp-m-and-affairs-as-tory-rivals-turn-on-each-other-3jtd5dbsc (£££)
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 24,219
    Vladimir Putin 'to become dad again at 69 as gymnast lover pregnant with daughter'
    Vladimir Putin and his ex-gymnast lover Alina Kabaeva are said to be expecting a daughter, according to the General SVR Telegram channel - a web account said to be updated by Kremlin insiders

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/vladimir-putin-to-become-dad-27439613
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 24,219
    Michael Gove left homeless as Boris Johnson takes final revenge for leadership sabotage
    Michael Gove - who was sacked as housing secretary on Wednesday - not only lost his job, but also his £25 million grace and favour pad in Westminster.

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/michael-gove-left-homeless-boris-27440550
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 24,219
    Note Betfair also has a next Conservative leader market, which ought to be the same as next prime minister except for the possibility of interim PMs like Raab in the latter. At least some bookmakers are also running different markets.

    2.8 Rishi Sunak
    6.2 Penny Mordaunt
    7 Liz Truss
    10.5 Tom Tugendhat
    13.5 Jeremy Hunt
    18 Nadhim Zahawi
    19.5 Sajid Javid
    20 Kemi Badenoch
    27 Suella Braverman
    75 Grant Shapps
    100 Priti Patel

    Comparing these (next leader) prices with those in the first post (for next PM) we can see discrepancies for Jeremy Hunt and Tom Tugendhat in particular.
  • Options
    MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 12,415

    Vladimir Putin 'to become dad again at 69 as gymnast lover pregnant with daughter'
    Vladimir Putin and his ex-gymnast lover Alina Kabaeva are said to be expecting a daughter, according to the General SVR Telegram channel - a web account said to be updated by Kremlin insiders

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/vladimir-putin-to-become-dad-27439613

    Over to you, Joe Biden 🫡
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,141

    Vladimir Putin 'to become dad again at 69 as gymnast lover pregnant with daughter'
    Vladimir Putin and his ex-gymnast lover Alina Kabaeva are said to be expecting a daughter, according to the General SVR Telegram channel - a web account said to be updated by Kremlin insiders

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/vladimir-putin-to-become-dad-27439613

    Over to you, Joe Biden 🫡
    The real father is #DarkBrandon
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,964
    Good morning, everyone.

    Has Truss still not declared?

    Zahawi would be rubbish. Hoping Badenoch's odds shorten.
  • Options
    noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,622

    Never mind taxes, when do we get to the traditional highlight of Conservative leadership elections when candidates boast about taking class A drugs (but only once and a long time ago) to show they are down with the kids?

    I am old enough to remember when they simply had to boast about drinking 14 pints a day, the first 10 at work.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,488

    Betfair next prime minister prices

    2.8 Rishi Sunak
    6.8 Penny Mordaunt
    7 Liz Truss
    8.6 Jeremy Hunt
    13 Tom Tugendhat
    21 Sajid Javid
    24 Kemi Badenoch
    24 Nadhim Zahawi
    38 Dominic Raab
    38 Suella Braverman

    Rishi clearly the favourite and out front. Hunt an interesting one, as does have an air of competence which is rare in the senior ranks of the party, and has the advantage of been distant from the recent incompetence. I cannot see the members going for him.

    Mordaunt and Truss should shorten when (if) they declare. I am not convinced Mordaunt will. I think she hangs on for the post GE leadership contest, when detoxifying the party is once again needed.

    Badenoch and Braverman seem to be running mostly on culture war issues. That may get the members juices flowing, but neither seem experienced enough for the top job, and members likely to realise that.

    The others look to be making up the numbers but won't get far.

    It looks very much Truss vs Sunak in the members vote to me, with Truss winning.

  • Options
    StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    kle4 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    kle4 said:

    no contest unless there is a vacancy

    Says who?

    The rulebook doesn't say that.

    BoZo explicitly didn't say it.

    He said "there will be a contest". He didn't say "I am resigning so there will be a contest"
    This is a common mistake people make about rulebooks - they assume every single scenario under the sun must be covered within them and if it is not set out carved into stone something is permissable, but that really is not the case because it is impossible to cover everything. Common sense is actually a big part of administration.

    There shall be a Leader of the Party (referred to in this Constitution as “the Leader”) drawn from those elected to the House of Commons, who shall be elected by the Party Members and Scottish Party Members in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 2

    The Board (which 'have the power to do anything which in its opinion releates to the management and administration of the power') is responsible for 'the overseeing of the procedure for the election of the Leader in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 2'

    Schedule 2 is categorical a leader 'resigning' from the leadership is not eligible. But let's play this out and say resigning is not necessarily a trigger.

    Point 3 states

    Upon the initiation of an election for the Leader, it shall be the duty of the 1922 Committee to present to the Party, as soon as reasonably practicable, a choice of candidates for election as Leader. The rules for deciding the procedure by which the 1922 Committee selects candidates for submission for election shall be determined by the Executive Committee of the 1922 Committee after consultation of the Board

    So let's say Boris argfues the process has been 'initiated' without him resigning - the 1922 still gets to decide how the candidates are selected, and can say the current PM, in this case, is not eligible, based on his statements.

    You can argue the toss about him trying to play fast and loose with the rules, but if he does that they have the tools to stymie him - this is only happening because as he acknowledged the will of the parliamentary party was that he not be leader. So he will not be allowed to be eligible, I am very confident of that.

    Because it is not a question of what he can do - the will to remove him is there, so a way will be found. As noted, if he is saying he has not resigned then Brady and the committee can surely say well then no contest can happen until we settle if there is a vacancy or not.

    Edit: chrisb makes the same point in about 1/10 of the space.
    “… shall be elected by the Party Members and Scottish Party Members…”

    Why the distinction?

    Can people who live outwith Scotland *choose* to be classified as a “Scottish Party Member”? If so, one wonders how many members they actually have north of the border. 5,000?
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,210
    Laying the favourite didn’t work last time, sadly!

    The system was designed to work so that the majority of sensible MPs had enough votes to ensure that the candidate of the loony right wing came in an honourable third. However since the party started selecting candidates on the basis of their loony factor and then chucked out a batch of the most sensible MPs, this time that approach may struggle to work out….
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,964
    Betting Post

    F1: not original, but backed (one stake split evenly) Sainz and Perez to win each way (third the odds top 2), at 12, with boost on Ladbrokes.

    https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2022/07/austria-pre-race-2022.html
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,210
    And they’re handing over all their secret dirt directly to the Labour Party? That’ll end well.
  • Options
    StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    Foxy said:

    Betfair next prime minister prices

    2.8 Rishi Sunak
    6.8 Penny Mordaunt
    7 Liz Truss
    8.6 Jeremy Hunt
    13 Tom Tugendhat
    21 Sajid Javid
    24 Kemi Badenoch
    24 Nadhim Zahawi
    38 Dominic Raab
    38 Suella Braverman

    []

    Mordaunt and Truss should shorten when (if) they declare. I am not convinced Mordaunt will. I think she hangs on for the post GE leadership contest, when detoxifying the party is once again needed.

    []

    I think that’s Wallace’s strategy. Let the next leader take the blame as the Brexit shit hits the cruel fan of economic reality, then step in as the uncorrupted, dull, competent, pro-European saviour of the crippled Tory brand.

    It’s very risky, but Nemo me impune lacessit.
  • Options
    StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    IanB2 said:

    And they’re handing over all their secret dirt directly to the Labour Party? That’ll end well.
    The Conservatives lack a collegiate environment. It is every man for themselves. The Labour Party, and the media, are (correctly) seen as useful idiots; the real enemies are internal.

    The British state is corrupt to its core. We are nearing the end-game.
  • Options
    YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172

    Allegations are allegations. They are easy to make, and may or may not be true.

    What is the relevant standard of proof to apply facing an accusation of misconduct?

    Beyond reasonable doubt? On the balance of probabilities? Any credible allegation? Or the Caesar’s wife standard of ‘above suspicion’?

    If we apply the Caesar's wife standard, there would be few politicians left in any party. Most of them have either done something dodgy, or done something that an opponent can portray as dodgy.

    My view on Zahawi is that these are serious allegations, and they deserve a serious investigation, which HMRC will provide in due course. In the meantime, Zahawi remains innocent. So, Boris could legitimately appoint him.

    Pincher is more serious, because these serious allegations were reported to Johnson ... who did nothing. Whereas Johnson should have ensured a serious investigation began.

    For Pincher, it is not the allegations that are the significant thing, it is that Johnson did nothing.
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,834

    My view on Zahawi is that these are serious allegations, and they deserve a serious investigation, which HMRC will provide in due course. In the meantime, Zahawi remains innocent. So, Boris could legitimately appoint him.

    He appointed him to oversee the department doing the investigation
  • Options
    StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    Tom Tugendhat seems to be the only candidate making a pitch for Scottish Tory support. I suppose that brand is now so marginal to the Conservatives that the Unionist constituency can be safely ignored?
  • Options
    YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    Scott_xP said:

    My view on Zahawi is that these are serious allegations, and they deserve a serious investigation, which HMRC will provide in due course. In the meantime, Zahawi remains innocent. So, Boris could legitimately appoint him.

    He appointed him to oversee the department doing the investigation
    Is there any evidence that this led to inappropriate behaviour/pressure?
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,488

    Foxy said:

    Betfair next prime minister prices

    2.8 Rishi Sunak
    6.8 Penny Mordaunt
    7 Liz Truss
    8.6 Jeremy Hunt
    13 Tom Tugendhat
    21 Sajid Javid
    24 Kemi Badenoch
    24 Nadhim Zahawi
    38 Dominic Raab
    38 Suella Braverman

    []

    Mordaunt and Truss should shorten when (if) they declare. I am not convinced Mordaunt will. I think she hangs on for the post GE leadership contest, when detoxifying the party is once again needed.

    []

    I think that’s Wallace’s strategy. Let the next leader take the blame as the Brexit shit hits the cruel fan of economic reality, then step in as the uncorrupted, dull, competent, pro-European saviour of the crippled Tory brand.

    It’s very risky, but Nemo me impune lacessit.
    I don't think Wallace really wants the top job, but Mordaunt probably does. She is young enough to sit this one out.

    I think that it goes to someone who has done one of the great offices of state. MPs and members know they are choosing a PM, not a leader in opposition.

    Javid is a poor speaker, and didn't do well last time, and Zaharwi is too dodgy and only qualifies on a technicality. That leaves Hunt, Sunak and Truss. Hunt will get some kudos for openly dissing the Johnson regime throughout the last years, he could make the final two particularly on with the Stop Sunak/Truss MPs tactically voting.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,246
    Penny has declared.
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,929


    Allegations are allegations. They are easy to make, and may or may not be true.

    What is the relevant standard of proof to apply facing an accusation of misconduct?

    Beyond reasonable doubt? On the balance of probabilities? Any credible allegation? Or the Caesar’s wife standard of ‘above suspicion’?

    If we apply the Caesar's wife standard, there would be few politicians left in any party. Most of them have either done something dodgy, or done something that an opponent can portray as dodgy.

    My view on Zahawi is that these are serious allegations, and they deserve a serious investigation, which HMRC will provide in due course. In the meantime, Zahawi remains innocent. So, Boris could legitimately appoint him.

    Pincher is more serious, because these serious allegations were reported to Johnson ... who did nothing. Whereas Johnson should have ensured a serious investigation began.

    For Pincher, it is not the allegations that are the significant thing, it is that Johnson did nothing.

    That logic makes me wonder about the Enhanced DBS.
    Why should an accused, but not yet convicted, paedophile, not be appointed as Education Secretary?
    Or a suspected terrorist run the Home Office?
    There's innocent until proven guilty, and then there is taking the piss.
    The guy should be nowhere near the Treasury.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,246
    She's now 2nd in MP endorsements, behind Sunak and ahead of Truss, and already has 15 of them. She'll qualify.
  • Options
    strawbrickstrawbrick Posts: 21
    Good morning all.
    I hardly ever bet, and have never betted on anything political, l read PB for the excellent topics and the comments, for which many thanks.
    As a non-better I sometimes encounter a betting word or phrase which I do not understand and today that is "to lay", as in "to lay the favourite".
    Is there a dictionary of betting terms that I could refer to?
    Hope so.
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,520
    One would think the leadership candidates are interested in fixing the problems that have gotten the Conservatives into this hole, so it’s good to see Hunt running on a I-didn’t-support-Boris-line, even if the rest don’t want to talk about the elephant in the room.

    Sadly, most of the candidates seem only interested in bribing the party membership electorate with tax cuts, with no explanation of how this will impact on spending or borrowing. And I don’t see corporation tax cuts favoured by some candidates going down well with the wider public during a cost of living crisis.
  • Options
    StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146

    Scott_xP said:

    My view on Zahawi is that these are serious allegations, and they deserve a serious investigation, which HMRC will provide in due course. In the meantime, Zahawi remains innocent. So, Boris could legitimately appoint him.

    He appointed him to oversee the department doing the investigation
    Is there any evidence that this led to inappropriate behaviour/pressure?
    He’s been in office, what, three days? Such evidence would inevitably take time to emerge, by which time the damage is done.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,246
    She's aware her "Wokeness" is a problem - since she's filled her timeline with defensive tweets over the last 8 hours:

    https://twitter.com/PennyMordaunt/status/1545908402475438080?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^tweet
  • Options
    YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    dixiedean said:


    Allegations are allegations. They are easy to make, and may or may not be true.

    What is the relevant standard of proof to apply facing an accusation of misconduct?

    Beyond reasonable doubt? On the balance of probabilities? Any credible allegation? Or the Caesar’s wife standard of ‘above suspicion’?

    If we apply the Caesar's wife standard, there would be few politicians left in any party. Most of them have either done something dodgy, or done something that an opponent can portray as dodgy.

    My view on Zahawi is that these are serious allegations, and they deserve a serious investigation, which HMRC will provide in due course. In the meantime, Zahawi remains innocent. So, Boris could legitimately appoint him.

    Pincher is more serious, because these serious allegations were reported to Johnson ... who did nothing. Whereas Johnson should have ensured a serious investigation began.

    For Pincher, it is not the allegations that are the significant thing, it is that Johnson did nothing.

    That logic makes me wonder about the Enhanced DBS.
    Why should an accused, but not yet convicted, paedophile, not be appointed as Education Secretary?
    Or a suspected terrorist run the Home Office?
    There's innocent until proven guilty, and then there is taking the piss.
    The guy should be nowhere near the Treasury.
    Because in the former case, there is a safeguarding issue that trumps everything.

    If you are accused of paedophilia, then safeguarding is paramount.
  • Options
    StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146

    Penny has declared.

    Good. Seems clean, which is a novelty.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,488
    edited July 2022

    Penny has declared.

    Glad to be wrong on that. She is best of the candidates. Good speaker, sense of humour and fun, well presented, some vision, and socially liberal.

    If it wasn't for her Brexitism, I could vote for her.
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,520
    edited July 2022

    Good morning all.
    I hardly ever bet, and have never betted on anything political, l read PB for the excellent topics and the comments, for which many thanks.
    As a non-better I sometimes encounter a betting word or phrase which I do not understand and today that is "to lay", as in "to lay the favourite".
    Is there a dictionary of betting terms that I could refer to?
    Hope so.

    To lay is to bet against something happening. Laying Zahawi means you are betting Zahawi won’t win.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,488

    dixiedean said:


    Allegations are allegations. They are easy to make, and may or may not be true.

    What is the relevant standard of proof to apply facing an accusation of misconduct?

    Beyond reasonable doubt? On the balance of probabilities? Any credible allegation? Or the Caesar’s wife standard of ‘above suspicion’?

    If we apply the Caesar's wife standard, there would be few politicians left in any party. Most of them have either done something dodgy, or done something that an opponent can portray as dodgy.

    My view on Zahawi is that these are serious allegations, and they deserve a serious investigation, which HMRC will provide in due course. In the meantime, Zahawi remains innocent. So, Boris could legitimately appoint him.

    Pincher is more serious, because these serious allegations were reported to Johnson ... who did nothing. Whereas Johnson should have ensured a serious investigation began.

    For Pincher, it is not the allegations that are the significant thing, it is that Johnson did nothing.

    That logic makes me wonder about the Enhanced DBS.
    Why should an accused, but not yet convicted, paedophile, not be appointed as Education Secretary?
    Or a suspected terrorist run the Home Office?
    There's innocent until proven guilty, and then there is taking the piss.
    The guy should be nowhere near the Treasury.
    Because in the former case, there is a safeguarding issue that trumps everything.

    If you are accused of paedophilia, then safeguarding is paramount.
    Yes but the Education secretary is hardly in unsupervised contact with young children!
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,094


    Allegations are allegations. They are easy to make, and may or may not be true.

    What is the relevant standard of proof to apply facing an accusation of misconduct?

    Beyond reasonable doubt? On the balance of probabilities? Any credible allegation? Or the Caesar’s wife standard of ‘above suspicion’?

    If we apply the Caesar's wife standard, there would be few politicians left in any party. Most of them have either done something dodgy, or done something that an opponent can portray as dodgy.

    My view on Zahawi is that these are serious allegations, and they deserve a serious investigation, which HMRC will provide in due course. In the meantime, Zahawi remains innocent. So, Boris could legitimately appoint him.

    Pincher is more serious, because these serious allegations were reported to Johnson ... who did nothing. Whereas Johnson should have ensured a serious investigation began.

    For Pincher, it is not the allegations that are the significant thing, it is that Johnson did nothing.

    Bit in bold works for me.

    With Johnson, it wasn't that he did nothing, it was that he lied about having known, and - more significantly - made other ministers repeat that false statement on his behalf.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,246
    Foxy said:

    Penny has declared.

    Glad to be wrong on that. She is best of the candidates. Good speaker, well presented, some vision, and socially liberal.

    If it wasn't for her Brexitism, I could vote for her.
    Badenoch, Tugendhat and Mordaunt are my choices.

    I am concerned about the Wokeness of Penny, but she could convince me.
  • Options
    YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    Foxy said:

    dixiedean said:


    Allegations are allegations. They are easy to make, and may or may not be true.

    What is the relevant standard of proof to apply facing an accusation of misconduct?

    Beyond reasonable doubt? On the balance of probabilities? Any credible allegation? Or the Caesar’s wife standard of ‘above suspicion’?

    If we apply the Caesar's wife standard, there would be few politicians left in any party. Most of them have either done something dodgy, or done something that an opponent can portray as dodgy.

    My view on Zahawi is that these are serious allegations, and they deserve a serious investigation, which HMRC will provide in due course. In the meantime, Zahawi remains innocent. So, Boris could legitimately appoint him.

    Pincher is more serious, because these serious allegations were reported to Johnson ... who did nothing. Whereas Johnson should have ensured a serious investigation began.

    For Pincher, it is not the allegations that are the significant thing, it is that Johnson did nothing.

    That logic makes me wonder about the Enhanced DBS.
    Why should an accused, but not yet convicted, paedophile, not be appointed as Education Secretary?
    Or a suspected terrorist run the Home Office?
    There's innocent until proven guilty, and then there is taking the piss.
    The guy should be nowhere near the Treasury.
    Because in the former case, there is a safeguarding issue that trumps everything.

    If you are accused of paedophilia, then safeguarding is paramount.
    Yes but the Education secretary is hardly in unsupervised contact with young children!
    I think in safeguarding, you can't really make any such assumption. "Hardly" is not enough.
  • Options
    StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146

    Good morning all.
    I hardly ever bet, and have never betted on anything political, l read PB for the excellent topics and the comments, for which many thanks.
    As a non-better I sometimes encounter a betting word or phrase which I do not understand and today that is "to lay", as in "to lay the favourite".
    Is there a dictionary of betting terms that I could refer to?
    Hope so.

    US:

    https://nypost.com/article/sports-betting-terms-and-glossary/

    UK:

    https://betting.betfair.com/betting-terms-explained.html

    Google is your friend.
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,520


    Allegations are allegations. They are easy to make, and may or may not be true.

    What is the relevant standard of proof to apply facing an accusation of misconduct?

    Beyond reasonable doubt? On the balance of probabilities? Any credible allegation? Or the Caesar’s wife standard of ‘above suspicion’?

    If we apply the Caesar's wife standard, there would be few politicians left in any party. Most of them have either done something dodgy, or done something that an opponent can portray as dodgy.

    My view on Zahawi is that these are serious allegations, and they deserve a serious investigation, which HMRC will provide in due course. In the meantime, Zahawi remains innocent. So, Boris could legitimately appoint him.

    Pincher is more serious, because these serious allegations were reported to Johnson ... who did nothing. Whereas Johnson should have ensured a serious investigation began.

    For Pincher, it is not the allegations that are the significant thing, it is that Johnson did nothing.

    Presumably Johnson and the Cabinet Office know more details of the Zahawi matter than have been reported. So, perhaps the question is what did/do they know? The story could be a lot worse than what’s so far been reported… or it could be more trivial. (But given every other story involving Johnson, one would have to guess the former.)
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 24,925

    One would think the leadership candidates are interested in fixing the problems that have gotten the Conservatives into this hole, so it’s good to see Hunt running on a I-didn’t-support-Boris-line, even if the rest don’t want to talk about the elephant in the room.

    Sadly, most of the candidates seem only interested in bribing the party membership electorate with tax cuts, with no explanation of how this will impact on spending or borrowing. And I don’t see corporation tax cuts favoured by some candidates going down well with the wider public during a cost of living crisis.

    I don’t see how it solves any problems.

    If you want to cut taxes in a way that impacts Tory party members you need to cut fuel duty, vat or income tax.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,246
    I think Rishi's challenge is that he thinks standing on a "balance the books" platform with a bit of personal charisma on top is enough.

    Don't get me wrong: I'm a fiscal conservative. I like good stewardship of the public finances. But, he put taxes up a lot to pay for Boris's spending splurges - so what does he think about that?

    What does he think the right balance is between public services and taxation? How would he address our productivity problem? What about the affordability of housing? The burdens on young people and families? Investment in future technologies? Defence and security?

    Right now, I think he'd just be a strictish CoE in No.10 for 2 years, and then probably lose. I need more.
  • Options
    DougSealDougSeal Posts: 11,094

    kle4 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    kle4 said:

    no contest unless there is a vacancy

    Says who?

    The rulebook doesn't say that.

    BoZo explicitly didn't say it.

    He said "there will be a contest". He didn't say "I am resigning so there will be a contest"
    This is a common mistake people make about rulebooks - they assume every single scenario under the sun must be covered within them and if it is not set out carved into stone something is permissable, but that really is not the case because it is impossible to cover everything. Common sense is actually a big part of administration.

    There shall be a Leader of the Party (referred to in this Constitution as “the Leader”) drawn from those elected to the House of Commons, who shall be elected by the Party Members and Scottish Party Members in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 2

    The Board (which 'have the power to do anything which in its opinion releates to the management and administration of the power') is responsible for 'the overseeing of the procedure for the election of the Leader in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 2'

    Schedule 2 is categorical a leader 'resigning' from the leadership is not eligible. But let's play this out and say resigning is not necessarily a trigger.

    Point 3 states

    Upon the initiation of an election for the Leader, it shall be the duty of the 1922 Committee to present to the Party, as soon as reasonably practicable, a choice of candidates for election as Leader. The rules for deciding the procedure by which the 1922 Committee selects candidates for submission for election shall be determined by the Executive Committee of the 1922 Committee after consultation of the Board

    So let's say Boris argfues the process has been 'initiated' without him resigning - the 1922 still gets to decide how the candidates are selected, and can say the current PM, in this case, is not eligible, based on his statements.

    You can argue the toss about him trying to play fast and loose with the rules, but if he does that they have the tools to stymie him - this is only happening because as he acknowledged the will of the parliamentary party was that he not be leader. So he will not be allowed to be eligible, I am very confident of that.

    Because it is not a question of what he can do - the will to remove him is there, so a way will be found. As noted, if he is saying he has not resigned then Brady and the committee can surely say well then no contest can happen until we settle if there is a vacancy or not.

    Edit: chrisb makes the same point in about 1/10 of the space.
    “… shall be elected by the Party Members and Scottish Party Members…”

    Why the distinction?

    Can people who live outwith Scotland *choose* to be classified as a “Scottish Party Member”? If
    so, one wonders how many members they actually have north of the border. 5,000?
    Presumably because there needs to be a separate definition to cover those able to influence selection of MSPs and leaders of the Scottish Conservatives. I would have thought that obvious.
  • Options
    YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    ydoethur said:


    Allegations are allegations. They are easy to make, and may or may not be true.

    What is the relevant standard of proof to apply facing an accusation of misconduct?

    Beyond reasonable doubt? On the balance of probabilities? Any credible allegation? Or the Caesar’s wife standard of ‘above suspicion’?

    If we apply the Caesar's wife standard, there would be few politicians left in any party. Most of them have either done something dodgy, or done something that an opponent can portray as dodgy.

    My view on Zahawi is that these are serious allegations, and they deserve a serious investigation, which HMRC will provide in due course. In the meantime, Zahawi remains innocent. So, Boris could legitimately appoint him.

    Pincher is more serious, because these serious allegations were reported to Johnson ... who did nothing. Whereas Johnson should have ensured a serious investigation began.

    For Pincher, it is not the allegations that are the significant thing, it is that Johnson did nothing.

    Bit in bold works for me.

    With Johnson, it wasn't that he did nothing, it was that he lied about having known, and - more significantly - made other ministers repeat that false statement on his behalf.
    For me, knowing a serious allegation and doing nothing is enough. (The things you mention make it worse).

    But, look at British public life.

    There are plenty of allegations that are "well known" but never investigated. (E.g. Saville)

    As regards allegations, there are just two rules.

    1. All allegations should be investigated, no matter how frivolous.

    2. Serious allegations deserve a serious investigation, in which the case for the defence and the case for the prosecution are both heard. If you just hear the latter, you always convict.
  • Options
    StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    edited July 2022
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Betfair next prime minister prices

    2.8 Rishi Sunak
    6.8 Penny Mordaunt
    7 Liz Truss
    8.6 Jeremy Hunt
    13 Tom Tugendhat
    21 Sajid Javid
    24 Kemi Badenoch
    24 Nadhim Zahawi
    38 Dominic Raab
    38 Suella Braverman

    []

    Mordaunt and Truss should shorten when (if) they declare. I am not convinced Mordaunt will. I think she hangs on for the post GE leadership contest, when detoxifying the party is once again needed.

    []

    I think that’s Wallace’s strategy. Let the next leader take the blame as the Brexit shit hits the cruel fan of economic reality, then step in as the uncorrupted, dull, competent, pro-European saviour of the crippled Tory brand.

    It’s very risky, but Nemo me impune lacessit.
    I don't think Wallace really wants the top job, but Mordaunt probably does. She is young enough to sit this one out.

    I think that it goes to someone who has done one of the great offices of state. MPs and members know they are choosing a PM, not a leader in opposition.

    Javid is a poor speaker, and didn't do well last time, and Zaharwi is too dodgy and only qualifies on a technicality. That leaves Hunt, Sunak and Truss. Hunt will get some kudos for openly dissing the Johnson regime throughout the last years, he could make the final two particularly on with the Stop Sunak/Truss MPs tactically voting.
    I think that Wallace declined for two reasons - the one I’ve already set out, enhanced by your PM/LotO election point - but also to protect his wife and children from the shitstorm that is now imminent.

    The next leader is going to join the Dire PM list - Blair, Brown, Cameron, May, Johnson, Sunak?, Starmer - then, hey presto, the first half-decent one since grey John Major!
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,929
    But a serious allegation, and this has been being investigated for years, would be a bar on you being promoted to overseeing the department investigating you in any other walk of life.
    Or reality.
  • Options
    StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    DougSeal said:

    kle4 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    kle4 said:

    no contest unless there is a vacancy

    Says who?

    The rulebook doesn't say that.

    BoZo explicitly didn't say it.

    He said "there will be a contest". He didn't say "I am resigning so there will be a contest"
    This is a common mistake people make about rulebooks - they assume every single scenario under the sun must be covered within them and if it is not set out carved into stone something is permissable, but that really is not the case because it is impossible to cover everything. Common sense is actually a big part of administration.

    There shall be a Leader of the Party (referred to in this Constitution as “the Leader”) drawn from those elected to the House of Commons, who shall be elected by the Party Members and Scottish Party Members in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 2

    The Board (which 'have the power to do anything which in its opinion releates to the management and administration of the power') is responsible for 'the overseeing of the procedure for the election of the Leader in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 2'

    Schedule 2 is categorical a leader 'resigning' from the leadership is not eligible. But let's play this out and say resigning is not necessarily a trigger.

    Point 3 states

    Upon the initiation of an election for the Leader, it shall be the duty of the 1922 Committee to present to the Party, as soon as reasonably practicable, a choice of candidates for election as Leader. The rules for deciding the procedure by which the 1922 Committee selects candidates for submission for election shall be determined by the Executive Committee of the 1922 Committee after consultation of the Board

    So let's say Boris argfues the process has been 'initiated' without him resigning - the 1922 still gets to decide how the candidates are selected, and can say the current PM, in this case, is not eligible, based on his statements.

    You can argue the toss about him trying to play fast and loose with the rules, but if he does that they have the tools to stymie him - this is only happening because as he acknowledged the will of the parliamentary party was that he not be leader. So he will not be allowed to be eligible, I am very confident of that.

    Because it is not a question of what he can do - the will to remove him is there, so a way will be found. As noted, if he is saying he has not resigned then Brady and the committee can surely say well then no contest can happen until we settle if there is a vacancy or not.

    Edit: chrisb makes the same point in about 1/10 of the space.
    “… shall be elected by the Party Members and Scottish Party Members…”

    Why the distinction?

    Can people who live outwith Scotland *choose* to be classified as a “Scottish Party Member”? If
    so, one wonders how many members they actually have north of the border. 5,000?
    Presumably because there needs to be a separate definition to cover those able to influence selection of MSPs and leaders of the Scottish Conservatives. I would have thought that obvious.
    Nope. Cos then there would be a corresponding classification for Welsh Party Members.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,834

    Good morning all.
    I hardly ever bet, and have never betted on anything political, l read PB for the excellent topics and the comments, for which many thanks.
    As a non-better I sometimes encounter a betting word or phrase which I do not understand and today that is "to lay", as in "to lay the favourite".
    Is there a dictionary of betting terms that I could refer to?
    Hope so.

    On betting exchanges, such as Betfair or Smarkets, you can choose either side of the bet, known as Back and Lay. To back something, means that you’ll be paid out if that outcome happens, and to Lay something means you’ll be paid out if that thing doesn’t happen.

    Betfair exchange glossary of terms —> https://betting.betfair.com/how-to-use-betfair-exchange/beginner-guides/exchange-explainers-310120-6.html
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,964
    In case any of you don't feel old enough, it was around 13-15 years ago that Mr. Punter explained what laying a bet was to me :D
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,246
    FPT - I @Casino_Royale also get a member's vote, btw.
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,834
    ...
  • Options
    StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146

    In case any of you don't feel old enough, it was around 13-15 years ago that Mr. Punter explained what laying a bet was to me :D

    My favourite term is the Arb. Learnt that on PB 😉
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,834
    Zahawi is the continuity BoZo candidate. It would be tragic if he wins
  • Options
    nico679nico679 Posts: 4,718
    I haven’t seen confirmation of Mordaunt joining the race yet . Who is reporting this ?
  • Options
    logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,701

    I think Rishi's challenge is that he thinks standing on a "balance the books" platform with a bit of personal charisma on top is enough.

    Don't get me wrong: I'm a fiscal conservative. I like good stewardship of the public finances. But, he put taxes up a lot to pay for Boris's spending splurges - so what does he think about that?

    What does he think the right balance is between public services and taxation? How would he address our productivity problem? What about the affordability of housing? The burdens on young people and families? Investment in future technologies? Defence and security?

    Right now, I think he'd just be a strictish CoE in No.10 for 2 years, and then probably lose. I need more.

    You may need 'more', but is that available?
    The numbers of the economy are such that making the wrong decisions now will make matters worse than they would otherwise be.
    The Tories should try to limit the size of their inevitable loss at the nest election by doing the right things for the UK economy. If not you could end up with a Tory wipeout.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,834
    Mr Dancer, it’s again raining in Austria.
  • Options
    RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,152

    DougSeal said:

    kle4 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    kle4 said:

    no contest unless there is a vacancy

    Says who?

    The rulebook doesn't say that.

    BoZo explicitly didn't say it.

    He said "there will be a contest". He didn't say "I am resigning so there will be a contest"
    This is a common mistake people make about rulebooks - they assume every single scenario under the sun must be covered within them and if it is not set out carved into stone something is permissable, but that really is not the case because it is impossible to cover everything. Common sense is actually a big part of administration.

    There shall be a Leader of the Party (referred to in this Constitution as “the Leader”) drawn from those elected to the House of Commons, who shall be elected by the Party Members and Scottish Party Members in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 2

    The Board (which 'have the power to do anything which in its opinion releates to the management and administration of the power') is responsible for 'the overseeing of the procedure for the election of the Leader in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 2'

    Schedule 2 is categorical a leader 'resigning' from the leadership is not eligible. But let's play this out and say resigning is not necessarily a trigger.

    Point 3 states

    Upon the initiation of an election for the Leader, it shall be the duty of the 1922 Committee to present to the Party, as soon as reasonably practicable, a choice of candidates for election as Leader. The rules for deciding the procedure by which the 1922 Committee selects candidates for submission for election shall be determined by the Executive Committee of the 1922 Committee after consultation of the Board

    So let's say Boris argfues the process has been 'initiated' without him resigning - the 1922 still gets to decide how the candidates are selected, and can say the current PM, in this case, is not eligible, based on his statements.

    You can argue the toss about him trying to play fast and loose with the rules, but if he does that they have the tools to stymie him - this is only happening because as he acknowledged the will of the parliamentary party was that he not be leader. So he will not be allowed to be eligible, I am very confident of that.

    Because it is not a question of what he can do - the will to remove him is there, so a way will be found. As noted, if he is saying he has not resigned then Brady and the committee can surely say well then no contest can happen until we settle if there is a vacancy or not.

    Edit: chrisb makes the same point in about 1/10 of the space.
    “… shall be elected by the Party Members and Scottish Party Members…”

    Why the distinction?

    Can people who live outwith Scotland *choose* to be classified as a “Scottish Party Member”? If
    so, one wonders how many members they actually have north of the border. 5,000?
    Presumably because there needs to be a separate definition to cover those able to influence selection of MSPs and leaders of the Scottish Conservatives. I would have thought that obvious.
    Nope. Cos then there would be a corresponding classification for Welsh Party Members.
    ISTR the Scottish party was separate until it was merged/subsumed into the English one.
  • Options
    CD13CD13 Posts: 6,351
    I'm finally learning about political betting.

    Lay the baldie
    Lay the favourite
    Cherchez la femme.
    Look for the dark horse or filly

    On that basis, it's Mordaunt, but number five is don't bet real money, its going to be a lottery.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,095

    I think Rishi's challenge is that he thinks standing on a "balance the books" platform with a bit of personal charisma on top is enough.

    Don't get me wrong: I'm a fiscal conservative. I like good stewardship of the public finances. But, he put taxes up a lot to pay for Boris's spending splurges - so what does he think about that?

    What does he think the right balance is between public services and taxation? How would he address our productivity problem? What about the affordability of housing? The burdens on young people and families? Investment in future technologies? Defence and security?

    Right now, I think he'd just be a strictish CoE in No.10 for 2 years, and then probably lose. I need more.

    I think Rishi's problem is that he has been stood beside Boris through the shitstorm. Even if he had a long-planned scheme for the top job, he departed far too late.

    To be fair to Truss, she trundled around the globe doing trade deals, as required. She was still pretty much an outsider from the corridors of Boris's power. Rishi was Boris's next door neighbour and can still be tagged - unfairly or not - as continuity Boris.
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,929
    edited July 2022
    darkage said:

    On a personal note. I stopped drinking a week ago and resolved to improve my health... (in my experience, it all goes in cycles, and I would like to think of myself at being at the start of a new positive cycle, after months of false starts). It's really unbelievable how much better I feel, no more headaches or fatigue, lots more energy, much better concentration and productivity at work. I've also lost half a stone, but that may be just water loss.

    I found previously, about 10 years ago that in my case there is a sustainable maximum in relation to alcohol: I can have 2 and a half pints of beer per day... but once that threshold is crossed once, it all goes seriously downhill. In terms of weight loss... then I think it just a case of counting calories rigorously and keeping under a certain daily limit, and avoiding saturated fats. Also, doing light exercise and keeping active.

    At the moment, I have the same physque as Boris Johnson or Donald Trump; I need to lose about 25 kilograms to be regarded as 'healthy'. Its going to be a bit of a long haul...

    Very best of luck with this.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,894
    Wonder if Truss might ultimately miss out due to not being able to physically canvas immediate support.
    Early headwinds for her campaign.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,246
    nico679 said:

    I haven’t seen confirmation of Mordaunt joining the race yet . Who is reporting this ?

    Guido on his declarations, to be fair, but it's pretty clear from her Twitter last night she's running.
  • Options
    YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    dixiedean said:

    But a serious allegation, and this has been being investigated for years, would be a bar on you being promoted to overseeing the department investigating you in any other walk of life.
    Or reality.

    But, HMRC have not been investigating this for years.

    It seems from the information in the Independent, that there was an investigation by the National Crime Agency (NCA) in 2020. "The NCA inquiry did not lead to any action against Mr Zahawi."

    HMRC then began an investigation into whether all taxes were paid. We await the result of their investigation.

    It is not clear when HMRC started this investigation.

    And without knowing more information, it is impossible to say how serious this is.

    (Personally, I think the tax affairs of all individuals -- including politicians -- should be public)
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,894
    nico679 said:

    I haven’t seen confirmation of Mordaunt joining the race yet . Who is reporting this ?

    Paul Staines is keeping on top of it all
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,964
    Mr. Sandpit, I can't decide whether to be annoyed at that or not. Probably good for Hamilton, neutral for Verstappen and bad for almost everyone else.

    Good luck, Mr DarkAge.
  • Options
    moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,243

    She's aware her "Wokeness" is a problem - since she's filled her timeline with defensive tweets over the last 8 hours:

    https://twitter.com/PennyMordaunt/status/1545908402475438080?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^tweet

    Come across as a bit desperate in that thread.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,246

    I think Rishi's challenge is that he thinks standing on a "balance the books" platform with a bit of personal charisma on top is enough.

    Don't get me wrong: I'm a fiscal conservative. I like good stewardship of the public finances. But, he put taxes up a lot to pay for Boris's spending splurges - so what does he think about that?

    What does he think the right balance is between public services and taxation? How would he address our productivity problem? What about the affordability of housing? The burdens on young people and families? Investment in future technologies? Defence and security?

    Right now, I think he'd just be a strictish CoE in No.10 for 2 years, and then probably lose. I need more.

    You may need 'more', but is that available?
    The numbers of the economy are such that making the wrong decisions now will make matters worse than they would otherwise be.
    The Tories should try to limit the size of their inevitable loss at the nest election by doing the right things for the UK economy. If not you could end up with a Tory wipeout.
    I'm not arguing for irresponsibility: I'm arguing for a clear economic and political strategy from Sunak that will address the many deep-seated problems we have.

    Right now all I know is that he will balance the books and hopes the rest will follow.
  • Options
    RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,152
    On topic - its not as if we should be surprised. The Conservative Party is openly corrupt. So why shouldn't someone being investigated by HMRC be appointed to manage HMRC? After all, the Boris saw nothing wrong with being the arbiter over whether the Prime Minister had broken the ministerial code.

    We are now getting more details of the planned beauty parade. Multiple hate factions briefing as much dirt as they have - and its a LOT of dirt - out to the media and the opposition. We have a few weeks of this, then the last two get to spend the country doing hustings where more shit gets thrown about.

    Meanwhile, the clown circus with its "I hate the Tory party so lets appoint the most offensively awful ministers possible" cast list continues to offend public sensibilities.

    Labour could have that 20 point lead by the end of this.
  • Options
    moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,243

    dixiedean said:

    But a serious allegation, and this has been being investigated for years, would be a bar on you being promoted to overseeing the department investigating you in any other walk of life.
    Or reality.

    But, HMRC have not been investigating this for years.

    It seems from the information in the Independent, that there was an investigation by the National Crime Agency (NCA) in 2020. "The NCA inquiry did not lead to any action against Mr Zahawi."

    HMRC then began an investigation into whether all taxes were paid. We await the result of their investigation.

    It is not clear when HMRC started this investigation.

    And without knowing more information, it is impossible to say how serious this is.

    (Personally, I think the tax affairs of all individuals -- including politicians -- should be public)
    Do I have this right that a member of Johnson’s Cabinet was under criminal investigation two years ago, and we are only just learning about it now?
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,488
    edited July 2022
    darkage said:

    On a personal note. I stopped drinking a week ago and resolved to improve my health... (in my experience, it all goes in cycles, and I would like to think of myself at being at the start of a new positive cycle, after months of false starts). It's really unbelievable how much better I feel, no more headaches or fatigue, lots more energy, much better concentration and productivity at work. I've also lost half a stone, but that may be just water loss.

    I found previously, about 10 years ago that in my case there is a sustainable maximum in relation to alcohol: I can have 2 and a half pints of beer per day... but once that threshold is crossed once, it all goes seriously downhill. In terms of weight loss... then I think it just a case of counting calories rigorously and keeping under a certain daily limit, and avoiding saturated fats. Also, doing light exercise and keeping active.

    At the moment, I have the same physque as Boris Johnson or Donald Trump; I need to lose about 25 kilograms to be regarded as 'healthy'. Its going to be a bit of a long haul...

    Good for you. Abstinence from alcohol is a good way to lose weight. Apart from the empty calories involved, it tends to lower resistance to other calorific temptations too.

    It can be quite a pleasure though, and for years I have held to a 2 nights of alcohol per week policy, not including holidays. Alcohol then becomes a treat rather than a casual habit.

    The difficulty I find is that I do not have a sweet tooth, and most soft drinks are too sweet for me, as are fruit juices. I have developed a taste for kombucha, but it isn't for everyone.

  • Options
    stjohnstjohn Posts: 1,777
    dixiedean said:

    darkage said:

    On a personal note. I stopped drinking a week ago and resolved to improve my health... (in my experience, it all goes in cycles, and I would like to think of myself at being at the start of a new positive cycle, after months of false starts). It's really unbelievable how much better I feel, no more headaches or fatigue, lots more energy, much better concentration and productivity at work. I've also lost half a stone, but that may be just water loss.

    I found previously, about 10 years ago that in my case there is a sustainable maximum in relation to alcohol: I can have 2 and a half pints of beer per day... but once that threshold is crossed once, it all goes seriously downhill. In terms of weight loss... then I think it just a case of counting calories rigorously and keeping under a certain daily limit, and avoiding saturated fats. Also, doing light exercise and keeping active.

    At the moment, I have the same physque as Boris Johnson or Donald Trump; I need to lose about 25 kilograms to be regarded as 'healthy'. Its going to be a bit of a long haul...

    Very best of luck with this.
    Yes. Good luck darkage. Keep us updated with your progress. That may help motivate you to keep on track.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,834
    darkage said:

    On a personal note. I stopped drinking a week ago and resolved to improve my health... (in my experience, it all goes in cycles, and I would like to think of myself at being at the start of a new positive cycle, after months of false starts). It's really unbelievable how much better I feel, no more headaches or fatigue, lots more energy, much better concentration and productivity at work. I've also lost half a stone, but that may be just water loss.

    I found previously, about 10 years ago that in my case there is a sustainable maximum in relation to alcohol: I can have 2 and a half pints of beer per day... but once that threshold is crossed once, it all goes seriously downhill. In terms of weight loss... then I think it just a case of counting calories rigorously and keeping under a certain daily limit, and avoiding saturated fats. Also, doing light exercise and keeping active.

    At the moment, I have the same physque as Boris Johnson or Donald Trump; I need to lose about 25 kilograms to be regarded as 'healthy'. Its going to be a bit of a long haul...

    Good luck Sir.
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 18,891

    Betfair next prime minister prices

    2.8 Rishi Sunak
    6.8 Penny Mordaunt
    7 Liz Truss
    8.6 Jeremy Hunt
    13 Tom Tugendhat
    21 Sajid Javid
    24 Kemi Badenoch
    24 Nadhim Zahawi
    38 Dominic Raab
    38 Suella Braverman

    Mordaunts claim to fame seems to be using the word 'cock 'seven times in a speech in Parliament.

    In that field that should be enogh
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,488
    moonshine said:

    She's aware her "Wokeness" is a problem - since she's filled her timeline with defensive tweets over the last 8 hours:

    https://twitter.com/PennyMordaunt/status/1545908402475438080?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^tweet

    Come across as a bit desperate in that thread.
    She clearly wants to get her case across, and I wouldn't regard her as on the fringes on the issue. Her opinions are pretty close to majority opinions on trans issues, including seeing sport as a legitimate exception.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,095
    Latest declaration totals as per Con Home:

    Baker - not standing
    Badenoch - 8
    Baron ??? - 0
    Berry - not standing
    Braverman - 9
    Buckland ??? - 0
    Chisti ??? - 0
    Hunt - 9
    Javid - 4
    Mordaunt - 15
    Shapps - 1
    Sunak - 26
    Truss - 12
    Tugendhat - 6
    Wallace - not standing
    Wiggin ??? - 0
    Zahawi - 9


    or in terms of numbers of supporters

    Sunak - 26
    Mordaunt - 15
    Truss - 12
    Zahawi - 9
    Hunt - 9
    Braverman - 9
    Badenoch - 8

    crazy egos - the rest of the field

    We're down to 7; some might say 3....

  • Options
    Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 3,378
    CD13 said:

    I'm finally learning about political betting.

    Lay the baldie
    Lay the favourite
    Cherchez la femme.
    Look for the dark horse or filly

    On that basis, it's Mordaunt, but number five is don't bet real money, its going to be a lottery.

    I prefer the phrase "...has a high foreheard..."

    (commenting for a friend)
  • Options
    numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 5,434
    Be in no doubt, Penny is running. There’s no reason she would have tweeted all that last night if not.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,210
    Freedland: Clearly the Conservative party has most to answer for, choosing this man as its leader in 2019 when everything you needed to know about Johnson was already known. They say that character is destiny. The habitual lying and deceiving that proved his undoing, and ours, were never hidden: their outcome was foretold from the start. Dishonesty is the nature of the man, and the Tories who made him our nation’s leader knew it.

    There are other institutions, too, with lessons to learn. A media that indulged a liar, seeing his fraudulence as amusing and roguish rather than disqualifying. A wider political culture that places a very particular notion of charisma above all other qualities, a notion tightly related to class.

    Meanwhile, reality is doing the heavy lifting of discrediting Brexit, in the form of lost growth, rising bills, increasing hassle and the absence of any concrete benefit not expressible through abstract nouns such as “freedom” or “sovereignty”.

    The dots are all there. Voters are already beginning to join them, even as Starmer insists that the subject is essentially closed. The politicians might not want to say it, but this week is a milestone in the fate of Brexit. The prime author of Britain’s exit from the EU has fallen: the standing of his calamitous project is heading the same way.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,488
    Roger said:


    Betfair next prime minister prices

    2.8 Rishi Sunak
    6.8 Penny Mordaunt
    7 Liz Truss
    8.6 Jeremy Hunt
    13 Tom Tugendhat
    21 Sajid Javid
    24 Kemi Badenoch
    24 Nadhim Zahawi
    38 Dominic Raab
    38 Suella Braverman

    Mordaunts claim to fame seems to be using the word 'cock 'seven times in a speech in Parliament.

    In that field that should be enogh
    I would say that 7 cocks in parliament is a significant underestimate.
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 24,925

    I think Rishi's challenge is that he thinks standing on a "balance the books" platform with a bit of personal charisma on top is enough.

    Don't get me wrong: I'm a fiscal conservative. I like good stewardship of the public finances. But, he put taxes up a lot to pay for Boris's spending splurges - so what does he think about that?

    What does he think the right balance is between public services and taxation? How would he address our productivity problem? What about the affordability of housing? The burdens on young people and families? Investment in future technologies? Defence and security?

    Right now, I think he'd just be a strictish CoE in No.10 for 2 years, and then probably lose. I need more.

    You may need 'more', but is that available?
    The numbers of the economy are such that making the wrong decisions now will make matters worse than they would otherwise be.
    The Tories should try to limit the size of their inevitable loss at the nest election by doing the right things for the UK economy. If not you could end up with a Tory wipeout.
    I'm not arguing for irresponsibility: I'm arguing for a clear economic and political strategy from Sunak that will address the many deep-seated problems we have.

    Right now all I know is that he will balance the books and hopes the rest will follow.
    At least Sunak is looking at the books and not following others example of offering random tax cuts for the sake of it.
  • Options
    squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,325
    Foxy said:

    Roger said:


    Betfair next prime minister prices

    2.8 Rishi Sunak
    6.8 Penny Mordaunt
    7 Liz Truss
    8.6 Jeremy Hunt
    13 Tom Tugendhat
    21 Sajid Javid
    24 Kemi Badenoch
    24 Nadhim Zahawi
    38 Dominic Raab
    38 Suella Braverman

    Mordaunts claim to fame seems to be using the word 'cock 'seven times in a speech in Parliament.

    In that field that should be enogh
    I would say that 7 cocks in parliament is a significant underestimate.
    Well you would know.
  • Options
    CD13CD13 Posts: 6,351
    edited July 2022
    Mr Pioneers,

    Hoping for a 20 point lead sounds like wishful thinking. There'll be increased concentration on the candidates, and some of the publicity will be favourable because it will be force-fed to the press. The ferrets in a sack tendency will be toned down.

    If they go ferrety, they deserve all they get.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,232
    FPT
    Andy_JS said:

    I don't mind how other people live their lives. Live and let live. But I don't like being told what I'm supposed to celebrate and what I'm supposed to be negative about. Mind your own business.

    Yet you're happy to tell millions of people they shouldn't work from home.
  • Options
    moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,243
    Foxy said:

    moonshine said:

    She's aware her "Wokeness" is a problem - since she's filled her timeline with defensive tweets over the last 8 hours:

    https://twitter.com/PennyMordaunt/status/1545908402475438080?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^tweet

    Come across as a bit desperate in that thread.
    She clearly wants to get her case across, and I wouldn't regard her as on the fringes on the issue. Her opinions are pretty close to majority opinions on trans issues, including seeing sport as a legitimate exception.
    I’ve got a hangover so didn’t absorb the substance. Just meant how it came across, a long series of defensive tweets that made her look like she’s on the back foot. Like she feels she needs to justify herself. Not a good look.

  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,246
    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    Penny has declared.

    Glad to be wrong on that. She is best of the candidates. Good speaker, well presented, some vision, and socially liberal.

    If it wasn't for her Brexitism, I could vote for her.
    Badenoch, Tugendhat and Mordaunt are my choices.

    I am concerned about the Wokeness of Penny, but she could convince me.
    Having a leader with at least half a foot in the modern world is surely an advantage for a political party?
    I refer you to my post of yesterday where I made clear how you can do this without being dogmatic on Woke.

    Such positions include such meandering extreme right-wingers and dinosaurs like... Tony Blair.
  • Options
    moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,243
    DavidL said:

    Why does this not surprise me at all? I listed 4 or 5 stories about Zahawi yesterday which involved problems with his family business, the fact that that business picked up Covid contracts from the government with his help, the nephew of the person whose land was being explored for oil by another Zahawi business who was given a placement, some very unfortunate insolvency issues investigated by the authorities, this is a man who sails very close to the wind, whose sense of moral propriety would make Boris blush and who needs to be out of the Treasury and indeed the Cabinet soonest. His appointment as Chancellor was surely some act of revenge by Boris.

    I think the country got his number with his actions in’s those 48 hours. After seeing that, what you say doesn’t come as a surprise. Sigh. Why are there so many wronguns in our parliament?
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,834
    EXCLUSIVE: Boris Johnson lobbied for a public role for a young woman who says he abused his power to have a sexual relationship with her

    The PM was confronted at the height of the #MeToo movement in 2017, when she told him she was still “shaken and upset”
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-pushed-for-woman-to-get-city-hall-job-during-abuse-of-power-relationship-nzxsfjmq6 https://twitter.com/Gabriel_Pogrund/status/1545825125810970626/video/1


    Looking forward to 300 Tory MPs voting tomorrow that this guy should still be PM for another 3 months...
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,834
    DavidL said:

    Why does this not surprise me at all? I listed 4 or 5 stories about Zahawi yesterday which involved problems with his family business, the fact that that business picked up Covid contracts from the government with his help, the nephew of the person whose land was being explored for oil by another Zahawi business who was given a placement, some very unfortunate insolvency issues investigated by the authorities, this is a man who sails very close to the wind, whose sense of moral propriety would make Boris blush and who needs to be out of the Treasury and indeed the Cabinet soonest. His appointment as Chancellor was surely some act of revenge by Boris.

    ...
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,246
    eek said:

    I think Rishi's challenge is that he thinks standing on a "balance the books" platform with a bit of personal charisma on top is enough.

    Don't get me wrong: I'm a fiscal conservative. I like good stewardship of the public finances. But, he put taxes up a lot to pay for Boris's spending splurges - so what does he think about that?

    What does he think the right balance is between public services and taxation? How would he address our productivity problem? What about the affordability of housing? The burdens on young people and families? Investment in future technologies? Defence and security?

    Right now, I think he'd just be a strictish CoE in No.10 for 2 years, and then probably lose. I need more.

    You may need 'more', but is that available?
    The numbers of the economy are such that making the wrong decisions now will make matters worse than they would otherwise be.
    The Tories should try to limit the size of their inevitable loss at the nest election by doing the right things for the UK economy. If not you could end up with a Tory wipeout.
    I'm not arguing for irresponsibility: I'm arguing for a clear economic and political strategy from Sunak that will address the many deep-seated problems we have.

    Right now all I know is that he will balance the books and hopes the rest will follow.
    At least Sunak is looking at the books and not following others example of offering random tax cuts for the sake of it.
    And, I like that but where's the rest?

    People might buy into that but you have to set out your plan for tomorrow too.
  • Options
    Dehenna Davison just retweeted Simon Clark's and Dean Russell's endorsements of Truss
  • Options
    RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,152
    CD13 said:

    Mr Pioneers,

    Hoping for a 20 point lead sounds like wishful thinking. There'll be increased concentration on the candidates, and some of the publicity will be favourable because it will be force-fed to the press. The ferrets in a sack tendency will be toned down.

    If they go ferrety, they deserve all the get.

    I was being a little sarcastic - "why hasn't Keith got a 20-point lead" is the endless refrain of the Corbyn cult. But the Boris-cult seems desperate to fire cobalt-encased nukes before being dragged out of office, so anything is possible.

    As for favourable coverage, that depends on two factors:
    (1) who the surviving candidates are. There is nothing favourable about Braverman.
    (2) how many mountains of shit have already been thrown and how much more the eliminated want to hurl
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,964
    Mr. xP, while I think that's a witty picture/caption, it'd be daft for his opponents to use it.

    Associating a politician with a liking for animals will do them no harm (see also Keir Starmer and donkey sanctuaries).
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,946

    Tom Tugendhat seems to be the only candidate making a pitch for Scottish Tory support. I suppose that brand is now so marginal to the Conservatives that the Unionist constituency can be safely ignored?

    Can their and their leader’s consistent support be relied on for more than a couple of days?

    Dougie: It’s Wednesday, I feel a position change coming on.
  • Options
    stjohnstjohn Posts: 1,777
    Interesting salvo of tweets from Mordaunt.

    Thanks, Penny for your thoughts.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,567
    edited July 2022

    DougSeal said:

    kle4 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    kle4 said:

    no contest unless there is a vacancy

    Says who?

    The rulebook doesn't say that.

    BoZo explicitly didn't say it.

    He said "there will be a contest". He didn't say "I am resigning so there will be a contest"
    This is a common mistake people make about rulebooks - they assume every single scenario under the sun must be covered within them and if it is not set out carved into stone something is permissable, but that really is not the case because it is impossible to cover everything. Common sense is actually a big part of administration.

    There shall be a Leader of the Party (referred to in this Constitution as “the Leader”) drawn from those elected to the House of Commons, who shall be elected by the Party Members and Scottish Party Members in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 2

    The Board (which 'have the power to do anything which in its opinion releates to the management and administration of the power') is responsible for 'the overseeing of the procedure for the election of the Leader in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 2'

    Schedule 2 is categorical a leader 'resigning' from the leadership is not eligible. But let's play this out and say resigning is not necessarily a trigger.

    Point 3 states

    Upon the initiation of an election for the Leader, it shall be the duty of the 1922 Committee to present to the Party, as soon as reasonably practicable, a choice of candidates for election as Leader. The rules for deciding the procedure by which the 1922 Committee selects candidates for submission for election shall be determined by the Executive Committee of the 1922 Committee after consultation of the Board

    So let's say Boris argfues the process has been 'initiated' without him resigning - the 1922 still gets to decide how the candidates are selected, and can say the current PM, in this case, is not eligible, based on his statements.

    You can argue the toss about him trying to play fast and loose with the rules, but if he does that they have the tools to stymie him - this is only happening because as he acknowledged the will of the parliamentary party was that he not be leader. So he will not be allowed to be eligible, I am very confident of that.

    Because it is not a question of what he can do - the will to remove him is there, so a way will be found. As noted, if he is saying he has not resigned then Brady and the committee can surely say well then no contest can happen until we settle if there is a vacancy or not.

    Edit: chrisb makes the same point in about 1/10 of the space.
    “… shall be elected by the Party Members and Scottish Party Members…”

    Why the distinction?

    Can people who live outwith Scotland *choose* to be classified as a “Scottish Party Member”? If
    so, one wonders how many members they actually have north of the border. 5,000?
    Presumably because there needs to be a separate definition to cover those able to influence selection of MSPs and leaders of the Scottish Conservatives. I would have thought that obvious.
    Nope. Cos then there would be a corresponding classification for Welsh Party Members.
    ISTR the Scottish party was separate until it was merged/subsumed into the English one.
    It was. The Unionist Party of Scotland. The 'unionist' bit being nicely dual-purpose. The merger came at about the same time as the start of the Tories' long if irregular decline in Scotland. Coincidental, or what? (I really don't know, actually.)
This discussion has been closed.