Categories
Rishi looks set to be Next PM betting favourite once again – politicalbetting.com
Rishi looks set to be Next PM betting favourite once again – politicalbetting.com
0
This discussion has been closed.
Rishi looks set to be Next PM betting favourite once again – politicalbetting.com
Comments
There’s no positive outcome with Truss.
Yes, she‘ll be totally inadequate, but I think the Tory party may still pick her.
Chris Keating
@chriskeating
·
52m
The public found the debate interesting, boring, informative, predictable and pointless - displaying their usual consistency...
https://twitter.com/chriskeating/status/1548362485941407746
He said if Rishi wins, I'll never shut up about the fact I backed Rishi at 250/1.
I know this will come as a galloping shock to you all, but apparently I am unbearably smug, particularly when it comes to betting.
@andrew_lilico
·
12m
The latest
@ConHome
shows Mordaunt is very much beatable. Under scrutiny her notional advantage with members has melted away very quickly.
https://twitter.com/andrew_lilico
@SuellaBraverman
·
1h
I’m proud to be backing
@trussliz
and I encourage all colleagues to get behind her: a proven track record of leadership, serious plans for the tough times ahead and a champion for common sense conservative values. #LizForLeader
https://twitter.com/SuellaBraverman/status/1548358036825092097
===
Continuity Boris has swung into action after last night's disaster.
And not just in wokish circles. Especially as both S & B are Conservatives.
Selection of Mordaunt or Truss would not be a negative, but hardly big news to the world after Thatcher and May. UK's been there, done that.
I'll say it again. A disproportionate number of MPs in this Parliament are very vulnerable to a 4-5% swing. Truss as PM would almost certainly mean the Tories getting a bloodbath, never mind an ordinary defeat.
The MPs know this.
I said I was laying Penny heavily as favourite less than 2 hours ago and now...she is no longer favourite.
But, she'll only be knocked off her perch if the Right pick one of Truss or Kemi.
So when it gets to the Final I think the debates will be key.
I think it's entirely possible Rishi wins the members vote by a wide margin - as he will be seen as far more credible than whoever he faces.
All the more remarkable considering she used to be one!
Can't see her keeping a single Red Wall seat with whole 'I am Thatcher reborn' act and in order to compensate for being a Remainer she will overdo the whole Pure Brexit™ thing and so piss off a load of southern professional blue seats.
Give me some comfort that the Uk is not going to have to ration power this winter? I’m looking at Russian gas cuts in Europe and the Norwegians likely to increase supply to Europe to the detriment of the UK. And it has me worried.
She's like one of those former porn stars who finds God, then spends the rest of their life campaigning against fapping, saying it is second gravest sin after homosexuality.
So, the question is how close is it to representing the party membership. That I don’t know. I understand it was fairly close in the last leadership election.
The Tories are drifting right and Johnson may prove to have been the most moderate Tory leader this decade ironically
https://twitter.com/ConHome/status/1548359097677795330?s=20&t=awKYCjbTL84bbYzosuoH0A
(a) Do Penny backers stay with her
(b) How Suella's backers break
If the answers are yes, and 50-50, then Badenoch is next to leave the party. And Badenoch either needs to pick up votes directly from Truss or for TT to stay in for another round, giving her more time to build momentum.
The Vatican doesn't allow (or at least doesn't allow in the Latin Rite Churches, which are pretty much everywhere most of us think of as having Catholic Churches) ordained priests to take part in party politics, or in any civil legislatures). This has nothing to do with "challenges to the Pope's authority", but with the Gospel instruction to separate "the things that are Caesar's from the things that are God's" and with the now highly discredited history of the Church's involvement with temporal power.
The policy these days is a great deal more fundamental than clerical celibacy (a relatively recent policy with more exceptions than most people understand: my own parish has a married parish priest and, when he's away, usually gets its locums from the local pool of other married Catholic priests) or the restriction of ordination to men (which I'd bet won't last this century)
SSI - One major reason why Pope John Paul II enacted ban on priest in (elected) politics, was to stifle political careers of priests who were out of line with Vatican orthodoxy. Key American example being Father Robert Drinan (D-Massachusetts) of Boston, who was pro-choice on abortion and very prominent progressive politico, famous for opposing Vietnam War.
Another Catholic priest in the US House at same period was Father Robert Cornell (D-Wisconsin) of Green Bay, who was a liberal Democrat but pro-life. Though the Vatican didn't have anything against HIM, he got caught by the same edict, since he - like Father Drinan - wished to remain in the priesthood.
Had the pleasure of meeting Father Bob after he left Congress, and was head of a small Catholic college near Green Bay. A jolly friar, he was not too bent out of shape by being ordered out of Congress, and NOT by the voters.
Father Bob did tell me that the powers-that-be in Rome had assured him that, whatever happened, HE was not going to be asked to resign his seat in the US House. Drinan was the guy they wanted to get, not him. Yet the ax fell on him anyway.
When he complained about this to his bishop in Wisconsin, that wise old cleric replied, "Bob, you've got to understand, we've only been a nation for two hundred years. These assholes have been practicing duplicity for two centuries."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Drinan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_John_Cornell
It isn't an unwritten constitution that is causing a problem, it is a lack of desire to change the requirements. (which is not hard to do in this country).
IF you mean her PMship would NOT boost British prestige here, you could be correct.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-11018847/ANDREW-NEIL-Trump-set-run-U-S-riven-Civil-War.html
Surely he must read PB - as several of us have been posting that thought on and off for months:
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1548285188202827781
I find it very hard to believe Tory members would go for PM. She strikes me as a hybrid of Nicola Murray and Boris but what do I know.
Had a small bet on Badenoch yesterday.
If it ends up as Rishi vs Truss it'll be wall to wall shithousery on him from the mail and telegraph
I too imagine Tory Members like that.
2.58 Rishi Sunak 39%
2.74 Penny Mordaunt 36%
6.4 Liz Truss 16%
12.5 Kemi Badenoch 8%
80 Tom Tugendhat
310 Dominic Raab
To make the final two
1.09 Rishi Sunak 92%
1.42 Penny Mordaunt 70%
3.1 Liz Truss 32%
9.4 Kemi Badenoch 11%
40 Tom Tugendhat
Note discrepancy on Kemi: 12 to win but 9 to be in top two.
There’s insufficient evidence in the contest so far to suggest she’s a complete disaster, even if PB thinks otherwise.
If a party chooses a leader by holding a drinking contest or by a game of musical chairs they are entitled to, and we can think about that when we vote. No-one can be PM unless they have the confidence of a majority of the reps we voted for. That's all we need for a democracy.
If we think our reps are abusing their trust, the vote for a different lot next time. If we think they are all the same, then it's a wake up call to the public to be more involved. If we think the voters are all dim and easily led, then dissolve the electorate and find another.
North Korea does it differently. I love our way of doing it. It's worth fighting for.
One is hyperbubble thought- the sort that thinks that the British public really prefers Kemi to Tom. It shouldn't happen, but it's a possibility in our fragmented society. After all, True Conservatives stuck by Boris (and thought he was popular) long after the rest of the country had given up on him.
The other is the thing @HYUFD1 has alluded to here- after a decade, parties get a bit bored of being in government, and need to up the stakes. The end is in sight, so you might as well make a big difference / have some fun before the clock strikes midnight.
Those two are a bit contradictory, but different members holding each of them simutaneously can lead to a pincer movement on a party's grip on reality. Naturally, neither of these is evidence of a party that ought to be in government much longer.
Up £2.2k if that happens.
No leader is going to have it easy herding a swarm of wasps out the window with the Daily Telegraph.
However, if Biden does run, then do expect Black America to largely support him in 2024. Because in addition to established support, Black voters have a tendency to support Democratic incumbents. Something seen in plenty of races, including Jimmy Carter v Ted Kennedy in 1980 and also number of mayoral races in Seattle.
Feeling being, if we helped put 'em in, keep 'em in.
With incumbents being in good place to help this sentiment along IF they have the wit to do so. Which even the less stellar generally do, in their own self interest.
I think a majority Labour government would be less likely to implement PR compared to a Lib-Lab pact government.
I think the value is with Truss.
This article - about Brexit and its role in this campaign - will probably enrage quite a few of you. But worth considering nonetheless.
https://twitter.com/chrisgreybrexit/status/1548227040481906688?s=21&t=pW9ktnJMALD7_O5rhwt4TA
"Kemi isn’t capable of being PM at this point and everyone knows that"
Don't know why
There's nothing in it.
It was that which crystallised the evidence from the last 24 hours to lay her.
I predict the Met Office will get into the final two, with Sunak providing refreshments.
Worth quoting. It’ll be poo-poohed but he’s right:
This may seem a strange thing to say given how dominant an issue Brexit has been since 2016, but my point is that it has rarely, if ever, been talked about in depth, spelling out its actual practical implications and the choices and trade-offs involved. Thus Theresa May was installed following a truncated campaign after which we still, famously or infamously, only knew that ‘Brexit meant Brexit’. That stasis lasted for months until she simply announced in early 2017 that it meant hard Brexit…
(There never has) been any sustained, honest, realistic political conversation about the practical realities of Brexit. Instead, throughout the May years there were suggestions of securing ‘frictionless trade’ and the ‘exact same benefits’ of membership and in the Johnson years the claim of cakeism and denial of the coming costs, with Labour all the while just talking vaguely of the ‘better deal’ they would achieve. Equally, throughout these years there was virtually no honesty about the actual choices and problems posed by and for Northern Ireland. Instead there was endless nonsense about non-existent ‘alternative arrangements’ and, ultimately, the creation of an Irish Sea border whilst denying that that was what had been agreed. Thereafter, since the end of the transition the political silence about the damaging effects of Brexit has been deafening, whilst all the denial and dishonesty about Northern Ireland has been re-activated.
… It’s this which marks Brexit out as different to any other political issue, at least in my lifetime. There are plenty of examples of divisive policies but they’ve always been deliverable even when they have been undesirable, and they’ve always been discussable in more or less rational ways. Brexit isn’t like this because it promised impossible or contradictory things, which by definition can’t be delivered. But since even saying this is (still) deemed offensive to the ‘will of the people’, no honest or realistic political conversation has ever been possible within or between the two main parties. That extends from the most general level of Brexit having been enacted as hard Brexit, right down to the multiple and complex trade-offs in decisions about regulatory alignment or divergence in particular sectors. This evisceration of honesty and realism is the “radioactive pollution” that has poisoned the political ground, as I expressed it in last week’s post, and until it is cleansed the instability of the last six years will continue.