Howdy, Stranger!

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

The second coming of Boris Johnson? – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited July 31 in General
imageThe second coming of Boris Johnson? – politicalbetting.com

Convinced of his popularity with the party grassroots and the wider public, a rejuvenated Boris Johnson is letting it be known that he’d love another run at the top jobhttps://t.co/xZrGuUPZbJ

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • JACK_WJACK_W Posts: 584
    Oh god ...
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,145
    Good morning, everyone.

    Interesting market. May lay Starmer... or not.

    But first, to the F1 markets!
  • vikvik Posts: 157
    [BETTING QUESTION] Hi. I'm Australian & a bit unfamiliar with UK political dynamics.

    My question is about why Liz Truss is still priced at around 1.56 on Betfair, when her lead over Sunak in membership polls is so overwhelming ?

    Yougov has her ahead 49% vs 31%. The last ConHome survey also had her ahead by 49% vs 42%.

    A US presidential candidate ahead by this much would be a prohibitive favourite & priced at no higher than something like 1.10 or 1.15 ? Both Yougov & ConHome also appear to have excellent records of predicting the actual result.

    So, why is Liz still priced at 1.56 ? Am I missing something, e.g. Truss withdrawing for some reason ? Why do the betting markets still think that Sunak has a good chance of defeating Truss ?

    I understand that Sunak has a chance of showing he's a better debater, but usually debates don't often result in a massive turn-around in a candidate's fortunes, and most electors have usually already made up their minds before debates.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 40,294
    vik said:

    [BETTING QUESTION] Hi. I'm Australian & a bit unfamiliar with UK political dynamics.

    My question is about why Liz Truss is still priced at around 1.56 on Betfair, when her lead over Sunak in membership polls is so overwhelming ?

    Yougov has her ahead 49% vs 31%. The last ConHome survey also had her ahead by 49% vs 42%.

    A US presidential candidate ahead by this much would be a prohibitive favourite & priced at no higher than something like 1.10 or 1.15 ? Both Yougov & ConHome also appear to have excellent records of predicting the actual result.

    So, why is Liz still priced at 1.56 ? Am I missing something, e.g. Truss withdrawing for some reason ? Why do the betting markets still think that Sunak has a good chance of defeating Truss ?

    I understand that Sunak has a chance of showing he's a better debater, but usually debates don't often result in a massive turn-around in a candidate's fortunes, and most electors have usually already made up their minds before debates.

    There’s still six weeks to go, and there’s always the chance of a candidate making a huge gaffe at a public event, or becoming engulfed in some sort of scandal.That’s my reasoning anyway, for LT’s price not being shorter than it is.

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,145
    Welcome to PB, Mr. Vik.

    It may be memories of when Cameron and Davis went to the membership. I think Cameron was behind then but turned it around to win convincingly. It could also be that on most scores Sunak does well (interview/debate performances, coming across as likeable, apparently persuasive in person).
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 71,279
    Sandpit said:

    vik said:

    [BETTING QUESTION] Hi. I'm Australian & a bit unfamiliar with UK political dynamics.

    My question is about why Liz Truss is still priced at around 1.56 on Betfair, when her lead over Sunak in membership polls is so overwhelming ?

    Yougov has her ahead 49% vs 31%. The last ConHome survey also had her ahead by 49% vs 42%.

    A US presidential candidate ahead by this much would be a prohibitive favourite & priced at no higher than something like 1.10 or 1.15 ? Both Yougov & ConHome also appear to have excellent records of predicting the actual result.

    So, why is Liz still priced at 1.56 ? Am I missing something, e.g. Truss withdrawing for some reason ? Why do the betting markets still think that Sunak has a good chance of defeating Truss ?

    I understand that Sunak has a chance of showing he's a better debater, but usually debates don't often result in a massive turn-around in a candidate's fortunes, and most electors have usually already made up their minds before debates.

    There’s still six weeks to go, and there’s always the chance of a candidate making a huge gaffe at a public event, or becoming engulfed in some sort of scandal.That’s my reasoning anyway, for LT’s price not being shorter than it is.

    Even with this and Morris' caveats the price quite simply put is wrong.
    Back Truss
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,145
    Betting Post:

    F1: https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2022/07/france-pre-race-2022.html

    Heroically, I've (again) backed Perez at 12 each way (third the odds top 2) to win. Also backed both Haas cars to win their respective groups as both showed good pace in qualifying but are out of position.
  • IcarusIcarus Posts: 648
    JACK_W said:

    Oh god ...

    That sounds a bit desperate!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 50,432
    Boris Johnson came twice?

    Did age preclude him coming a third time, or did Carrie just get bored?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,145
    Mr. Pulpstar, do you not have an instinctive dislike of short odds, though?

    Maybe that's an F1 thing. I suppose Truss is unlikely to have a pair of shoes blow up mid-race.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 50,432

    Welcome to PB, Mr. Vik.

    It may be memories of when Cameron and Davis went to the membership. I think Cameron was behind then but turned it around to win convincingly. It could also be that on most scores Sunak does well (interview/debate performances, coming across as likeable, apparently persuasive in person).

    Cameron was ahead among the members following his party conference speech, so it isn’t that.

    It’s more likely that Truss is such a weirdo that (a) there’s a high chance of her doing something mind-blowingly stupid and ruling herself out and (b) nobody can quite believe the membership are going to be quite so stupid as to elect her plus (c) Sunak still has a clear lead among MPs which punters think may sway the members.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 46,350
    vik said:

    [BETTING QUESTION] Hi. I'm Australian & a bit unfamiliar with UK political dynamics.

    My question is about why Liz Truss is still priced at around 1.56 on Betfair, when her lead over Sunak in membership polls is so overwhelming ?

    Yougov has her ahead 49% vs 31%. The last ConHome survey also had her ahead by 49% vs 42%.

    A US presidential candidate ahead by this much would be a prohibitive favourite & priced at no higher than something like 1.10 or 1.15 ? Both Yougov & ConHome also appear to have excellent records of predicting the actual result.

    So, why is Liz still priced at 1.56 ? Am I missing something, e.g. Truss withdrawing for some reason ? Why do the betting markets still think that Sunak has a good chance of defeating Truss ?

    I understand that Sunak has a chance of showing he's a better debater, but usually debates don't often result in a massive turn-around in a candidate's fortunes, and most electors have usually already made up their minds before debates.

    It's much easier - mentally - to make a change between people from the same party, than to change party.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 46,146
    vik said:

    [BETTING QUESTION] Hi. I'm Australian & a bit unfamiliar with UK political dynamics.

    My question is about why Liz Truss is still priced at around 1.56 on Betfair, when her lead over Sunak in membership polls is so overwhelming ?

    Yougov has her ahead 49% vs 31%. The last ConHome survey also had her ahead by 49% vs 42%.

    A US presidential candidate ahead by this much would be a prohibitive favourite & priced at no higher than something like 1.10 or 1.15 ? Both Yougov & ConHome also appear to have excellent records of predicting the actual result.

    So, why is Liz still priced at 1.56 ? Am I missing something, e.g. Truss withdrawing for some reason ? Why do the betting markets still think that Sunak has a good chance of defeating Truss ?

    I understand that Sunak has a chance of showing he's a better debater, but usually debates don't often result in a massive turn-around in a candidate's fortunes, and most electors have usually already made up their minds before debates.

    Because the markets hate Truss and keep assuming Sunak will bring people to their senses in debates.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 46,146
    On topic, if there's another change of leader before GE2024/25 it will be to Ben Wallace, not Boris.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 46,350

    vik said:

    [BETTING QUESTION] Hi. I'm Australian & a bit unfamiliar with UK political dynamics.

    My question is about why Liz Truss is still priced at around 1.56 on Betfair, when her lead over Sunak in membership polls is so overwhelming ?

    Yougov has her ahead 49% vs 31%. The last ConHome survey also had her ahead by 49% vs 42%.

    A US presidential candidate ahead by this much would be a prohibitive favourite & priced at no higher than something like 1.10 or 1.15 ? Both Yougov & ConHome also appear to have excellent records of predicting the actual result.

    So, why is Liz still priced at 1.56 ? Am I missing something, e.g. Truss withdrawing for some reason ? Why do the betting markets still think that Sunak has a good chance of defeating Truss ?

    I understand that Sunak has a chance of showing he's a better debater, but usually debates don't often result in a massive turn-around in a candidate's fortunes, and most electors have usually already made up their minds before debates.

    Because the markets hate Truss and keep assuming Sunak will bring people to their senses in debates.
    I don't think that's it.

    In party primaries, it's much more common to see a big change in support than in General Elections.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 30,796
    Off-topic, if I may:

    Last night I had an experience (tm). On three occasions over the last ten or so years, I have eaten rich, dark chocolate at a restaurant and almost immediately become ill. In one case before I finished the pudding, I feel nauseous (though I am never sick), and light-headed. About half an hour to two hours later, I start shivering and shaking and become disoriented. My BP is relatively normal, as are my oxygen levels. In all cases I had had either no alcohol with the meal, or small amounts.

    It happened again last night. We were out for a meal with my parents, and Mrs J and I had a very delicious dark chocolate pudding. I was too unwell to drive home, and went straight to bed. Apparently I started shaking violently - Mrs J said it was like a fit - whilst I was asleep, which I cannot remember. I am absolutely fine this morning.

    I eat various rich foods on occasion, but it only seems to be dark chocolate puddings that cause it, especially at good restaurants (the one we were at last night is in the 'Top 50 Gastropubs 2022'). Am I allergic to large restaurant bills? ;)

    I've had a couple of diabetes tests during that time, and they show no problems. Has anyone any idea what else it might be, or experienced similar? I *think* I'm fairly fit and healthy.
  • IcarusIcarus Posts: 648

    On topic, if there's another change of leader before GE2024/25 it will be to Ben Wallace, not Boris.

    When can Tory MPs put letters of No Confidence in about Liz? Do you have to wait 12 months or would 12 days do?
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 6,607
    edited July 24
    One reason may be that support isn't deep.

    Given a choice of all 8 candidates, members voted:

    Truss 13%
    Sunak 11%
    Other 6 candidates / Don't Know 76%

    So, very few members strongly support Truss or Sunak - implying many may be susceptible to switching.

    Finally the Truss/Sunak polls we do have were either taken when there were 3 candidates left or within hours of it going down to 2 candidates. We really need a poll taken about now to get a view once things had started to settle down.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 50,432
    edited July 24

    Off-topic, if I may:

    Last night I had an experience (tm). On three occasions over the last ten or so years, I have eaten rich, dark chocolate at a restaurant and almost immediately become ill. In one case before I finished the pudding, I feel nauseous (though I am never sick), and light-headed. About half an hour to two hours later, I start shivering and shaking and become disoriented. My BP is relatively normal, as are my oxygen levels. In all cases I had had either no alcohol with the meal, or small amounts.

    It happened again last night. We were out for a meal with my parents, and Mrs J and I had a very delicious dark chocolate pudding. I was too unwell to drive home, and went straight to bed. Apparently I started shaking violently - Mrs J said it was like a fit - whilst I was asleep, which I cannot remember. I am absolutely fine this morning.

    I eat various rich foods on occasion, but it only seems to be dark chocolate puddings that cause it, especially at good restaurants (the one we were at last night is in the 'Top 50 Gastropubs 2022'). Am I allergic to large restaurant bills? ;)

    I've had a couple of diabetes tests during that time, and they show no problems. Has anyone any idea what else it might be, or experienced similar? I *think* I'm fairly fit and healthy.

    Have you asked the restaurant for a list of the ingredients in the aforesaid chocolate pudding?

    Edit - well, presumably not if it was just last night, but are you going to?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 30,796
    ydoethur said:

    Off-topic, if I may:

    Last night I had an experience (tm). On three occasions over the last ten or so years, I have eaten rich, dark chocolate at a restaurant and almost immediately become ill. In one case before I finished the pudding, I feel nauseous (though I am never sick), and light-headed. About half an hour to two hours later, I start shivering and shaking and become disoriented. My BP is relatively normal, as are my oxygen levels. In all cases I had had either no alcohol with the meal, or small amounts.

    It happened again last night. We were out for a meal with my parents, and Mrs J and I had a very delicious dark chocolate pudding. I was too unwell to drive home, and went straight to bed. Apparently I started shaking violently - Mrs J said it was like a fit - whilst I was asleep, which I cannot remember. I am absolutely fine this morning.

    I eat various rich foods on occasion, but it only seems to be dark chocolate puddings that cause it, especially at good restaurants (the one we were at last night is in the 'Top 50 Gastropubs 2022'). Am I allergic to large restaurant bills? ;)

    I've had a couple of diabetes tests during that time, and they show no problems. Has anyone any idea what else it might be, or experienced similar? I *think* I'm fairly fit and healthy.

    Have you asked the restaurant for a list of the ingredients in the aforesaid chocolate pudding?

    Edit - well, presumably not if it was just last night, but are you going to?
    I might well do that, esp. as we've been there a few times and they know us. I don't want to make it sound as though I think they've poisoned me. ;)

    I've learnt to generally avoid rich chocolate, but last night we forgot whilst ordering, because it happens so rarely. And I can eat cheap rich chocolate puddings to my heart's content, and positively guzzle milk chocolate. My working hypothesis is that it is be an ingredient good restaurants use. But as I'm not a cook, I've got no idea if that makes sense.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,145
    Mr. Jessop, people can develop allergies they never had previously. Just say you think this might be the case for you and you'd like an ingredient list so you can narrow things down.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 28,584
    Good morning everyone.

    Mr Jessop, that sounds extremely alarming not only for yourself but for Mrs J! I would endorse the good doctors question and add one of my own; was it the same restaurant on both occasions? I certainly think you should seek medical advice as soon as possible!

    And can I add my welcome to Mr Vik.
  • IcarusIcarus Posts: 648
    Lovely headline on William Keegan's article in the Observer -under a head and shoulders of Liz Truss https://tinyurl.com/2wxve5v6

    "Tax-cut stunts cant cover up the disaster that is Brexit."
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 22,810
    edited July 24

    ydoethur said:

    Off-topic, if I may:

    Last night I had an experience (tm). On three occasions over the last ten or so years, I have eaten rich, dark chocolate at a restaurant and almost immediately become ill. In one case before I finished the pudding, I feel nauseous (though I am never sick), and light-headed. About half an hour to two hours later, I start shivering and shaking and become disoriented. My BP is relatively normal, as are my oxygen levels. In all cases I had had either no alcohol with the meal, or small amounts.

    It happened again last night. We were out for a meal with my parents, and Mrs J and I had a very delicious dark chocolate pudding. I was too unwell to drive home, and went straight to bed. Apparently I started shaking violently - Mrs J said it was like a fit - whilst I was asleep, which I cannot remember. I am absolutely fine this morning.

    I eat various rich foods on occasion, but it only seems to be dark chocolate puddings that cause it, especially at good restaurants (the one we were at last night is in the 'Top 50 Gastropubs 2022'). Am I allergic to large restaurant bills? ;)

    I've had a couple of diabetes tests during that time, and they show no problems. Has anyone any idea what else it might be, or experienced similar? I *think* I'm fairly fit and healthy.

    Have you asked the restaurant for a list of the ingredients in the aforesaid chocolate pudding?

    Edit - well, presumably not if it was just last night, but are you going to?
    I might well do that, esp. as we've been there a few times and they know us. I don't want to make it sound as though I think they've poisoned me. ;)

    I've learnt to generally avoid rich chocolate, but last night we forgot whilst ordering, because it happens so rarely. And I can eat cheap rich chocolate puddings to my heart's content, and positively guzzle milk chocolate. My working hypothesis is that it is be an ingredient good restaurants use. But as I'm not a cook, I've got no idea if that makes sense.
    Sounds like an allergic reaction to my amateur eyes. IANAE. Your symptoms sound similar to a couple of episodes I had with (I suspect) oyster sauce.
    Take care.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 46,146
    rcs1000 said:

    vik said:

    [BETTING QUESTION] Hi. I'm Australian & a bit unfamiliar with UK political dynamics.

    My question is about why Liz Truss is still priced at around 1.56 on Betfair, when her lead over Sunak in membership polls is so overwhelming ?

    Yougov has her ahead 49% vs 31%. The last ConHome survey also had her ahead by 49% vs 42%.

    A US presidential candidate ahead by this much would be a prohibitive favourite & priced at no higher than something like 1.10 or 1.15 ? Both Yougov & ConHome also appear to have excellent records of predicting the actual result.

    So, why is Liz still priced at 1.56 ? Am I missing something, e.g. Truss withdrawing for some reason ? Why do the betting markets still think that Sunak has a good chance of defeating Truss ?

    I understand that Sunak has a chance of showing he's a better debater, but usually debates don't often result in a massive turn-around in a candidate's fortunes, and most electors have usually already made up their minds before debates.

    Because the markets hate Truss and keep assuming Sunak will bring people to their senses in debates.
    I don't think that's it.

    In party primaries, it's much more common to see a big change in support than in General Elections.
    Truss has already been seen in two TV debates, and, although there are two more to come, they are unlikely to move the dial unless she soils herself on stage.

    There are twelve hustings across the UK with (what?) a capacity of 400-500 people in each? So, that might reach 6,000 members direct - max - out of nearly 200,000, or about 3% of them, assuming they're filled to capacity.

    The markets keep pricing in a big event or revelation to move the dial.

    I don't think there is one.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 46,146
    Icarus said:

    On topic, if there's another change of leader before GE2024/25 it will be to Ben Wallace, not Boris.

    When can Tory MPs put letters of No Confidence in about Liz? Do you have to wait 12 months or would 12 days do?
    That's a good question. I don't think there is a time limit, so in theory it could be 12 days, but in practice this wouldn't happen.

    Even IDS lasted over 6 months before the first real mutterings started, and it took nearly 2 years for him to be ousted.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 9,127
    Icarus said:

    Lovely headline on William Keegan's article in the Observer -under a head and shoulders of Liz Truss https://tinyurl.com/2wxve5v6

    "Tax-cut stunts cant cover up the disaster that is Brexit."

    If the party of the economy and sound money implements a policy that makes the economy 4% smaller and tanks the pound then what have they got left to offer the electorate? Just desperate tax cut stunts, pissing on refugees, war on woke nonsense. The country is visibly broken, nothing works, everyone can see this. And they have no answers.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 22,810
    There's also of course the fact that political markets tend to be small. They are often irrational, too.
    We've seen a string of by-elections where the favourite has gone down.
    Often heavily predicted by some on here.
    Caveat though. Truss was dire in the first debate. Last by some way.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 46,146

    Welcome to PB, Mr. Vik.

    It may be memories of when Cameron and Davis went to the membership. I think Cameron was behind then but turned it around to win convincingly. It could also be that on most scores Sunak does well (interview/debate performances, coming across as likeable, apparently persuasive in person).

    Was it?

    I think Cameron had strong support throughout - from Wiki:

    "The Sunday Times and YouGov polled 746 members of the Conservative Party just after the conference.[51] The poll showed support slipping away from David Davis (14%) and Ken Clarke (26%) and moving to Liam Fox (13%) and David Cameron (39%) instead.

    The Daily Telegraph and YouGov polled 665 members of the Conservative Party just after the first ballot, where Clarke was eliminated leaving only three contestants. The poll showed that 59 percent backed David Cameron, against 18 percent for Liam Fox and 15 per cent for Mr Davis. This poll showed support for Mr Cameron being strong amongst the grassroots of the party on the eve of the final (membership) ballot.

    In a YouGov poll published on 12 November, more than two-thirds of party members looked set to vote for the younger candidate as party leader. Around 68 per cent of voters who had already returned their ballot papers had opted for Mr Cameron, while 66 per cent of those still to vote said they were likely to choose him over the then-Shadow Home Secretary David Davis. 57 per cent of those still to vote said they may change their minds between then and the postal ballot deadline on 5 December."
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 30,796

    Good morning everyone.

    Mr Jessop, that sounds extremely alarming not only for yourself but for Mrs J! I would endorse the good doctors question and add one of my own; was it the same restaurant on both occasions? I certainly think you should seek medical advice as soon as possible!

    And can I add my welcome to Mr Vik.

    Thanks. Different restaurants every time. I believe each one has won awards or been on lists, which makes it funny - I'm fine with a chocolate bombe from the Ivy in Cambridge, but have a chocolate fondant at a well-regarded gastropub and I become ill...

    Mrs J had the same pudding last night and was fine. As I said, it's been three or four times in ten years or so, so it's not frequent - but we don't eat out as often as we used to, either.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 9,086
    My hope is that the Second Coming of Boris will be one of those stories that parents tell their children to scare thten into doing something, e.g., "Time to eat your greens, or Boris will return to Downing Street!", "If you don't go to sleep Boris will come back and Christmas will be cancelled!", etc.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,145
    Mr. Royale, and Mr. Doethur, it seems I misremembered the Cameron/Davis membership support at the outset. For some reason I thought Cameron was the outsider.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 46,146

    Mr. Royale, and Mr. Doethur, it seems I misremembered the Cameron/Davis membership support at the outset. For some reason I thought Cameron was the outsider.

    I think there was a Guardian poll about a month in that showed Tory voters at large preferred Davis, by about 13 points? This one??

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/nov/09/toryleadership2005.conservatives

    But, the gap wasn't massive and it wasn't amongst the selectorate:
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 15,682
    Betfair next prime minister
    1.55 Liz Truss 65%
    2.86 Rishi Sunak 35%

    Next Conservative leader
    1.54 Liz Truss 65%
    2.82 Rishi Sunak 35%
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,145
    Mr. Royale, possibly, but it was 17 years ago and I might have just remembered it poorly.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 8,829

    ydoethur said:

    Off-topic, if I may:

    Last night I had an experience (tm). On three occasions over the last ten or so years, I have eaten rich, dark chocolate at a restaurant and almost immediately become ill. In one case before I finished the pudding, I feel nauseous (though I am never sick), and light-headed. About half an hour to two hours later, I start shivering and shaking and become disoriented. My BP is relatively normal, as are my oxygen levels. In all cases I had had either no alcohol with the meal, or small amounts.

    It happened again last night. We were out for a meal with my parents, and Mrs J and I had a very delicious dark chocolate pudding. I was too unwell to drive home, and went straight to bed. Apparently I started shaking violently - Mrs J said it was like a fit - whilst I was asleep, which I cannot remember. I am absolutely fine this morning.

    I eat various rich foods on occasion, but it only seems to be dark chocolate puddings that cause it, especially at good restaurants (the one we were at last night is in the 'Top 50 Gastropubs 2022'). Am I allergic to large restaurant bills? ;)

    I've had a couple of diabetes tests during that time, and they show no problems. Has anyone any idea what else it might be, or experienced similar? I *think* I'm fairly fit and healthy.

    Have you asked the restaurant for a list of the ingredients in the aforesaid chocolate pudding?

    Edit - well, presumably not if it was just last night, but are you going to?
    I might well do that, esp. as we've been there a few times and they know us. I don't want to make it sound as though I think they've poisoned me. ;)

    I've learnt to generally avoid rich chocolate, but last night we forgot whilst ordering, because it happens so rarely. And I can eat cheap rich chocolate puddings to my heart's content, and positively guzzle milk chocolate. My working hypothesis is that it is be an ingredient good restaurants use. But as I'm not a cook, I've got no idea if that makes sense.
    Quite possibly theobromine. Very bad for dogs, can (rarely) cause issues in humans such as sweating, trembling and headaches (see Wikipedia). Dark chocolate contains more than milk chocolate.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 71,279
    edited July 24

    Mr. Pulpstar, do you not have an instinctive dislike of short odds, though?

    Maybe that's an F1 thing. I suppose Truss is unlikely to have a pair of shoes blow up mid-race.

    Sorry, how do you mean ?

    1-2 isn't particularly short in a 2 horse race
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 9,086

    ydoethur said:

    Off-topic, if I may:

    Last night I had an experience (tm). On three occasions over the last ten or so years, I have eaten rich, dark chocolate at a restaurant and almost immediately become ill. In one case before I finished the pudding, I feel nauseous (though I am never sick), and light-headed. About half an hour to two hours later, I start shivering and shaking and become disoriented. My BP is relatively normal, as are my oxygen levels. In all cases I had had either no alcohol with the meal, or small amounts.

    It happened again last night. We were out for a meal with my parents, and Mrs J and I had a very delicious dark chocolate pudding. I was too unwell to drive home, and went straight to bed. Apparently I started shaking violently - Mrs J said it was like a fit - whilst I was asleep, which I cannot remember. I am absolutely fine this morning.

    I eat various rich foods on occasion, but it only seems to be dark chocolate puddings that cause it, especially at good restaurants (the one we were at last night is in the 'Top 50 Gastropubs 2022'). Am I allergic to large restaurant bills? ;)

    I've had a couple of diabetes tests during that time, and they show no problems. Has anyone any idea what else it might be, or experienced similar? I *think* I'm fairly fit and healthy.

    Have you asked the restaurant for a list of the ingredients in the aforesaid chocolate pudding?

    Edit - well, presumably not if it was just last night, but are you going to?
    I might well do that, esp. as we've been there a few times and they know us. I don't want to make it sound as though I think they've poisoned me. ;)

    I've learnt to generally avoid rich chocolate, but last night we forgot whilst ordering, because it happens so rarely. And I can eat cheap rich chocolate puddings to my heart's content, and positively guzzle milk chocolate. My working hypothesis is that it is be an ingredient good restaurants use. But as I'm not a cook, I've got no idea if that makes sense.
    A rich dark chocolate will have a lot more actual cocoa than milk chocolate or cheaper puddings, so you may be mildly allergic to cocoa, or perhaps cocoa from a particular variety of cocoa beans.

    The other possibility is that a different emulsifier is used in the fancier chocolate. Soy lecithin is used in most chocolate as it is cheaper, but more expensive cocoa butter can be used, or lecithin derived from other oils, such as sunflower. So finding out the (one assumes) fancy chocolate they use in their recipe may help you to narrow down your search.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 15,682

    ydoethur said:

    Off-topic, if I may:

    Last night I had an experience (tm). On three occasions over the last ten or so years, I have eaten rich, dark chocolate at a restaurant and almost immediately become ill. In one case before I finished the pudding, I feel nauseous (though I am never sick), and light-headed. About half an hour to two hours later, I start shivering and shaking and become disoriented. My BP is relatively normal, as are my oxygen levels. In all cases I had had either no alcohol with the meal, or small amounts.

    It happened again last night. We were out for a meal with my parents, and Mrs J and I had a very delicious dark chocolate pudding. I was too unwell to drive home, and went straight to bed. Apparently I started shaking violently - Mrs J said it was like a fit - whilst I was asleep, which I cannot remember. I am absolutely fine this morning.

    I eat various rich foods on occasion, but it only seems to be dark chocolate puddings that cause it, especially at good restaurants (the one we were at last night is in the 'Top 50 Gastropubs 2022'). Am I allergic to large restaurant bills? ;)

    I've had a couple of diabetes tests during that time, and they show no problems. Has anyone any idea what else it might be, or experienced similar? I *think* I'm fairly fit and healthy.

    Have you asked the restaurant for a list of the ingredients in the aforesaid chocolate pudding?

    Edit - well, presumably not if it was just last night, but are you going to?
    I might well do that, esp. as we've been there a few times and they know us. I don't want to make it sound as though I think they've poisoned me. ;)

    I've learnt to generally avoid rich chocolate, but last night we forgot whilst ordering, because it happens so rarely. And I can eat cheap rich chocolate puddings to my heart's content, and positively guzzle milk chocolate. My working hypothesis is that it is be an ingredient good restaurants use. But as I'm not a cook, I've got no idea if that makes sense.
    The obvious ingredient to be suspicious of is... chocolate. Expensive chocolate puddings probably contain more chocolate than cheap ones. Can you eat rich dark chocolate in bar form?
  • SandraMcSandraMc Posts: 319
    My theory: Paul Dacre is desperate for a seat in the House of Lords. He has entered a Faustian pact with Boris whereby in return for a peerage in the resignation honours list, The Mail endorses Liz Truss. Boris reckons she will be so ghastly that people will be clamouring for him to return. Discuss.
  • PhilPhil Posts: 908
    edited July 24

    Good morning everyone.

    Mr Jessop, that sounds extremely alarming not only for yourself but for Mrs J! I would endorse the good doctors question and add one of my own; was it the same restaurant on both occasions? I certainly think you should seek medical advice as soon as possible!

    And can I add my welcome to Mr Vik.

    Thanks. Different restaurants every time. I believe each one has won awards or been on lists, which makes it funny - I'm fine with a chocolate bombe from the Ivy in Cambridge, but have a chocolate fondant at a well-regarded gastropub and I become ill...

    Mrs J had the same pudding last night and was fine. As I said, it's been three or four times in ten years or so, so it's not frequent - but we don't eat out as often as we used to, either.
    This does sound like it might be an allergic reaction. Given the strength of your reaction I would think that it’s important to get to the bottom of it - sometimes allergic reactions can get stronger with each successive exposure, which makes them progressively more dangerous.

    You can get an allergy screening test done on the NHS that will cover a wide array of possibilities. Go to your GP & talk to them about it.

    Thinking about chocolate puddings specifically, the ingredient that is often present in higher quality puddings that is substituted for different thickeners in cheap ones is gelatin & a quick web search does reveal that gelatin allergies are rare, but do exist.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 6,598

    My hope is that the Second Coming of Boris will be one of those stories that parents tell their children to scare thten into doing something, e.g., "Time to eat your greens, or Boris will return to Downing Street!", "If you don't go to sleep Boris will come back and Christmas will be cancelled!", etc.

    Lots of things that ought to stop it happening- the Privileges Committee for one, Conservative MPs for another.

    But a slice of the Conservative movement, Boris will remain king over the water. And that might remain the case if Sunak or Truss kick him out of the party. That could be a real problem going forward- much as undead Maggie was for her successors.

    (One of the curious things about Corbyn is how little legacy he left in Labour- way less than Trump did, or Johnson. Both Sunak and Truss are trying to do variations of Johnsonism without Boris. Maybe right wing populists just understand power better.)
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,145
    Mr. Pulpstar, I'm not a fan of odds shorter than evens, unless laying.

    But that is a fair point. F1 has 20 cars on, and even if betting on a 1v1 style market the other 18 can interfere.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 46,146

    Mr. Royale, possibly, but it was 17 years ago and I might have just remembered it poorly.

    I might have to be fair too, Morris.

    But, Sunak has a 24% deficit in the members polling - and carries a decidedly unhelpful brand due to his role in Boris Johnson's ousting - and I can't see that being a gap easily overcome.

    Could he do it? Sure. But it's not a 2/1 shot.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 45,034

    rcs1000 said:

    vik said:

    [BETTING QUESTION] Hi. I'm Australian & a bit unfamiliar with UK political dynamics.

    My question is about why Liz Truss is still priced at around 1.56 on Betfair, when her lead over Sunak in membership polls is so overwhelming ?

    Yougov has her ahead 49% vs 31%. The last ConHome survey also had her ahead by 49% vs 42%.

    A US presidential candidate ahead by this much would be a prohibitive favourite & priced at no higher than something like 1.10 or 1.15 ? Both Yougov & ConHome also appear to have excellent records of predicting the actual result.

    So, why is Liz still priced at 1.56 ? Am I missing something, e.g. Truss withdrawing for some reason ? Why do the betting markets still think that Sunak has a good chance of defeating Truss ?

    I understand that Sunak has a chance of showing he's a better debater, but usually debates don't often result in a massive turn-around in a candidate's fortunes, and most electors have usually already made up their minds before debates.

    Because the markets hate Truss and keep assuming Sunak will bring people to their senses in debates.
    I don't think that's it.

    In party primaries, it's much more common to see a big change in support than in General Elections.
    Truss has already been seen in two TV debates, and, although there are two more to come, they are unlikely to move the dial unless she soils herself on stage.

    There are twelve hustings across the UK with (what?) a capacity of 400-500 people in each? So, that might reach 6,000 members direct - max - out of nearly 200,000, or about 3% of them, assuming they're filled to capacity.

    The markets keep pricing in a big event or revelation to move the dial.

    I don't think there is one.
    Be aware, the hustings are available on Zoom to those who haven't yet made up their minds.....

    (Although how there is anybody who thinks Truss better than Sunak is the mystery of our times.)
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 15,682
    ydoethur said:

    Welcome to PB, Mr. Vik.

    It may be memories of when Cameron and Davis went to the membership. I think Cameron was behind then but turned it around to win convincingly. It could also be that on most scores Sunak does well (interview/debate performances, coming across as likeable, apparently persuasive in person).

    Cameron was ahead among the members following his party conference speech, so it isn’t that.

    It’s more likely that Truss is such a weirdo that (a) there’s a high chance of her doing something mind-blowingly stupid and ruling herself out and (b) nobody can quite believe the membership are going to be quite so stupid as to elect her plus (c) Sunak still has a clear lead among MPs which punters think may sway the members.
    We have seen a turnaround already in this leadership election. Penny Mordaunt was cruising to the runoffs until she was done over by the papers.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 46,146
    dixiedean said:

    There's also of course the fact that political markets tend to be small. They are often irrational, too.
    We've seen a string of by-elections where the favourite has gone down.
    Often heavily predicted by some on here.
    Caveat though. Truss was dire in the first debate. Last by some way.

    And I think what's interesting about that is that it still didn't affect her with the MPs, or in the member polling.

    Just how bad would she have to be next time for Rishi to claw back a 24% deficit?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 71,279
    I think something like Moraunt vs Badenoch would have been very fluid in the polling, but Sunak is widely known and disliked amongst the party membership.
    Truss is probably the most widely known after Sunak too.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 46,146

    rcs1000 said:

    vik said:

    [BETTING QUESTION] Hi. I'm Australian & a bit unfamiliar with UK political dynamics.

    My question is about why Liz Truss is still priced at around 1.56 on Betfair, when her lead over Sunak in membership polls is so overwhelming ?

    Yougov has her ahead 49% vs 31%. The last ConHome survey also had her ahead by 49% vs 42%.

    A US presidential candidate ahead by this much would be a prohibitive favourite & priced at no higher than something like 1.10 or 1.15 ? Both Yougov & ConHome also appear to have excellent records of predicting the actual result.

    So, why is Liz still priced at 1.56 ? Am I missing something, e.g. Truss withdrawing for some reason ? Why do the betting markets still think that Sunak has a good chance of defeating Truss ?

    I understand that Sunak has a chance of showing he's a better debater, but usually debates don't often result in a massive turn-around in a candidate's fortunes, and most electors have usually already made up their minds before debates.

    Because the markets hate Truss and keep assuming Sunak will bring people to their senses in debates.
    I don't think that's it.

    In party primaries, it's much more common to see a big change in support than in General Elections.
    Truss has already been seen in two TV debates, and, although there are two more to come, they are unlikely to move the dial unless she soils herself on stage.

    There are twelve hustings across the UK with (what?) a capacity of 400-500 people in each? So, that might reach 6,000 members direct - max - out of nearly 200,000, or about 3% of them, assuming they're filled to capacity.

    The markets keep pricing in a big event or revelation to move the dial.

    I don't think there is one.
    Be aware, the hustings are available on Zoom to those who haven't yet made up their minds.....

    (Although how there is anybody who thinks Truss better than Sunak is the mystery of our times.)
    Thanks. That being the case, I might watch one.

    I certainly think Truss will be better than Sunak in foreign policy and defence, but I think her economic policy reckless - so it will be Sunak for me.

    Maybe it's comments like this from me, you and other longstanding members that align with the predispositions of centrist-pundits that are deflating her price?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 28,584
    SandraMc said:

    My theory: Paul Dacre is desperate for a seat in the House of Lords. He has entered a Faustian pact with Boris whereby in return for a peerage in the resignation honours list, The Mail endorses Liz Truss. Boris reckons she will be so ghastly that people will be clamouring for him to return. Discuss.

    Possible I suppose!

    Would not a long resignation list from Boris Johnson underline the urgent need for root and branch House of Lords reform? Possibly it would lead to such public disgust that it would be welcome in the next Labour manifesto.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 33,521

    ydoethur said:

    Off-topic, if I may:

    Last night I had an experience (tm). On three occasions over the last ten or so years, I have eaten rich, dark chocolate at a restaurant and almost immediately become ill. In one case before I finished the pudding, I feel nauseous (though I am never sick), and light-headed. About half an hour to two hours later, I start shivering and shaking and become disoriented. My BP is relatively normal, as are my oxygen levels. In all cases I had had either no alcohol with the meal, or small amounts.

    It happened again last night. We were out for a meal with my parents, and Mrs J and I had a very delicious dark chocolate pudding. I was too unwell to drive home, and went straight to bed. Apparently I started shaking violently - Mrs J said it was like a fit - whilst I was asleep, which I cannot remember. I am absolutely fine this morning.

    I eat various rich foods on occasion, but it only seems to be dark chocolate puddings that cause it, especially at good restaurants (the one we were at last night is in the 'Top 50 Gastropubs 2022'). Am I allergic to large restaurant bills? ;)

    I've had a couple of diabetes tests during that time, and they show no problems. Has anyone any idea what else it might be, or experienced similar? I *think* I'm fairly fit and healthy.

    Have you asked the restaurant for a list of the ingredients in the aforesaid chocolate pudding?

    Edit - well, presumably not if it was just last night, but are you going to?
    I might well do that, esp. as we've been there a few times and they know us. I don't want to make it sound as though I think they've poisoned me. ;)

    I've learnt to generally avoid rich chocolate, but last night we forgot whilst ordering, because it happens so rarely. And I can eat cheap rich chocolate puddings to my heart's content, and positively guzzle milk chocolate. My working hypothesis is that it is be an ingredient good restaurants use. But as I'm not a cook, I've got no idea if that makes sense.
    Quite possibly theobromine. Very bad for dogs, can (rarely) cause issues in humans such as sweating, trembling and headaches (see Wikipedia). Dark chocolate contains more than milk chocolate.
    Yes, that is what I would think. The amount of cocoa solids varies with the product, but as expensive, often padded out in cheaper product.

    Chocolate sometimes gives me migraines, but I am much more sensitive to dark than light chocolate, which I generally can tolerate.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 30,796
    Thanks for your replies, everyone. Lots to think (and ask) about.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 22,810
    edited July 24

    dixiedean said:

    There's also of course the fact that political markets tend to be small. They are often irrational, too.
    We've seen a string of by-elections where the favourite has gone down.
    Often heavily predicted by some on here.
    Caveat though. Truss was dire in the first debate. Last by some way.

    And I think what's interesting about that is that it still didn't affect her with the MPs, or in the member polling.

    Just how bad would she have to be next time for Rishi to claw back a 24% deficit?
    I think that got rather lost in the fog of a five-way battle. She was comfortably third at that point. And she was much better in the second which came very quickly after.
    It's possible with just two candidates, her weaknesses will be more stark if she's as poor again.
    Though, I agree. She'd have to be utterly dire and then some.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 71,279

    ydoethur said:

    Welcome to PB, Mr. Vik.

    It may be memories of when Cameron and Davis went to the membership. I think Cameron was behind then but turned it around to win convincingly. It could also be that on most scores Sunak does well (interview/debate performances, coming across as likeable, apparently persuasive in person).

    Cameron was ahead among the members following his party conference speech, so it isn’t that.

    It’s more likely that Truss is such a weirdo that (a) there’s a high chance of her doing something mind-blowingly stupid and ruling herself out and (b) nobody can quite believe the membership are going to be quite so stupid as to elect her plus (c) Sunak still has a clear lead among MPs which punters think may sway the members.
    We have seen a turnaround already in this leadership election. Penny Mordaunt was cruising to the runoffs until she was done over by the papers.
    Did she ever actually have the numbers with MPs though ?
    The papers (that the members read) are, unfortunately for Sunak, pretty much in the Truss camp
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 28,584

    Thanks for your replies, everyone. Lots to think (and ask) about.

    Best of luck; I hope you get some answers soon. In the meantime I would recommend avoiding rich dark chocolate pudding!
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 45,034
    Pulpstar said:

    I think something like Moraunt vs Badenoch would have been very fluid in the polling, but Sunak is widely known and disliked amongst the party membership.
    Truss is probably the most widely known after Sunak too.

    ....and most widely disliked after Sunak.

    Thanks MPs. Thanks a f*cking bunch.....
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 22,802
    edited July 24
    Pulpstar said:

    Mr. Pulpstar, do you not have an instinctive dislike of short odds, though?

    Maybe that's an F1 thing. I suppose Truss is unlikely to have a pair of shoes blow up mid-race.

    Sorry, how do you mean ?

    1-2 isn't particularly short in a 2 horse race
    Especially when one horse is almost at the finish line.

    To think Liz Truss odds are short you would have to believe that the two following statemetns are true

    1) YouGov membership leader polling is bad. This is in the face of YouGov membership leader polling picking the winner every single time across Conservative, Labour and the Lib Dem leadership elections.

    2) Members are not going to return their votes as quickly as they have done in previous elections

    And then you need to work out what you think the odds are of Truss to doing something gob smackingly disastrous.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 10,573
    @JosiasJessop

    Sorry to hear of your discomfiture and trust you are fully recovered.

    I can think of no obvious explanation but would point out that most commercial chocolates in fact contain very little chocolate. I know this because although it is well known that you shouldn't give chocolate to dogs, most will survivie scoffing heaps of the cheap stuff such a s Cadburys. Should they get hold of the real McCoy though they are in trouble.

    The advice to ask for the ingredients is sound. A good restaurant will not mind, They will not wish to lose a customer. Nor do we wish to lose an excellent poster.

    Ask them.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 22,802
    People are definitely able to use that post I've just made as a "throw back in my face when I make future predictions" if Sunak wins.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 9,086

    rcs1000 said:

    vik said:

    [BETTING QUESTION] Hi. I'm Australian & a bit unfamiliar with UK political dynamics.

    My question is about why Liz Truss is still priced at around 1.56 on Betfair, when her lead over Sunak in membership polls is so overwhelming ?

    Yougov has her ahead 49% vs 31%. The last ConHome survey also had her ahead by 49% vs 42%.

    A US presidential candidate ahead by this much would be a prohibitive favourite & priced at no higher than something like 1.10 or 1.15 ? Both Yougov & ConHome also appear to have excellent records of predicting the actual result.

    So, why is Liz still priced at 1.56 ? Am I missing something, e.g. Truss withdrawing for some reason ? Why do the betting markets still think that Sunak has a good chance of defeating Truss ?

    I understand that Sunak has a chance of showing he's a better debater, but usually debates don't often result in a massive turn-around in a candidate's fortunes, and most electors have usually already made up their minds before debates.

    Because the markets hate Truss and keep assuming Sunak will bring people to their senses in debates.
    I don't think that's it.

    In party primaries, it's much more common to see a big change in support than in General Elections.
    Truss has already been seen in two TV debates, and, although there are two more to come, they are unlikely to move the dial unless she soils herself on stage.

    There are twelve hustings across the UK with (what?) a capacity of 400-500 people in each? So, that might reach 6,000 members direct - max - out of nearly 200,000, or about 3% of them, assuming they're filled to capacity.

    The markets keep pricing in a big event or revelation to move the dial.

    I don't think there is one.
    Be aware, the hustings are available on Zoom to those who haven't yet made up their minds.....

    (Although how there is anybody who thinks Truss better than Sunak is the mystery of our times.)
    Thanks. That being the case, I might watch one.

    I certainly think Truss will be better than Sunak in foreign policy and defence, but I think her economic policy reckless - so it will be Sunak for me.

    Maybe it's comments like this from me, you and other longstanding members that align with the predispositions of centrist-pundits that are deflating her price?
    I remember in the early days of PB there used to be arguments over whether being markets represented the wisdom of crowds, that could more accurately predict events than alternative methods.

    I think the problem here is that the crowd betting is very different to the crowd voting in the leadership election, and that's why there is a reluctance to do the obvious thing and back Truss to shorter odds.

    If Smarkets did a bit of outreach at vicars tea parties then I think we'd soon see Truss backed down to 1.1
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,155
    Off Topic
    Interesting graphic "The Countries that Generate the Most Solar Energy in the World"
    1983 to 2021
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sY0GuL5OyAo
  • On topic there is more chance of Elvis headlining Glastonbury next year with Buddy Holly and Eddy Cochrane.

    If Boris is really saying that, it is nothing more than a mischievous sense of humour. He'll take the Chiltern Hundreds as soon as his successor is PM.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 33,521
    vik said:

    [BETTING QUESTION] Hi. I'm Australian & a bit unfamiliar with UK political dynamics.

    My question is about why Liz Truss is still priced at around 1.56 on Betfair, when her lead over Sunak in membership polls is so overwhelming ?

    Yougov has her ahead 49% vs 31%. The last ConHome survey also had her ahead by 49% vs 42%.

    A US presidential candidate ahead by this much would be a prohibitive favourite & priced at no higher than something like 1.10 or 1.15 ? Both Yougov & ConHome also appear to have excellent records of predicting the actual result.

    So, why is Liz still priced at 1.56 ? Am I missing something, e.g. Truss withdrawing for some reason ? Why do the betting markets still think that Sunak has a good chance of defeating Truss ?

    I understand that Sunak has a chance of showing he's a better debater, but usually debates don't often result in a massive turn-around in a candidate's fortunes, and most electors have usually already made up their minds before debates.

    I agree, she should be shorter, but having backed at longer odds, I am sitting comfortably green.

    She is so transparently useless that blowing up on stage is quite possible, but I suspect her coalition of Johnson loyalists out for revenge, irresponsible tax cutters and Brexit headbanging would vote Truss anyway.

    I was out for a work do yesterday, and several of my Indian colleagues were pro-Sunak, and convinced that if he lost (being the obviously better candidate to their eyes) it would be down to racism. I told them it would be for other reasons, but they really wouldn't have it.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 23,697
    Truss is a nutter that will make BoZo seem sensible and reserved, so is guaranteed to win.

    The disparity in the odds may be because the sober and informed people who bet are not the swivel-eyed gammons who are going to vote for her...
  • rcs1000 said:

    vik said:

    [BETTING QUESTION] Hi. I'm Australian & a bit unfamiliar with UK political dynamics.

    My question is about why Liz Truss is still priced at around 1.56 on Betfair, when her lead over Sunak in membership polls is so overwhelming ?

    Yougov has her ahead 49% vs 31%. The last ConHome survey also had her ahead by 49% vs 42%.

    A US presidential candidate ahead by this much would be a prohibitive favourite & priced at no higher than something like 1.10 or 1.15 ? Both Yougov & ConHome also appear to have excellent records of predicting the actual result.

    So, why is Liz still priced at 1.56 ? Am I missing something, e.g. Truss withdrawing for some reason ? Why do the betting markets still think that Sunak has a good chance of defeating Truss ?

    I understand that Sunak has a chance of showing he's a better debater, but usually debates don't often result in a massive turn-around in a candidate's fortunes, and most electors have usually already made up their minds before debates.

    Because the markets hate Truss and keep assuming Sunak will bring people to their senses in debates.
    I don't think that's it.

    In party primaries, it's much more common to see a big change in support than in General Elections.
    Truss has already been seen in two TV debates, and, although there are two more to come, they are unlikely to move the dial unless she soils herself on stage.

    There are twelve hustings across the UK with (what?) a capacity of 400-500 people in each? So, that might reach 6,000 members direct - max - out of nearly 200,000, or about 3% of them, assuming they're filled to capacity.

    The markets keep pricing in a big event or revelation to move the dial.

    I don't think there is one.
    Be aware, the hustings are available on Zoom to those who haven't yet made up their minds.....

    (Although how there is anybody who thinks Truss better than Sunak is the mystery of our times.)
    Thanks. That being the case, I might watch one.

    I certainly think Truss will be better than Sunak in foreign policy and defence, but I think her economic policy reckless - so it will be Sunak for me.

    Maybe it's comments like this from me, you and other longstanding members that align with the predispositions of centrist-pundits that are deflating her price?
    I'm bemused by you and others suggesting that her reversing tax hikes made less than twelve months ago is reckless.

    At the time of the tax hikes you, me and almost every independently thinking right wingers said the tax hikes were a terrible, terrible idea.

    I stand by what I said then and want them reversed. Given less than twelve months have passed, why don't you want them reversing anymore? Do you now think hiking those taxes was the right idea, or do you just think it's too late to reverse the mistake now?
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 10,573
    Welcome, Vik.

    You have received a number of excellent replies and I should say they are mostly correct to a greater or lesser degree. So you have here the unusual phenomenon of a value odds-on favorite. This is less rare in politics than in most betting heats; political betting markets tend to be less rational than most.

    My advice is to back your judgement, but go steady. Some of the words of caution are correct too.

  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 46,146
    Pulpstar said:

    ydoethur said:

    Welcome to PB, Mr. Vik.

    It may be memories of when Cameron and Davis went to the membership. I think Cameron was behind then but turned it around to win convincingly. It could also be that on most scores Sunak does well (interview/debate performances, coming across as likeable, apparently persuasive in person).

    Cameron was ahead among the members following his party conference speech, so it isn’t that.

    It’s more likely that Truss is such a weirdo that (a) there’s a high chance of her doing something mind-blowingly stupid and ruling herself out and (b) nobody can quite believe the membership are going to be quite so stupid as to elect her plus (c) Sunak still has a clear lead among MPs which punters think may sway the members.
    We have seen a turnaround already in this leadership election. Penny Mordaunt was cruising to the runoffs until she was done over by the papers.
    Did she ever actually have the numbers with MPs though ?
    The papers (that the members read) are, unfortunately for Sunak, pretty much in the Truss camp
    I thought Rod Liddle put it well: "Mordaunt resembles a harried PR executive in a small company which perhaps makes venetian blinds."
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 46,146
    Wow, we're actually talking about the betting this morning.

    Incredible on a website like this.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 46,146
    Alistair said:

    People are definitely able to use that post I've just made as a "throw back in my face when I make future predictions" if Sunak wins.

    Lol, I love a well-articulated post full of good analysis followed by a wobble and a caveat!
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 23,697
    Wow! 👉 “Even cabinet ministers are openly speculating about whether the party needs a period in opposition to regroup after becoming marred by scandal.”👇

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/2e68c05e-09fc-11ed-8404-8342b19c3a65?shareToken=256af52b85ce921db1823341398bbe38
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 9,699
    JACK_W said:

    Oh god ...

    Jacobite God or Hanoverian God?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 33,521

    @JosiasJessop

    Sorry to hear of your discomfiture and trust you are fully recovered.

    I can think of no obvious explanation but would point out that most commercial chocolates in fact contain very little chocolate. I know this because although it is well known that you shouldn't give chocolate to dogs, most will survivie scoffing heaps of the cheap stuff such a s Cadburys. Should they get hold of the real McCoy though they are in trouble.

    The advice to ask for the ingredients is sound. A good restaurant will not mind, They will not wish to lose a customer. Nor do we wish to lose an excellent poster.

    Ask them.

    I can vouch for this. My previous dog, a Border Terrier, once found all of FoxJr's Easter eggs and scoffed the lot. There was no discernable effect, apart from Foxjr being a bit more careful about leaving chocolate where the dog could find it.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 16,848

    On topic there is more chance of Elvis headlining Glastonbury next year with Buddy Holly and Eddy Cochrane.

    If Boris is really saying that, it is nothing more than a mischievous sense of humour. He'll take the Chiltern Hundreds as soon as his successor is PM.

    On topic.

    No he won't.

    For a number of reasons, first as per the header, his Trumpian ambition and total lack of self-awareness. He also lives in the not too ambitious hope that Truss makes a dog's dinner out of her premiership. Secondly, the £70 grand he gets as an MP will be a handy, if tiny, contribution to his required portfolio of income sources. Lulu Lytle wallpaper doesn't come cheap.
  • rcs1000 said:

    vik said:

    [BETTING QUESTION] Hi. I'm Australian & a bit unfamiliar with UK political dynamics.

    My question is about why Liz Truss is still priced at around 1.56 on Betfair, when her lead over Sunak in membership polls is so overwhelming ?

    Yougov has her ahead 49% vs 31%. The last ConHome survey also had her ahead by 49% vs 42%.

    A US presidential candidate ahead by this much would be a prohibitive favourite & priced at no higher than something like 1.10 or 1.15 ? Both Yougov & ConHome also appear to have excellent records of predicting the actual result.

    So, why is Liz still priced at 1.56 ? Am I missing something, e.g. Truss withdrawing for some reason ? Why do the betting markets still think that Sunak has a good chance of defeating Truss ?

    I understand that Sunak has a chance of showing he's a better debater, but usually debates don't often result in a massive turn-around in a candidate's fortunes, and most electors have usually already made up their minds before debates.

    Because the markets hate Truss and keep assuming Sunak will bring people to their senses in debates.
    I don't think that's it.

    In party primaries, it's much more common to see a big change in support than in General Elections.
    Truss has already been seen in two TV debates, and, although there are two more to come, they are unlikely to move the dial unless she soils herself on stage.

    There are twelve hustings across the UK with (what?) a capacity of 400-500 people in each? So, that might reach 6,000 members direct - max - out of nearly 200,000, or about 3% of them, assuming they're filled to capacity.

    The markets keep pricing in a big event or revelation to move the dial.

    I don't think there is one.
    Be aware, the hustings are available on Zoom to those who haven't yet made up their minds.....

    (Although how there is anybody who thinks Truss better than Sunak is the mystery of our times.)
    🙋‍♂️

    I stopped supporting the Tories because less than 12 months ago Sunak hiked taxes, which I thought was a gross mistake.

    Liz is promising to reverse those tax hikes. I support that.

    I think it would be better if those taxes were never hiked, but I don't think reducing tax hikes that were announced less than a year ago is a bad idea.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 23,697
    👀ST: Multiple sources claim he believes he will one day return as prime minister, like his hero Sir Winston Churchill, who had two stints in No 10. “He thinks whoever replaces him might be a disaster and we could be back here in a few years’ time having lost a general election…
    https://twitter.com/SophiaSleigh/status/1551109246242127878
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 33,521

    rcs1000 said:

    vik said:

    [BETTING QUESTION] Hi. I'm Australian & a bit unfamiliar with UK political dynamics.

    My question is about why Liz Truss is still priced at around 1.56 on Betfair, when her lead over Sunak in membership polls is so overwhelming ?

    Yougov has her ahead 49% vs 31%. The last ConHome survey also had her ahead by 49% vs 42%.

    A US presidential candidate ahead by this much would be a prohibitive favourite & priced at no higher than something like 1.10 or 1.15 ? Both Yougov & ConHome also appear to have excellent records of predicting the actual result.

    So, why is Liz still priced at 1.56 ? Am I missing something, e.g. Truss withdrawing for some reason ? Why do the betting markets still think that Sunak has a good chance of defeating Truss ?

    I understand that Sunak has a chance of showing he's a better debater, but usually debates don't often result in a massive turn-around in a candidate's fortunes, and most electors have usually already made up their minds before debates.

    Because the markets hate Truss and keep assuming Sunak will bring people to their senses in debates.
    I don't think that's it.

    In party primaries, it's much more common to see a big change in support than in General Elections.
    Truss has already been seen in two TV debates, and, although there are two more to come, they are unlikely to move the dial unless she soils herself on stage.

    There are twelve hustings across the UK with (what?) a capacity of 400-500 people in each? So, that might reach 6,000 members direct - max - out of nearly 200,000, or about 3% of them, assuming they're filled to capacity.

    The markets keep pricing in a big event or revelation to move the dial.

    I don't think there is one.
    Be aware, the hustings are available on Zoom to those who haven't yet made up their minds.....

    (Although how there is anybody who thinks Truss better than Sunak is the mystery of our times.)
    Thanks. That being the case, I might watch one.

    I certainly think Truss will be better than Sunak in foreign policy and defence, but I think her economic policy reckless - so it will be Sunak for me.

    Maybe it's comments like this from me, you and other longstanding members that align with the predispositions of centrist-pundits that are deflating her price?
    I'm bemused by you and others suggesting that her reversing tax hikes made less than twelve months ago is reckless.

    At the time of the tax hikes you, me and almost every independently thinking right wingers said the tax hikes were a terrible, terrible idea.

    I stand by what I said then and want them reversed. Given less than twelve months have passed, why don't you want them reversing anymore? Do you now think hiking those taxes was the right idea, or do you just think it's too late to reverse the mistake now?
    I think the problem is now one of timing. Tax cuts as proposed cannot affect the CoL before the autumn cap hits, and it will be a big rise. Cuts in petrol/diesel are about the only one that could impact in time.

    It is more a matter of bracing for impact, everything else is cloud cuckoo land.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 22,810
    Scott_xP said:

    Wow! 👉 “Even cabinet ministers are openly speculating about whether the party needs a period in opposition to regroup after becoming marred by scandal.”👇

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/2e68c05e-09fc-11ed-8404-8342b19c3a65?shareToken=256af52b85ce921db1823341398bbe38

    I should be surprised if they weren't.
    More worrying are the tales of dysfunction in the day-to-day business of government.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 9,699
    Scott_xP said:

    Wow! 👉 “Even cabinet ministers are openly speculating about whether the party needs a period in opposition to regroup after becoming marred by scandal.”👇

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/2e68c05e-09fc-11ed-8404-8342b19c3a65?shareToken=256af52b85ce921db1823341398bbe38

    Classic error: thinking that Opposition helps your party. Examples of the opposite are rife. Just ask Cathy Jamieson, Wendy Alexander, Iain Gray, Johann Lamont, Jim Murphy, Kezia Dugdale, Alex Rowley, Jackie Baillie, Richard Leonard and Anas Sarwar.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 22,802

    Alistair said:

    People are definitely able to use that post I've just made as a "throw back in my face when I make future predictions" if Sunak wins.

    Lol, I love a well-articulated post full of good analysis followed by a wobble and a caveat!
    Oh, rest assured, I am unequivocal in my "Truss is going to win" stance.

    I almost always caveat my betting predictions here but not this time.

    However that means in 5 years time, as Sunak leads the Cons into his second election as Prim Minister, it is perfectly legitimate for someone to dig through the archives to find that post and say "But Alistair, you were the idiot who said Sunak had no chance, why is this new prediction you are making any good"
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 22,802
    Sunak has no chance.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 59,145
    Mr. xP, it's far from impossible.

    Many members left the party which means they're unable to vote in the current leadership contest. Unless such members come back the pro-Boris types will have the numbers for the buffoon to return.
  • Foxy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    vik said:

    [BETTING QUESTION] Hi. I'm Australian & a bit unfamiliar with UK political dynamics.

    My question is about why Liz Truss is still priced at around 1.56 on Betfair, when her lead over Sunak in membership polls is so overwhelming ?

    Yougov has her ahead 49% vs 31%. The last ConHome survey also had her ahead by 49% vs 42%.

    A US presidential candidate ahead by this much would be a prohibitive favourite & priced at no higher than something like 1.10 or 1.15 ? Both Yougov & ConHome also appear to have excellent records of predicting the actual result.

    So, why is Liz still priced at 1.56 ? Am I missing something, e.g. Truss withdrawing for some reason ? Why do the betting markets still think that Sunak has a good chance of defeating Truss ?

    I understand that Sunak has a chance of showing he's a better debater, but usually debates don't often result in a massive turn-around in a candidate's fortunes, and most electors have usually already made up their minds before debates.

    Because the markets hate Truss and keep assuming Sunak will bring people to their senses in debates.
    I don't think that's it.

    In party primaries, it's much more common to see a big change in support than in General Elections.
    Truss has already been seen in two TV debates, and, although there are two more to come, they are unlikely to move the dial unless she soils herself on stage.

    There are twelve hustings across the UK with (what?) a capacity of 400-500 people in each? So, that might reach 6,000 members direct - max - out of nearly 200,000, or about 3% of them, assuming they're filled to capacity.

    The markets keep pricing in a big event or revelation to move the dial.

    I don't think there is one.
    Be aware, the hustings are available on Zoom to those who haven't yet made up their minds.....

    (Although how there is anybody who thinks Truss better than Sunak is the mystery of our times.)
    Thanks. That being the case, I might watch one.

    I certainly think Truss will be better than Sunak in foreign policy and defence, but I think her economic policy reckless - so it will be Sunak for me.

    Maybe it's comments like this from me, you and other longstanding members that align with the predispositions of centrist-pundits that are deflating her price?
    I'm bemused by you and others suggesting that her reversing tax hikes made less than twelve months ago is reckless.

    At the time of the tax hikes you, me and almost every independently thinking right wingers said the tax hikes were a terrible, terrible idea.

    I stand by what I said then and want them reversed. Given less than twelve months have passed, why don't you want them reversing anymore? Do you now think hiking those taxes was the right idea, or do you just think it's too late to reverse the mistake now?
    I think the problem is now one of timing. Tax cuts as proposed cannot affect the CoL before the autumn cap hits, and it will be a big rise. Cuts in petrol/diesel are about the only one that could impact in time.

    It is more a matter of bracing for impact, everything else is cloud cuckoo land.
    Reverting NI so that everyone who works for a living keeps more of their own money absolutely does help with CoL.

    Especially reverting back to a tax rate that existed only a few months ago.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 9,699
    vik said:

    [BETTING QUESTION] Hi. I'm Australian & a bit unfamiliar with UK political dynamics.

    My question is about why Liz Truss is still priced at around 1.56 on Betfair, when her lead over Sunak in membership polls is so overwhelming ?

    Yougov has her ahead 49% vs 31%. The last ConHome survey also had her ahead by 49% vs 42%.

    A US presidential candidate ahead by this much would be a prohibitive favourite & priced at no higher than something like 1.10 or 1.15 ? Both Yougov & ConHome also appear to have excellent records of predicting the actual result.

    So, why is Liz still priced at 1.56 ? Am I missing something, e.g. Truss withdrawing for some reason ? Why do the betting markets still think that Sunak has a good chance of defeating Truss ?

    I understand that Sunak has a chance of showing he's a better debater, but usually debates don't often result in a massive turn-around in a candidate's fortunes, and most electors have usually already made up their minds before debates.

    Liz believes in the Laffer Curve fairy.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 15,682
    edited July 24
    Pulpstar said:

    ydoethur said:

    Welcome to PB, Mr. Vik.

    It may be memories of when Cameron and Davis went to the membership. I think Cameron was behind then but turned it around to win convincingly. It could also be that on most scores Sunak does well (interview/debate performances, coming across as likeable, apparently persuasive in person).

    Cameron was ahead among the members following his party conference speech, so it isn’t that.

    It’s more likely that Truss is such a weirdo that (a) there’s a high chance of her doing something mind-blowingly stupid and ruling herself out and (b) nobody can quite believe the membership are going to be quite so stupid as to elect her plus (c) Sunak still has a clear lead among MPs which punters think may sway the members.
    We have seen a turnaround already in this leadership election. Penny Mordaunt was cruising to the runoffs until she was done over by the papers.
    Did she ever actually have the numbers with MPs though ?
    The papers (that the members read) are, unfortunately for Sunak, pretty much in the Truss camp
    Penny Mordaunt, who reached odds-on in the betting for next Prime Minister, did have MPs' support. She was runner-up (to Rishi) in the first, second, third and forth ballots. In the fifth and final round, she was eight votes behind Liz Truss.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 33,521
    edited July 24
    dixiedean said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Wow! 👉 “Even cabinet ministers are openly speculating about whether the party needs a period in opposition to regroup after becoming marred by scandal.”👇

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/2e68c05e-09fc-11ed-8404-8342b19c3a65?shareToken=256af52b85ce921db1823341398bbe38

    I should be surprised if they weren't.
    More worrying are the tales of dysfunction in the day-to-day business of government.
    Certainly the opposition should concentrate on the incompetent performance across most government departments. There is plenty to expose.

    The Home Office barking on about Rwanda when they cannot even manage to fingerprint, photo and track arrivals is a good example. Witless incompetence on the ground combined with capricious performative cruelty.
  • vik said:

    [BETTING QUESTION] Hi. I'm Australian & a bit unfamiliar with UK political dynamics.

    My question is about why Liz Truss is still priced at around 1.56 on Betfair, when her lead over Sunak in membership polls is so overwhelming ?

    Yougov has her ahead 49% vs 31%. The last ConHome survey also had her ahead by 49% vs 42%.

    A US presidential candidate ahead by this much would be a prohibitive favourite & priced at no higher than something like 1.10 or 1.15 ? Both Yougov & ConHome also appear to have excellent records of predicting the actual result.

    So, why is Liz still priced at 1.56 ? Am I missing something, e.g. Truss withdrawing for some reason ? Why do the betting markets still think that Sunak has a good chance of defeating Truss ?

    I understand that Sunak has a chance of showing he's a better debater, but usually debates don't often result in a massive turn-around in a candidate's fortunes, and most electors have usually already made up their minds before debates.

    Liz believes in the Laffer Curve fairy.
    It's not a fairy.

    Of course the fallacy some believe in is slashing taxes "due to the Laffer Curve" when they're already low. If taxes are low then the curve has a left hand side whereby higher taxes equals more revenue.

    Taxes aren't low.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 46,146
    dixiedean said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Wow! 👉 “Even cabinet ministers are openly speculating about whether the party needs a period in opposition to regroup after becoming marred by scandal.”👇

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/2e68c05e-09fc-11ed-8404-8342b19c3a65?shareToken=256af52b85ce921db1823341398bbe38

    I should be surprised if they weren't.
    More worrying are the tales of dysfunction in the day-to-day business of government.
    Whilst it is inevitable at some point I wouldn't be quite so sanguine if I were a Conservative minister.

    One of the first things a new administration would do - particularly a coalition/rainbow one - is work out how to change the electoral system to lock out the Conservatives from power in future.
  • Anyone beyond Barty think Truss would do a good job? Would be interested to hear why
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 9,086

    On topic there is more chance of Elvis headlining Glastonbury next year with Buddy Holly and Eddy Cochrane.

    If Boris is really saying that, it is nothing more than a mischievous sense of humour. He'll take the Chiltern Hundreds as soon as his successor is PM.

    I'm not expecting a Johnson comeback, but if he was serious about it then taking the Chiltern Hundreds would be the best next step. Why?

    1. It sidesteps the difficulty with the Parliamentary inquiry into whether he lied to the House. They can't sanction him if he's not an MP, and he doesn't have the danger of a recall petition.
    2. Outside the House he can be publicly more critical of his successor without having to actually vote against them, and lose the party whip. This potentially makes it easier for him to rebuild his public support.
    3. When he returns to the House he can do so as an MP for a safer seat.
    4. The drama of the public clamour for his return, and the mandate gained from winning a by-election, would go some way in drawing a line under recent perceived unpopularity, and provide populist pressure on MPs to Bring Back Boris.

    It all hinges on how much Johnson really wants it, and whether he'll come to prefer the more moneyed life of paid-for speeches and newspaper columns. And it may be that people move on, and there's never any clamour for his return, so he doesn't press it for fear of being humiliated.
  • rcs1000 said:

    vik said:

    [BETTING QUESTION] Hi. I'm Australian & a bit unfamiliar with UK political dynamics.

    My question is about why Liz Truss is still priced at around 1.56 on Betfair, when her lead over Sunak in membership polls is so overwhelming ?

    Yougov has her ahead 49% vs 31%. The last ConHome survey also had her ahead by 49% vs 42%.

    A US presidential candidate ahead by this much would be a prohibitive favourite & priced at no higher than something like 1.10 or 1.15 ? Both Yougov & ConHome also appear to have excellent records of predicting the actual result.

    So, why is Liz still priced at 1.56 ? Am I missing something, e.g. Truss withdrawing for some reason ? Why do the betting markets still think that Sunak has a good chance of defeating Truss ?

    I understand that Sunak has a chance of showing he's a better debater, but usually debates don't often result in a massive turn-around in a candidate's fortunes, and most electors have usually already made up their minds before debates.

    Because the markets hate Truss and keep assuming Sunak will bring people to their senses in debates.
    I don't think that's it.

    In party primaries, it's much more common to see a big change in support than in General Elections.
    Truss has already been seen in two TV debates, and, although there are two more to come, they are unlikely to move the dial unless she soils herself on stage.

    There are twelve hustings across the UK with (what?) a capacity of 400-500 people in each? So, that might reach 6,000 members direct - max - out of nearly 200,000, or about 3% of them, assuming they're filled to capacity.

    The markets keep pricing in a big event or revelation to move the dial.

    I don't think there is one.
    Be aware, the hustings are available on Zoom to those who haven't yet made up their minds.....

    (Although how there is anybody who thinks Truss better than Sunak is the mystery of our times.)
    🙋‍♂️

    I stopped supporting the Tories because less than 12 months ago Sunak hiked taxes, which I thought was a gross mistake.

    Liz is promising to reverse those tax hikes. I support that.

    I think it would be better if those taxes were never hiked, but I don't think reducing tax hikes that were announced less than a year ago is a bad idea.
    Truss is promising unicorns for all. She'll end up saying "Oh, the tax rises were needed after all. Who knew?"

    I have zero confidence in her ability as PM. End of.
    Didn't you vehemently oppose the tax rises at the time? Do you now think they were needed after all?

    Even without Laffer effects cancelling Sunaks planned pre election Income Tax cut would raise more than half the money for reversing the NI tax hike and crucially would take a small step restore the balance towards those who work for a living rather than living off unearned incomes that don't face NI.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 9,699

    Pulpstar said:

    ydoethur said:

    Welcome to PB, Mr. Vik.

    It may be memories of when Cameron and Davis went to the membership. I think Cameron was behind then but turned it around to win convincingly. It could also be that on most scores Sunak does well (interview/debate performances, coming across as likeable, apparently persuasive in person).

    Cameron was ahead among the members following his party conference speech, so it isn’t that.

    It’s more likely that Truss is such a weirdo that (a) there’s a high chance of her doing something mind-blowingly stupid and ruling herself out and (b) nobody can quite believe the membership are going to be quite so stupid as to elect her plus (c) Sunak still has a clear lead among MPs which punters think may sway the members.
    We have seen a turnaround already in this leadership election. Penny Mordaunt was cruising to the runoffs until she was done over by the papers.
    Did she ever actually have the numbers with MPs though ?
    The papers (that the members read) are, unfortunately for Sunak, pretty much in the Truss camp
    Penny Mordaunt, who reached odds-on in the betting for next Prime Minister, did have MPs' support. She was runner-up (to Rishi) in the first, second, third and forth ballots. In the fifth and final round, she was eight votes behind Liz Truss.
    Penny Mordaunt was the only candidate that worried me, from my narrow partisan perspective. Why? Primarily because she strikes me as being a likeable person.

    Having a likeable leader would be a novelty for the Unionists, and a strong positive in their favour.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 19,449

    Scott_xP said:

    Wow! 👉 “Even cabinet ministers are openly speculating about whether the party needs a period in opposition to regroup after becoming marred by scandal.”👇

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/2e68c05e-09fc-11ed-8404-8342b19c3a65?shareToken=256af52b85ce921db1823341398bbe38

    Classic error: thinking that Opposition helps your party. Examples of the opposite are rife. Just ask Cathy Jamieson, Wendy Alexander, Iain Gray, Johann Lamont, Jim Murphy, Kezia Dugdale, Alex Rowley, Jackie Baillie, Richard Leonard and Anas Sarwar.
    In this case you need clean skins; as in long enough that the next tory PM is from the 2019 or later intake.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 9,699
    IshmaelZ said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Wow! 👉 “Even cabinet ministers are openly speculating about whether the party needs a period in opposition to regroup after becoming marred by scandal.”👇

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/2e68c05e-09fc-11ed-8404-8342b19c3a65?shareToken=256af52b85ce921db1823341398bbe38

    Classic error: thinking that Opposition helps your party. Examples of the opposite are rife. Just ask Cathy Jamieson, Wendy Alexander, Iain Gray, Johann Lamont, Jim Murphy, Kezia Dugdale, Alex Rowley, Jackie Baillie, Richard Leonard and Anas Sarwar.
    In this case you need clean skins; as in long enough that the next tory PM is from the 2019 or later intake.
    One problem with that theory: by the 2030s PR will disallow single-party majorities. Without thuggery holding them together, the Tories will simply drift apart. The ones not frothing at the mouth will survive.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 33,521

    Pulpstar said:

    ydoethur said:

    Welcome to PB, Mr. Vik.

    It may be memories of when Cameron and Davis went to the membership. I think Cameron was behind then but turned it around to win convincingly. It could also be that on most scores Sunak does well (interview/debate performances, coming across as likeable, apparently persuasive in person).

    Cameron was ahead among the members following his party conference speech, so it isn’t that.

    It’s more likely that Truss is such a weirdo that (a) there’s a high chance of her doing something mind-blowingly stupid and ruling herself out and (b) nobody can quite believe the membership are going to be quite so stupid as to elect her plus (c) Sunak still has a clear lead among MPs which punters think may sway the members.
    We have seen a turnaround already in this leadership election. Penny Mordaunt was cruising to the runoffs until she was done over by the papers.
    Did she ever actually have the numbers with MPs though ?
    The papers (that the members read) are, unfortunately for Sunak, pretty much in the Truss camp
    Penny Mordaunt, who reached odds-on in the betting for next Prime Minister, did have MPs' support. She was runner-up (to Rishi) in the first, second, third and forth ballots. In the fifth and final round, she was eight votes behind Liz Truss.
    Mordaunt rather blew it with her relationship with the truth. She would have been better sticking to her mainstream views on trans issues and arguing that case. Alternatively she could have made the case that her views had shifted, instead she gave in to the Wokefinder General and humiliated herself.

    I think she would have been found out fairly quickly in the top job if that was a representative bit of behaviour.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 16,848
    edited July 24

    Pulpstar said:

    I think something like Moraunt vs Badenoch would have been very fluid in the polling, but Sunak is widely known and disliked amongst the party membership.
    Truss is probably the most widely known after Sunak too.

    ....and most widely disliked after Sunak.

    Thanks MPs. Thanks a f*cking bunch.....
    Your preferred choice Mordaunt, disappointed under scrutiny. In my analysis her weakness was not so much the grand wokery (fine by me) which offended enough of her fellow MPs, but her general tongue tied presentation. Nonetheless British party politics would have been reset to normal service resumed with a race between the uninspired Mordaunt and the uninspiring Starmer.

    It was Mordaunt's to win, and she blew it.

    As for the next election, I daresay both Truss or Sunak will have some explosive right-wing populist rabbits to pull out of the hat in order to blow Labour out of the water. In that way, they are chips off the old Johnsonian block.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 9,699

    vik said:

    [BETTING QUESTION] Hi. I'm Australian & a bit unfamiliar with UK political dynamics.

    My question is about why Liz Truss is still priced at around 1.56 on Betfair, when her lead over Sunak in membership polls is so overwhelming ?

    Yougov has her ahead 49% vs 31%. The last ConHome survey also had her ahead by 49% vs 42%.

    A US presidential candidate ahead by this much would be a prohibitive favourite & priced at no higher than something like 1.10 or 1.15 ? Both Yougov & ConHome also appear to have excellent records of predicting the actual result.

    So, why is Liz still priced at 1.56 ? Am I missing something, e.g. Truss withdrawing for some reason ? Why do the betting markets still think that Sunak has a good chance of defeating Truss ?

    I understand that Sunak has a chance of showing he's a better debater, but usually debates don't often result in a massive turn-around in a candidate's fortunes, and most electors have usually already made up their minds before debates.

    Liz believes in the Laffer Curve fairy.
    It's not a fairy.

    Of course the fallacy some believe in is slashing taxes "due to the Laffer Curve" when they're already low. If taxes are low then the curve has a left hand side whereby higher taxes equals more revenue.

    Taxes aren't low.
    I have a bridge for sale.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 22,802
    With regards to Kherson last week I had pencilled in Ukraine taking it with 2 months, I have now revised that to a month, end of August at the latest.

    Checkpoints in the city had been being manned by the Russian internal security forces. they've apparently all fucked off an now checkpoints are being manned by regular army units.

    Staffing of checkpoints has fallen with major checkpoints going without any troops on them recently.

    Finally, the big one, looting of the more prosperous parts of Kherson by Russian troops has started. They are getting ready to leave.

This discussion has been closed.