Categories
What Boris Johnson pulling out really means – politicalbetting.com
What Boris Johnson pulling out really means – politicalbetting.com
So continues what I call the 'Life of Brian Problem'.A sizeable chunk of Con MPs and members will keep believing Johnson is the Messiah.Another sizeable chunk will keep thinking he is not the Messiah, but a very naughty boy.And this will go on for yearshttps://t.co/d25PW4UU6e
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/4209946/#Comment_4209946
https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/lectures-in-history/id506779862
May be of interest to some on here.
@IshmaelZ does at least try to post bets on here, which is more than most posters manage. However, I think you’d probably lose more than you win, on average, backing his tips.
He’s also a nasty fker who has been unnecessarily dickish towards me and other posters, in the past and doesn’t appear to change his behaviour over time. He can be reasonable, at times, then before you know it, he’s back to being a dick.
I basically ignore him. I’ve noticed most other pbers worth paying attention to adopt the same strategy.
On balance, If it were my site I’d ban him.
My reading of this at the time he pulled out was #2 (He would win the members but was self aware that a significant number of Tory MPs wouldn’t accept the result making his premiership ungovernable).
I’d guess there was an incredible amount of pressure placed on him to pull out by the grey suits. Perhaps he was offered something? We can only guess.
Fascinated to read other PBers analysis of this.
I did say, not that long ago, when I first tipped Johnson to replace Truss @16/1, that I dislike betting on markets like this, precisely because winning or losing can hinge on individual decisions made by political actors. I’m not politically connected and, so, assume others in the market probably have an edge, whereas I don't.
It’s important, in this game, to recognise when you’re the dumb money. Knowing when not to bet is as important as knowing when to bet and when to up your stakes.
However, there is still money to be made trading the political dynamics - and in anticipating the speculation, especially when markets mis-price the runners so spectacularly as they did here.
I traded out, in the end, at ~7/4, so made a decent profit. I prefer betting on proper election outcomes - and the direction of opinion polls - though.
That’s proper, skilled, political betting for grownups, imo.
He'd have won with the members.
Punters - and the media - generally seemed to assume Charles would have made him PM on Truss’s advice, and let him try to govern.
I’m not so sure. I wonder if there was any intervention by the palace, that may have swayed Boris’s decision?
I was backing Starmer as next PM quite heavily @ >200/1 - and I still think that was a value bet.
I'm thinking maybe 3, perhaps with threats of further revelations if he didn't pull out.
It's both brilliant and deranged.
Spur of the moment decisions are how he does stuff. Sometimes it works for him; sometimes it doesn’t.
But -
What did you think when Trump became president and (apparently unlike previous presidents) didn't put his wealth into a blind trust? Seems there was a lot of fuss about conflict of interests at the time.
The PM is married to a foreign citizen, who is also extremely rich, and the daughter of a billionaire. Sure, India isn't a hostile power, but Sunak's father in law has supported Modi - who was banned from entering the UK for several years for his part in the massacres in Gujarat in 2002, and is currently quite supportive of Putin.
And hasn't Sunak himself urged people to cut off their business connections to Russia? He isn't setting a great example here.
And to point 4, on money, it may also be that he realised that with one $150,000 speech, he could have paid for all three (or is it four now?) of the exotic holidays that he'd taken since July.
Edit to add:
Ms Sunak's entire family owns 15% of Infosys (https://www.infosys.com/investors/reports-filings/quarterly-results/documents/share-holding/clause35-september30-2022.pdf).
She's going to be (at most) 10% of this 15% (i.e. 1.5%), and more likely much less.
But even if this wasn't true, the Directors of Infosys have a moral obligation to act for all shareholders, not just the husband of one of them.
“A Downing Street spokesperson said: “Neither Akshata Murty nor any members of her family have any involvement in the operational decisions of the company.”
Don’t blame Rishi and his wife, they’re just banking the cheques!
It’s a completely unacceptable state of affairs.
I guess he probably is but the whole tory 1922 system does rely on a degree of honesty in the Chair largely absent from the rest of the current parliamentary party.
Apparently Carrie was very fed up before. Boris has been able to cut and run, earn money, and mainly because of the even greater shitshow which followed, bask in the glow of his own adulation.
When the tories get thumped at the next election, he will probably be super smug.
Will he try to come back one day?
Has he put his own wealth in a blind trust?
ETA and there is no reason to believe the Sunaks have any direct investments in Russia.
Wouldn’t surprise me if he did.
https://twitter.com/mikegalsworthy/status/1506912997578526728?t=WqImfLeAgwO6DMZ1Ou58fQ&s=19
The bottom line is that his second ‘go’ would have been, and could have been made to have been, a disastrous failure. And he didn’t want that.
There is also the minor detail that second time around would actually be hard work - as Sunak is demonstrating/finding - and not some sort of jolly jape. Indeed it would have been the first time in his life that he’d ever have had to clean up someone else’s mess - an entirely new and unwelcome experience - a factor that could easily slot into the lead as number six!
Lay down with dogs etc.
Had he been doing his job as an MP in Parliament he’d have been *persuaded* to stay away from the outset.
One of the Tory party’s leading Brexit supporters has raised concerns about plans to scrap 2,400 EU laws by the end of next year – as fears grow that the policy will overwhelm the civil service and bring government to a virtual standstill.
Former environment secretary Theresa Villiers, who backed Brexit in 2016, told the Observer that the proposals would take up vast amounts of civil service time and would involve undoing legislation that, in many cases, was broadly popular and good for the country.
Other senior Tories are growing concerned that the EU retained law bill, championed by Jacob Rees-Mogg before Rishi Sunak sacked him on becoming prime minister, is in danger of becoming an ideological millstone.
According to the latest Opinium poll, 73% think the UK has not been in control of its borders since Brexit. Only 12% think Britain has been in control. Meanwhile, only 9% of the public believe Brexit has made Britain’s ability to manage its borders better, while 45% think it has made it worse.
Those who backed Brexit are also taking a dim view. Only 7% of leave voters think the UK is in control of its borders since Brexit, while 85% think it is not.
Extrapolating to suggest he has an instinctive grasp of power politics is a stretch. Much of his premiership, including most of the final year, was a case study in not having much grasp as to how real life politics plays out.
I think Starmer is wooden and dull, verbose and lacking in campaigning skill, timid to the point of cowardice and opaque about his intentions.
He is however a more cunning politician than I have given him credit for. I won't be voting for him, as I do not support his policies (such as they are) but he does have the potential to lead a far more effective government than we have seen since 2015.
It is almost as if Brexit is an ideological dead end and wasted couple of decades. The wrong solution to the wrong problem.
Trust a Welsh man to notice!
Now, Boris must have some idea how that will play out. He must be assuming it will have nothing mortal to his continued career. But far too many Tory MPs assumed that was wrong - that there was a material risk he would be toast. And having another PM resigning at a Downing Street podium would be intolerable )in his case, twice in a year - and would oblige a General Election. That it would be the second time they had put Boris in only for him to resign twice would rob them of any case to make to the voters as to why they should be given another chance.
Simply put, Boris risked the Party' extinction. Rishi did not. So even if Boris had 110 MPs, that was all he was going to get. He was going to lose - and lose badly - to Rishi.
Edit - it is a nice photo. Long walk yesterday?
For the Springboks to lose to Ireland in the rugby may be considered a misfortune. For their cricketers to lose to the Netherlands is a bit silly.
But your line of logic will certainly have persuaded others, including the party hierarchy that this time he had to be stopped. I listened carefully to Brady’s initial presentation of the timescale and process, and all my instincts were that he knew from the beginning that the members’ stage wasn’t going to happen. From there it is simply a question of choosing what pressure they will have brought to bear on the clown.
That potentially troublesome local activists were directed to fill up their weekend frantically signing up their aged members with emails, continues to amuse.
I bet this was a strategic "hire and rehire" strategy from Musk to avoid paying bonus rather than a panic move.
(H1Bs will be particularly vulnerable targets for the strategy)
Just do what I, and many others as Ping says, do and ignore him. If he replies to one of my posts I just like it but won’t engage. He’s a nasty little shit who seems to be in a semi permanent drunken rage. Don’t let him get to you. My experience here is no worse, it’s far better, for ignoring him.
India will be a tough assignment for England, particularly if they have another worn pitch.
Goodness only knows which Pakistan will turn up. They might blow New Zealand away or be all out for 25 on current form.
The Graun is reporting that his earning power in the entertainment industry could have halved if he had stood and lost, so perhaps that explains his decision.
Is PB more boring in its second decade than its first? Undoubtedly. A lot of absolute superstars have given up and the place is jam-packed with mindless dross. Still enough good posters around to make it worthwhile, but for how much longer? The site owners ought to dedicate some time to pondering how to encourage discussion on politics and betting and on how to gently discourage posting of holiday snaps, railway trivia and debates on whether London is located in the bottom right hand corner of England or not.
NOM 2.36
Lab Maj 2.36
Con Maj 5.8
Now most on here think he is an absolute shit, liar, fornicator etc. But just like in many other ways, PB doesn’t always mirror the views of the nation.
* In the view of Johnson fans - others may disagree.
My view is that @IshmaelZ secretly hates himself, which is why he's so nasty to others and drinks so heavily, and the best thing you can do is to just ignore him and recognise his behaviour carries its own punishment.
I've frequently complained about people being banned from posting - but abusive, drunken posts are IMO more deserving of a short ban then the current policy which seems to have permanently banned @isam and @MISTY .
This site should make it clear that if you are drunk you don't post.
One salutary lesson: I thought Boris was nowhere near the noms, same with Penny, and it was all piss and wind so I laid them heavily.
I got lucky. Clearly, the support wasn't fantasy and many MPs wanted to hedge their bets and not go public with him. Had he fought on Monday he'd have rapidly crashed to near evens and I'd have been seriously underwater.
My choices would have been to cut my losses at several hundred quid down, or let it ride for the Rishi profit but at a real risk of losing well over a grand.
So, would have won. Chose not to run. Its always all about Boris, and the notion that being PM was too hard work doesn't wash. He would have skived as he did before.
Theory: they offered him something he couldn't refuse. Give it a few years and he will become Earl Johnson.
I think Lab most seats at 1.55 pretty nailed on for those with money to tie up.
Sure, I might lose some value by waiting but so much could happen during 2023 and 2024.
If we are going to start Off-topicing posts we’ll be here all day, cos on-topic posts are as rare as hens’ teeth.
https://twitter.com/JohnRSamuelsen/status/1589111493706276864
They still need a lot more in Clark given the Rural turnout that is happening but it is now not inconceivable that they will hit 2018 numbers by election day (which in my estimation is not enough given the change in turnout profile but it would be enough to make me not confident they would lose)
On your original point, I think you are right to an extent, but PB for me covers excellent betting advice (including but not limited to political) at the same time as covering other topics of interest, such as general politics (without the betting context), sport and some other random stuff (travel pics irritate some, but some enjoy them). To me PB serves the role of the bar in Cheers. You can always drop in, see the chat, join in if you want, or not. For sure a lot of the time stuff is nothing to do with political betting, but hey, if OGH didn’t want it to be this way he could step in. Plenty here for everyone.
Conservative MPs are preparing for the ritual humiliation of facing aggrieved constituents demanding to know why the government is making their lives even more difficult.
Neither tax rises nor spending cuts will be popular, but, asked to choose, most of the public say they’d prefer the former to the latter. The average Tory MP leans in the opposite direction. At best, Tory MPs will be sullen about voting to increase taxes even further. The prime minister and the chancellor will be highly fortunate if they don’t trigger one or more backbench revolts.
For the grisly state of the public finances, ministers have two excuses. One is the vast spending related to the pandemic. The problem with this alibi is that it is also Mr Sunak’s main claim to fame.
Ministers’ other culprit is the Kremlin. It is indisputable that both Putin’s war and the legacy of the pandemic are having a global impact, but no other advanced economy has done worse than Britain. We are the only G7 country to be poorer today than we were pre-pandemic.
The shadow cabinet agree that it is imperative that they don’t get dragged into a “so what would you do?” trap, which will impale them on the hook while letting the Tories off it. “This is not our black hole,” says one senior Labour frontbencher. “It’s the Tories’ black hole and they must be made to own it.”
A Labour government taking office anytime soon would be faced with a situation more like that in 1964 and 1974 when Conservative regimes bequeathed an unholy mess to Labour successors who were subsequently engulfed by economic crises themselves. So better, goes the thinking among some Labour people, to have a later election and let the Tories endure the hellscape that they created. This is more telling testimony to the depth of the shit Mr Hunt and Mr Sunak are in – and the country with them.
Shift from last night when No10 would not comment on that Q — with sources citing complaint process
PM backing man who, per Jake Berry, he knew faced bullying allegations
https://twitter.com/samcoatessky/status/1589175151375290371?s=46&t=4jFUdAx_iuB9D_gP7Hb8gQ https://twitter.com/gabriel_pogrund/status/1588945227511103489
Ishmael is the most acerbic. When it comes to debunking mean spirited right wing crackpots no one does it better. Just a pity his aim is sometimes so woeful and in Charles and Gin he's got it badly wrong
I try to ignore the likes of gin and mapatazi and I didn't start any of this. Taz is a social climber who fell for Charles's ludicrous shtick and conceived a deep and abiding man love for him, and completely misunderstood the misunderstanding that led to him leaving the site. Gin is an even weirder case, being entirely parasitic on taz. I myself would ban them, risking the loss of Tazs further anecdotes about eating tomatoes in restaurants, but I have better manners and more self respect than to indulge in butt hurt whining to the site owners about it.
Off to ride a horse. Have a nice day.
It would encourage people to overborrow and never to pay off mortgages.
Plus lead to even higher house prices.
Given the LibDem voter base the last would be seen as a benefit.
There are posters on here who offer far more intelligent insights @LostPassword @MarqueeMark @Gardenwalker @rcs1000 @DavidL @Sean_F @CarlottaVance @Gallowgate @Jonathan @MaxPB @NickPalmer to name but a few. @Alistair @kinabalu @Peter_the_Punter @Pulpstar are great at the betting too.
What's funny is that @StuartDickson genuinely seems to think he is one of them.
If you are suggesting that politicians should be telling those families who will lose their homes that it is their fault, that's a brave strategy as we slide towards an election in a few years.
AIUI, the idea behind the verification changes is two-fold. One is to generate income from people who spend their whole lives on Twitter, making the company less reliant on fickle advertisers; the other is to make it more difficult to run tens of thousands of bots, something which his investigation of the company flagged as a genuine problem.
The small detail of the country being made bankrupt as a result has so far been overlooked.
And the Conservatives have a lot of the blame for the current iteration of populism in the UK.