Sunak’s Departure Schedule: Factoring in the Leadership Fight – politicalbetting.com

System · January 22

Sunak’s Departure Schedule: Factoring in the Leadership Fight – politicalbetting.com

“When the curtain falls, it’s time to get off the stage.” So said John Major the morning after the 1997 election, announcing his resignation as Tory leader. But he actually remained leader for another 6 weeks. This was typical of Tory leaders, who have universally remained in post while their leader is chosen.

Read the full story here

Sunil_Prasannan · January 22

First unlike Rishi

rottenborough · January 22

Great header - thanks @Quincel

The_Woodpecker · January 22

rottenborough said:
Great header - thanks @Quincel

Agreed.

dixiedean · January 22

Super concise meaty and informative.
Thanks and nice one @Quincel .

edmundintokyo · January 22

Guest headering at its finest.

DavidL · January 22

Its a very good point. In fact it may even understate it. When the Tories get their collective hammering on 14th November they will have plenty of time to draw breath and, just maybe, have some discussion about what went wrong and what a centre right party actually wants these days. They will be well out of the limelight as Starmer appoints his cabinet and ministers and starts on his first round of disasters.

I think we will see a much longer contest than normal, probably closer to Hague's 97 days than what we have seen recently with the pressures of office. That will put Sunak's leadership well into 2025. Unless, of course, he just sods off back to California.

dixiedean · January 22

Sorry to go off topic after such a header.
But I can't get apprehensive about Storm Jocelyn.
It's a bit like facing a Gladiator named Tristram.

Quincel · January 22

DavidL said:
Its a very good point. In fact it may even understate it. When the Tories get their collective hammering on 14th November they will have plenty of time to draw breath and, just maybe, have some discussion about what went wrong and what a centre right party actually wants these days. They will be well out of the limelight as Starmer appoints his cabinet and ministers and starts on his first round of disasters.

I think we will see a much longer contest than normal, probably closer to Hague's 97 days than what we have seen recently with the pressures of office. That will put Sunak's leadership well into 2025. Unless, of course, he just sods off back to California.

One thing I didn't mention which does potentially impact this is that Sunak is highly unlikely to lose his seat, which would probably be in the final few dozen seats they would hold in a total meltdown. So he will probably have to stick around for a few weeks or months before triggering a by-election anyway, if he doesn't do as Major and Brown did by serving as MP until the next election.

partypoliticalorphan · January 22

dixiedean said:
Sorry to go off topic after such a header.
But I can't get apprehensive about Storm Jocelyn.
It's a bit like facing a Gladiator named Tristram.

Hey, my wife's called Jocelyn and I can tell you she packs a mean punch.

DavidL · January 22

Quincel said:

DavidL said:
Its a very good point. In fact it may even understate it. When the Tories get their collective hammering on 14th November they will have plenty of time to draw breath and, just maybe, have some discussion about what went wrong and what a centre right party actually wants these days. They will be well out of the limelight as Starmer appoints his cabinet and ministers and starts on his first round of disasters.

I think we will see a much longer contest than normal, probably closer to Hague's 97 days than what we have seen recently with the pressures of office. That will put Sunak's leadership well into 2025. Unless, of course, he just sods off back to California.
One thing I didn't mention which does potentially impact this is that Sunak is highly unlikely to lose his seat, which would probably be in the final few dozen seats they would hold in a total meltdown. So he will probably have to stick around for a few weeks or months before triggering a by-election anyway, if he doesn't do as Major and Brown did by serving as MP until the next election.

He really won't have any excuses but I really can't see him hanging around Westminster once he has got the boot as PM. He will want to move on soonest. I agree about him probably keeping his seat though.

Another thing that just might keep him hanging on, although it seems unlikely right now, is if Starmer end up with a minority government where a second election in early course seems possible. We saw something like that in 1974 with Heath until Maggie challenged him.

viewcode · January 22

Pip has returned to us! Good header, @Quincel .

DecrepiterJohnL · January 22

dixiedean said:
Sorry to go off topic after such a header.
But I can't get apprehensive about Storm Jocelyn.
It's a bit like facing a Gladiator named Tristram.

I spent far too long determining that Storm Isha is pronounced Esher.

DecrepiterJohnL · January 22

DavidL said:
Its a very good point. In fact it may even understate it. When the Tories get their collective hammering on 14th November they will have plenty of time to draw breath and, just maybe, have some discussion about what went wrong and what a centre right party actually wants these days. They will be well out of the limelight as Starmer appoints his cabinet and ministers and starts on his first round of disasters.

I think we will see a much longer contest than normal, probably closer to Hague's 97 days than what we have seen recently with the pressures of office. That will put Sunak's leadership well into 2025. Unless, of course, he just sods off back to California.

It was George Osborne who told us the election will be on 14th November, which is another reason to doubt it.

Cleitophon · January 22

1) we are in a recession
2) inflation has gone up
3) in April new brexit checks will come in boosting inflation and jeopardizing 46% of farmers accelerating the recession
4) 60.000 companies are in financial distress and many will cave accellerating a recession
5) key policy areas like child care and nhs waiting lists are failing
6) once spring comes boat will kick off big time
7) house prices are in free fall and due to inflation, interest rates will stay up
8) polls are widening, rather than narrowing
9) the many arms of the Parliamentary group are at war with themselves
10) Sunak's favourability is at Truss and Johnson level at their worst, while Starmers are not glowing but respectable

Here is my take away: things could very well suddenly unravel for the tories. MPs start taking jobs kicking off byelections, there may be defections left and right, there may be letters and leadership contests. It is not under any circumstances a given that Sunak can keep this show on the road till November. Events will take over. Slowly at first and then all of a sudden.

tpfkar · January 22

Another factor about going long:

One of the reasons for the long contest in 1997 was that the chair of the 1922 committee (Marcus Fox maybe? I am stretching at distant memories here) lost his seat.

So there was no-one to run the election. So the first thing they had to do was elect a new 1922 chair, in disarray after the heavy defeat.

With Sir Graham Brady already exiting stage left, we know that there will be a new 1922 chair. If he's not replaced before the election that will also add time to any leadership contest after the election - and add to the sense of chaos if it's a heavy defeat.

state_go_away · January 22

dixiedean said:
Sorry to go off topic after such a header.
But I can't get apprehensive about Storm Jocelyn.
It's a bit like facing a Gladiator named Tristram.

The Economist published a survey a few years ago showing that in the USA ,hurricanes with female names caused significantly more deaths than male named ones . Given that male and female names are used alternatively the only explanation offered was that people were less scared of female named ones and so took less precautions

williamglenn · January 22

state_go_away said:

dixiedean said:
Sorry to go off topic after such a header.
But I can't get apprehensive about Storm Jocelyn.
It's a bit like facing a Gladiator named Tristram.
The Economist published a survey a few years ago showing that in the USA ,hurricanes with female names caused significantly more deaths than male named ones . Given that male and female names are used alternatively the only explanation offered was that people were less scared of female named ones and so took less precautions

They should name them after famous dictators. You'd take Hurricane Hitler seriously.

AverageNinja · January 22

Leader satisfaction ratings
@IpsosUK

Dec 23. Sunak.
Sat 21%
Dissat 69%
Net: -48

Jul 22. Johnson.
Sat 24%
Dissat 69%
Net: -45

Oct 22 Truss
Sat 16%
Dissat 67%
Net: -51

Dec 19 Corbyn
Sat 24%
Dissat 68%
Net: -44

Sunak is now more unpopular than Corbyn!

BartholomewRoberts · January 22

FP(x3)T

DecrepiterJohnL said:

nico679 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

nico679 said:

rottenborough said:

HYUFD said:

rottenborough said:

Andy_JS said:

rottenborough said:
"to ensure that constitutional government can endure"

DeSantis.

Utterly bonkers. Black is white. 2+2=5.

America has gone mad. Sheer decadency.

Trump isn't a danger to democracy. Ridiculous to suggest he might be.
Oh well, we shall have to agree to disagree.

We shall soon know.

If they elect him they wont be able to get him out again imho.

if he was elected again, depends if the army support him or not, in Jan 2021 when he was still President they didn't support attempts to overturn the election result
He changes the constitution.

You need two thirds to approve a proposal to change the constitution in both the House and Senate and then that goes to the state legislatures who must approve that and you need three quarters to agree to it .

So it’s not going to happen thankfully !

It is little known but there are actually five ways to change the US constitution.

1: Two thirds of Congress and three quarters of state legislatures.
2: Two thirds of Congress and three quarters of states conventions.
3: Two thirds of state legislatures and three quarters of state legislatures.
4: Two thirds of state legislatures and three quarters of state conventions.
5: Five ninths of the US Supreme Court dictating that the US constitution is different to how it is written.

The first four are all impossible, but the last one has come rocketing up from nowhere to now be in prime position.
Not sure about 5 . The SCOTUS as far as I’ve read can’t amend the US constitution.
He is making a political point copied from the American crank right, that the Supreme Court can reinterpret the constitution and thus change its meaning.

@DecrepiterJohnL I think you've not been paying attention to American politics in the last few years (or any of my posts on American politics either) if you think that point has come from the American crank right.

Who is it that has 6/9 of the SCOTUS Justices right now? Not the "liberals" in America.

The US Constitution says in black and white that office holders who attempt insurrection against the USA are disbarred from serving as President. No ifs, buts, or equivocation.
Donald J Trump committed insurrection against the USA while holding its most senior office, the Presidency.

So the US Constitution says that Donald J Trump is disbarred from being President.

But if 5 of the 6 "conservative" Justices decide in a partisan line vote that no he's not, then bish bash bosh what is written in the Constitution is amended to whatever the Justices want it to say instead. De facto, if not de jure.

HYUFD · January 22

Given as is likely the Conservatives would be selecting a leader of the Opposition, rather than PM, for the first time since 2005 there is no need to rush. It took about six months for Cameron to replace Howard then

dixiedean · January 22

state_go_away said:

dixiedean said:
Sorry to go off topic after such a header.
But I can't get apprehensive about Storm Jocelyn.
It's a bit like facing a Gladiator named Tristram.
The Economist published a survey a few years ago showing that in the USA ,hurricanes with female names caused significantly more deaths than male named ones . Given that male and female names are used alternatively the only explanation offered was that people were less scared of female named ones and so took less precautions

Isn't Jocelyn a male and female name?
Like Evelyn Waugh marrying a woman named Evelyn.
Tracy was originally a male name (after Spencer Tracy). Wigan RL used to have a big, rough red haired second row named Tracy Grundy.

Anabobazina · January 22

AverageNinja said:
Leader satisfaction ratings
@IpsosUK

Dec 23. Sunak.
Sat 21%
Dissat 69%
Net: -48

Jul 22. Johnson.
Sat 24%
Dissat 69%
Net: -45

Oct 22 Truss
Sat 16%
Dissat 67%
Net: -51

Dec 19 Corbyn
Sat 24%
Dissat 68%
Net: -44

Sunak is now more unpopular than Corbyn!

T R U S S remains the gold standard.

Willing to risk unpopularity for her principles.

What a lady!

DecrepiterJohnL · January 22

BartholomewRoberts said:
FP(x3)T
DecrepiterJohnL said:

nico679 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

nico679 said:

rottenborough said:

HYUFD said:

rottenborough said:

Andy_JS said:

rottenborough said:
"to ensure that constitutional government can endure"

DeSantis.

Utterly bonkers. Black is white. 2+2=5.

America has gone mad. Sheer decadency.

Trump isn't a danger to democracy. Ridiculous to suggest he might be.
Oh well, we shall have to agree to disagree.

We shall soon know.

If they elect him they wont be able to get him out again imho.

if he was elected again, depends if the army support him or not, in Jan 2021 when he was still President they didn't support attempts to overturn the election result
He changes the constitution.

You need two thirds to approve a proposal to change the constitution in both the House and Senate and then that goes to the state legislatures who must approve that and you need three quarters to agree to it .

So it’s not going to happen thankfully !

It is little known but there are actually five ways to change the US constitution.

1: Two thirds of Congress and three quarters of state legislatures.
2: Two thirds of Congress and three quarters of states conventions.
3: Two thirds of state legislatures and three quarters of state legislatures.
4: Two thirds of state legislatures and three quarters of state conventions.
5: Five ninths of the US Supreme Court dictating that the US constitution is different to how it is written.

The first four are all impossible, but the last one has come rocketing up from nowhere to now be in prime position.
Not sure about 5 . The SCOTUS as far as I’ve read can’t amend the US constitution.
He is making a political point copied from the American crank right, that the Supreme Court can reinterpret the constitution and thus change its meaning.
@DecrepiterJohnL I think you've not been paying attention to American politics in the last few years (or any of my posts on American politics either) if you think that point has come from the American crank right.

Who is it that has 6/9 of the SCOTUS Justices right now? Not the "liberals" in America.

The US Constitution says in black and white that office holders who attempt insurrection against the USA are disbarred from serving as President. No ifs, buts, or equivocation.
Donald J Trump committed insurrection against the USA while holding its most senior office, the Presidency.

So the US Constitution says that Donald J Trump is disbarred from being President.

But if 5 of the 6 "conservative" Justices decide in a partisan line vote that no he's not, then bish bash bosh what is written in the Constitution is amended to whatever the Justices want it to say instead. De facto, if not de jure.

Yes, I think I was broadly agreeing with the part about interpretation rather than literal rewriting but it is a right wing trope to complain about it.

BartholomewRoberts · January 22

DecrepiterJohnL said:

BartholomewRoberts said:
FP(x3)T
DecrepiterJohnL said:

nico679 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

nico679 said:

rottenborough said:

HYUFD said:

rottenborough said:

Andy_JS said:

rottenborough said:
"to ensure that constitutional government can endure"

DeSantis.

Utterly bonkers. Black is white. 2+2=5.

America has gone mad. Sheer decadency.

Trump isn't a danger to democracy. Ridiculous to suggest he might be.
Oh well, we shall have to agree to disagree.

We shall soon know.

If they elect him they wont be able to get him out again imho.

if he was elected again, depends if the army support him or not, in Jan 2021 when he was still President they didn't support attempts to overturn the election result
He changes the constitution.

You need two thirds to approve a proposal to change the constitution in both the House and Senate and then that goes to the state legislatures who must approve that and you need three quarters to agree to it .

So it’s not going to happen thankfully !

It is little known but there are actually five ways to change the US constitution.

1: Two thirds of Congress and three quarters of state legislatures.
2: Two thirds of Congress and three quarters of states conventions.
3: Two thirds of state legislatures and three quarters of state legislatures.
4: Two thirds of state legislatures and three quarters of state conventions.
5: Five ninths of the US Supreme Court dictating that the US constitution is different to how it is written.

The first four are all impossible, but the last one has come rocketing up from nowhere to now be in prime position.
Not sure about 5 . The SCOTUS as far as I’ve read can’t amend the US constitution.
He is making a political point copied from the American crank right, that the Supreme Court can reinterpret the constitution and thus change its meaning.
@DecrepiterJohnL I think you've not been paying attention to American politics in the last few years (or any of my posts on American politics either) if you think that point has come from the American crank right.

Who is it that has 6/9 of the SCOTUS Justices right now? Not the "liberals" in America.

The US Constitution says in black and white that office holders who attempt insurrection against the USA are disbarred from serving as President. No ifs, buts, or equivocation.
Donald J Trump committed insurrection against the USA while holding its most senior office, the Presidency.

So the US Constitution says that Donald J Trump is disbarred from being President.

But if 5 of the 6 "conservative" Justices decide in a partisan line vote that no he's not, then bish bash bosh what is written in the Constitution is amended to whatever the Justices want it to say instead. De facto, if not de jure.
Yes, I think I was broadly agreeing with the part about interpretation rather than literal rewriting but it is a right wing trope to complain about it.

Is it?

In 2024?

When the SCOTUS has a clear 6:3 partisan split and people like Justice Thomas who are unabashed today about doing whatever the hell they want with no consequences or recourse to the Constitution itself?

Maybe it was 20 years ago when SCOTUS was more restrained, but today its not. Its not a trope to cry wolf if there's a bloody wolf visible.

HYUFD · January 22

BartholomewRoberts said:
FP(x3)T
DecrepiterJohnL said:

nico679 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

nico679 said:

rottenborough said:

HYUFD said:

rottenborough said:

Andy_JS said:

rottenborough said:
"to ensure that constitutional government can endure"

DeSantis.

Utterly bonkers. Black is white. 2+2=5.

America has gone mad. Sheer decadency.

Trump isn't a danger to democracy. Ridiculous to suggest he might be.
Oh well, we shall have to agree to disagree.

We shall soon know.

If they elect him they wont be able to get him out again imho.

if he was elected again, depends if the army support him or not, in Jan 2021 when he was still President they didn't support attempts to overturn the election result
He changes the constitution.

You need two thirds to approve a proposal to change the constitution in both the House and Senate and then that goes to the state legislatures who must approve that and you need three quarters to agree to it .

So it’s not going to happen thankfully !

It is little known but there are actually five ways to change the US constitution.

1: Two thirds of Congress and three quarters of state legislatures.
2: Two thirds of Congress and three quarters of states conventions.
3: Two thirds of state legislatures and three quarters of state legislatures.
4: Two thirds of state legislatures and three quarters of state conventions.
5: Five ninths of the US Supreme Court dictating that the US constitution is different to how it is written.

The first four are all impossible, but the last one has come rocketing up from nowhere to now be in prime position.
Not sure about 5 . The SCOTUS as far as I’ve read can’t amend the US constitution.
He is making a political point copied from the American crank right, that the Supreme Court can reinterpret the constitution and thus change its meaning.
@DecrepiterJohnL I think you've not been paying attention to American politics in the last few years (or any of my posts on American politics either) if you think that point has come from the American crank right.

Who is it that has 6/9 of the SCOTUS Justices right now? Not the "liberals" in America.

The US Constitution says in black and white that office holders who attempt insurrection against the USA are disbarred from serving as President. No ifs, buts, or equivocation.
Donald J Trump committed insurrection against the USA while holding its most senior office, the Presidency.

So the US Constitution says that Donald J Trump is disbarred from being President.

But if 5 of the 6 "conservative" Justices decide in a partisan line vote that no he's not, then bish bash bosh what is written in the Constitution is amended to whatever the Justices want it to say instead. De facto, if not de jure.

Only 4 of the Justices are actually in the confirmed pro Trump camp, Barrett, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch who Trump appointed to the Court and ultra conservative Thomas.

Kagan and Sotomayer who Obama appointed and Jackson who Biden appointed are likely to vote against Trump.

Roberts and Ailto who George W Bush appointed could go either way, they are conservative but not fanatically so, have no special loyalty to Trump and will put the constitution first

Quincel · January 22

HYUFD said:
Given as is likely the Conservatives would be selecting a leader of the Opposition, rather than PM, for the first time since 2005 there is no need to rush. It took about six months for Cameron to replace Howard then

I probably should have discussed the chances of a gap between the election and the leadership election, but didn't to keep the article brief. For the record I didn't include because I decided that there isn't an obvious issue with the current system likely to lead to the party agreeing to try and change the rules. So I suspect the leadership election will begin within days of the general election, perhaps unless that is held in December and the party just decides to wait until Christmas/NY to pass.

AverageNinja · January 22

Shocking that Daily Mail fan @Andy_JS doesn't think a man who oversaw a plot on the Capitol doesn't think that Trump is a threat to democracy. If Hitler was coming to power he'd tell us how he's really a nice chap.

HYUFD · January 22

AverageNinja said:
Leader satisfaction ratings
@IpsosUK

Dec 23. Sunak.
Sat 21%
Dissat 69%
Net: -48

Jul 22. Johnson.
Sat 24%
Dissat 69%
Net: -45

Oct 22 Truss
Sat 16%
Dissat 67%
Net: -51

Dec 19 Corbyn
Sat 24%
Dissat 68%
Net: -44

Sunak is now more unpopular than Corbyn!

Truss was less unpopular than Corbyn though, even if she had the worst satisified rating

rottenborough · January 22

williamglenn said:

state_go_away said:

dixiedean said:
Sorry to go off topic after such a header.
But I can't get apprehensive about Storm Jocelyn.
It's a bit like facing a Gladiator named Tristram.
The Economist published a survey a few years ago showing that in the USA ,hurricanes with female names caused significantly more deaths than male named ones . Given that male and female names are used alternatively the only explanation offered was that people were less scared of female named ones and so took less precautions
They should name them after famous dictators. You'd take Hurricane Hitler seriously.

Well, Hurricane Trump is only months away.

Benpointer · January 22

Cleitophon said:
1) we are in a recession
2) inflation has gone up
3) in April new brexit checks will come in boosting inflation and jeopardizing 46% of farmers accelerating the recession
4) 60.000 companies are in financial distress and many will cave accellerating a recession
5) key policy areas like child care and nhs waiting lists are failing
6) once spring comes boat will kick off big time
7) house prices are in free fall and due to inflation, interest rates will stay up
8) polls are widening, rather than narrowing
9) the many arms of the Parliamentary group are at war with themselves
10) Sunak's favourability is at Truss and Johnson level at their worst, while Starmers are not glowing but respectable

Here is my take away: things could very well suddenly unravel for the tories. MPs start taking jobs kicking off byelections, there may be defections left and right, there may be letters and leadership contests. It is not under any circumstances a given that Sunak can keep this show on the road till November. Events will take over. Slowly at first and then all of a sudden.

Sorry Cleitophon, that's rubbish. House prices are not in freefall:

https://www.halifax.co.uk/media-centre/house-price-index.html

The other 9 points you make are all valid though.

state_go_away · January 22

I know its OT but a great and wonderful sport fact is this question - In what sport did the semi finalist in the 1938 world championships play the 2022 world champion in a professional match in 1992?

answer snooker - Fred Davis played 17 year old Ronnie O Sullivan in the 1992 grand prix and Ronnie won 5-1

MoonRabbit · January 22

Great Header. Thank you. 🙏

I’m adding this topic to the Election on May 2nd argument. Not just Sunak, but a whole load of them wont want to hanging around into 2025 when they have proper jobs to go to and proper money to make.

rottenborough · January 22

Many more councils to follow??

The level of exceptional financial support [bankrupt] Nottingham City Council has requested from the Government has been revealed to total £65m.

Any support would likely be in the form of loans and special permission to raise money from council assets and spend it on day-to-day operational costs, rather than a grant.

https://nottstv.com/nottingham-city-council-requests-65m-government-help-but-it-could-mean-15m-in-cuts/

Benpointer · January 22

tpfkar said:
Another factor about going long:

One of the reasons for the long contest in 1997 was that the chair of the 1922 committee (Marcus Fox maybe? I am stretching at distant memories here) lost his seat.

So there was no-one to run the election. So the first thing they had to do was elect a new 1922 chair, in disarray after the heavy defeat.

With Sir Graham Brady already exiting stage left, we know that there will be a new 1922 chair. If he's not replaced before the election that will also add time to any leadership contest after the election - and add to the sense of chaos if it's a heavy defeat.

Will there be enough Tory MPs left to fill the shadow cabinet and the 1992 Committee?

BartholomewRoberts · January 22

state_go_away said:
I know its OT but a great and wonderful sport fact is this question - In what sport did the semi finalist in the 1938 world championships play the 2022 world champion in a professional match in 1992?

answer snooker - Fred Davis played 17 year old Ronnie O Sullivan in the 1992 grand prix and Ronnie won 5-1

Until you edited it in, I was going to guess Snooker, not because I knew the answer but due to the longevity of players in Snooker.

That's a great fact though. Like the US Civil War widow who was alive in the 21st century.

Cleitophon · January 22

Benpointer said:

Cleitophon said:
1) we are in a recession
2) inflation has gone up
3) in April new brexit checks will come in boosting inflation and jeopardizing 46% of farmers accelerating the recession
4) 60.000 companies are in financial distress and many will cave accellerating a recession
5) key policy areas like child care and nhs waiting lists are failing
6) once spring comes boat will kick off big time
7) house prices are in free fall and due to inflation, interest rates will stay up
8) polls are widening, rather than narrowing
9) the many arms of the Parliamentary group are at war with themselves
10) Sunak's favourability is at Truss and Johnson level at their worst, while Starmers are not glowing but respectable

Here is my take away: things could very well suddenly unravel for the tories. MPs start taking jobs kicking off byelections, there may be defections left and right, there may be letters and leadership contests. It is not under any circumstances a given that Sunak can keep this show on the road till November. Events will take over. Slowly at first and then all of a sudden.
Sorry Cleitophon, that's rubbish. House prices are not in freefall:

https://www.halifax.co.uk/media-centre/house-price-index.html

The other 9 points you make are all valid though.

Well, that is what I read: coverage of ONS numbers across various media outlets

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/bulletins/housepriceindex/november2023

https://www.forbes.com/uk/advisor/personal-finance/2024/01/17/house-prices-updates/#:~:text=Average UK house price £,since 2011, writes Jo Thornhill.

https://www.ft.com/content/d4e9537f-a486-4b8a-bead-e51a4bc68921

BartholomewRoberts · January 22

Great thread header @Quincel

I think the idea of Sunak being for more than 24 hours after the General Election is about as likely as a news broadcast that an alien civilisation has taken control of Planet Earth and they are appointing @Leon as their Governor General to rule on their behalf.

But you're quite right that him being Tory leader in 2025 is far, far more likely. Although I wouldn't rule out Sunak being the first ex-Leader to throw in the towel immediately in a strop and get the first flight out to California.

Verulamius · January 22

HYUFD said:

AverageNinja said:
Leader satisfaction ratings
@IpsosUK

Dec 23. Sunak.
Sat 21%
Dissat 69%
Net: -48

Jul 22. Johnson.
Sat 24%
Dissat 69%
Net: -45

Oct 22 Truss
Sat 16%
Dissat 67%
Net: -51

Dec 19 Corbyn
Sat 24%
Dissat 68%
Net: -44

Sunak is now more unpopular than Corbyn!
Truss was less unpopular than Corbyn though, even if she had the worst satisified rating

I believe that Truss is due to launch next month a new conservative pressure group called Popular Conservatism.

BartholomewRoberts · January 22

Cleitophon said:

Benpointer said:

Cleitophon said:
1) we are in a recession
2) inflation has gone up
3) in April new brexit checks will come in boosting inflation and jeopardizing 46% of farmers accelerating the recession
4) 60.000 companies are in financial distress and many will cave accellerating a recession
5) key policy areas like child care and nhs waiting lists are failing
6) once spring comes boat will kick off big time
7) house prices are in free fall and due to inflation, interest rates will stay up
8) polls are widening, rather than narrowing
9) the many arms of the Parliamentary group are at war with themselves
10) Sunak's favourability is at Truss and Johnson level at their worst, while Starmers are not glowing but respectable

Here is my take away: things could very well suddenly unravel for the tories. MPs start taking jobs kicking off byelections, there may be defections left and right, there may be letters and leadership contests. It is not under any circumstances a given that Sunak can keep this show on the road till November. Events will take over. Slowly at first and then all of a sudden.
Sorry Cleitophon, that's rubbish. House prices are not in freefall:

https://www.halifax.co.uk/media-centre/house-price-index.html

The other 9 points you make are all valid though.

Well, that is what I read: coverage of ONS numbers across various media outlets

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/bulletins/housepriceindex/november2023

https://www.forbes.com/uk/advisor/personal-finance/2024/01/17/house-prices-updates/#:~:text=Average UK house price £,since 2011, writes Jo Thornhill.

https://www.ft.com/content/d4e9537f-a486-4b8a-bead-e51a4bc68921

None of those links say "freefall".

A minor 2.1% correction in house prices after double-digit percentage rises in house prices is not even a proper correction, let alone freefall.

Foxy · January 22

Verulamius said:

HYUFD said:

AverageNinja said:
Leader satisfaction ratings
@IpsosUK

Dec 23. Sunak.
Sat 21%
Dissat 69%
Net: -48

Jul 22. Johnson.
Sat 24%
Dissat 69%
Net: -45

Oct 22 Truss
Sat 16%
Dissat 67%
Net: -51

Dec 19 Corbyn
Sat 24%
Dissat 68%
Net: -44

Sunak is now more unpopular than Corbyn!
Truss was less unpopular than Corbyn though, even if she had the worst satisified rating
I believe that Truss is due to launch next month a new conservative pressure group called Popular Conservatism.

Popular Conservatism would certainly be very different to what she did before!

Benpointer · January 22

FPT:

algarkirk said:

Benpointer said:

turbotubbs said:

isam said:
Re the Labour Majority price, 1.27 means any other outcome is about 7/2. If you backed a 7/2f in an eight runner horse race, you’d be quietly confident of it winning, maybe you’d even (wrongly) expect it to win. But this 7/2 shot (Labour not getting an overall majority) seems like it should be a million to one

And yet many on PB do not expect a labour majority (or so they say).
70 out of 81 PB Competition entries predicted a Labour majority, 10 prediction for NOM, and 1 for a Tory majority.
The entire activity of betting on real events, as opposed to mechanical/electronic contingencies, is predicated upon the possibility that you can predict outcomes which do not follow the formbook even in the simplest events like a 'two horse race'. All time proves this to be sometimes true.

So, at this moment I believe in and accept the objective probability of a Labour majority but actually predict that there will be No Overall Majority. people do this all the time, and essentially they do it every time they back anyone but the favourite. Betting can't exist without this interesting phenomenon.

But... the prediction competition wasn't a bet; there was no advantage predicting an outsider.

Benpointer · January 22

BartholomewRoberts said:

state_go_away said:
I know its OT but a great and wonderful sport fact is this question - In what sport did the semi finalist in the 1938 world championships play the 2022 world champion in a professional match in 1992?

answer snooker - Fred Davis played 17 year old Ronnie O Sullivan in the 1992 grand prix and Ronnie won 5-1
Until you edited it in, I was going to guess Snooker, not because I knew the answer but due to the longevity of players in Snooker.

That's a great fact though. Like the US Civil War widow who was alive in the 21st century.

How does that work?

BartholomewRoberts · January 22

Benpointer said:
FPT:
algarkirk said:

Benpointer said:

turbotubbs said:

isam said:
Re the Labour Majority price, 1.27 means any other outcome is about 7/2. If you backed a 7/2f in an eight runner horse race, you’d be quietly confident of it winning, maybe you’d even (wrongly) expect it to win. But this 7/2 shot (Labour not getting an overall majority) seems like it should be a million to one

And yet many on PB do not expect a labour majority (or so they say).
70 out of 81 PB Competition entries predicted a Labour majority, 10 prediction for NOM, and 1 for a Tory majority.
The entire activity of betting on real events, as opposed to mechanical/electronic contingencies, is predicated upon the possibility that you can predict outcomes which do not follow the formbook even in the simplest events like a 'two horse race'. All time proves this to be sometimes true.

So, at this moment I believe in and accept the objective probability of a Labour majority but actually predict that there will be No Overall Majority. people do this all the time, and essentially they do it every time they back anyone but the favourite. Betting can't exist without this interesting phenomenon.
But... the prediction competition wasn't a bet; there was no advantage predicting an outsider.

Indeed. I will sometimes bet out outsiders even if I don't think they'll win, if I simply think there's "value" in doing so.

Indeed I once bet on Sunak to be the next PM at 250/1 (not sure if that bets ever been mentioned before

) but while the bet lost thanks to the Truss Interregnum which cost me thousands of pounds, I did extra many hundreds of pounds from having taken some of the profit already by partially laying it off, even if I unfortunately left most of it to ride until the end.

Andy_JS · January 22

Benpointer said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

state_go_away said:
I know its OT but a great and wonderful sport fact is this question - In what sport did the semi finalist in the 1938 world championships play the 2022 world champion in a professional match in 1992?

answer snooker - Fred Davis played 17 year old Ronnie O Sullivan in the 1992 grand prix and Ronnie won 5-1
Until you edited it in, I was going to guess Snooker, not because I knew the answer but due to the longevity of players in Snooker.

That's a great fact though. Like the US Civil War widow who was alive in the 21st century.
How does that work?

"People Magazine recently reported the last known surviving Civil War widow veteran died December 16, 2020 at 101 in Marshfield, Missouri. Helen Viola Jackson, at age 17, married 93-year-old widower James Bolin. He fought for the Union Army in Missouri during the Civil War which ended in 1865."

https://veteranshomecare.com/civil-war-widow-dies-2020

Benpointer · January 22

rottenborough said:

williamglenn said:

state_go_away said:

dixiedean said:
Sorry to go off topic after such a header.
But I can't get apprehensive about Storm Jocelyn.
It's a bit like facing a Gladiator named Tristram.
The Economist published a survey a few years ago showing that in the USA ,hurricanes with female names caused significantly more deaths than male named ones . Given that male and female names are used alternatively the only explanation offered was that people were less scared of female named ones and so took less precautions
They should name them after famous dictators. You'd take Hurricane Hitler seriously.
Well, Hurricane Trump is only months away.

Deep Depression Trump surely?

Foxy · January 22

DavidL said:
Its a very good point. In fact it may even understate it. When the Tories get their collective hammering on 14th November they will have plenty of time to draw breath and, just maybe, have some discussion about what went wrong and what a centre right party actually wants these days. They will be well out of the limelight as Starmer appoints his cabinet and ministers and starts on his first round of disasters.

I think we will see a much longer contest than normal, probably closer to Hague's 97 days than what we have seen recently with the pressures of office. That will put Sunak's leadership well into 2025. Unless, of course, he just sods off back to California.

One other potential fly in the ointment for this bet is if Rishi loses his own seat. As the leader has to be an MP, there would be a need for him to be replaced next day.

Overall though 2025 is more likely. It is a mistake to replace a leader, thereby setting a new course before digesting what caused the failure first.

No_Offence_Alan · January 22

dixiedean said:

state_go_away said:

dixiedean said:
Sorry to go off topic after such a header.
But I can't get apprehensive about Storm Jocelyn.
It's a bit like facing a Gladiator named Tristram.
The Economist published a survey a few years ago showing that in the USA ,hurricanes with female names caused significantly more deaths than male named ones . Given that male and female names are used alternatively the only explanation offered was that people were less scared of female named ones and so took less precautions
Isn't Jocelyn a male and female name?
Like Evelyn Waugh marrying a woman named Evelyn.
Tracy was originally a male name (after Spencer Tracy). Wigan RL used to have a big, rough red haired second row named Tracy Grundy.

Not to mention Shirley Crabtree.

Benpointer · January 22

Andy_JS said:

Benpointer said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

state_go_away said:
I know its OT but a great and wonderful sport fact is this question - In what sport did the semi finalist in the 1938 world championships play the 2022 world champion in a professional match in 1992?

answer snooker - Fred Davis played 17 year old Ronnie O Sullivan in the 1992 grand prix and Ronnie won 5-1
Until you edited it in, I was going to guess Snooker, not because I knew the answer but due to the longevity of players in Snooker.

That's a great fact though. Like the US Civil War widow who was alive in the 21st century.
How does that work?
"People Magazine recently reported the last known surviving Civil War widow veteran died December 16, 2020 at 101 in Marshfield, Missouri. Helen Viola Jackson, at age 17, married 93-year-old widower James Bolin. He fought for the Union Army in Missouri during the Civil War which ended in 1865."

https://veteranshomecare.com/civil-war-widow-dies-2020

A 17 year old married a 93 year old?! Jeez.

Was James Bolin a multi-millionaire by any chance?

Andy_JS · January 22

AverageNinja said:
Shocking that Daily Mail fan @Andy_JS doesn't think a man who oversaw a plot on the Capitol doesn't think that Trump is a threat to democracy. If Hitler was coming to power he'd tell us how he's really a nice chap.

I'm not a Daily Mail man, I nearly always vote for centre-left parties. I'm simply saying that I don't think Trump is going to end democracy if he wins this year.

Foxy · January 22

Andy_JS said:

Benpointer said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

state_go_away said:
I know its OT but a great and wonderful sport fact is this question - In what sport did the semi finalist in the 1938 world championships play the 2022 world champion in a professional match in 1992?

answer snooker - Fred Davis played 17 year old Ronnie O Sullivan in the 1992 grand prix and Ronnie won 5-1
Until you edited it in, I was going to guess Snooker, not because I knew the answer but due to the longevity of players in Snooker.

That's a great fact though. Like the US Civil War widow who was alive in the 21st century.
How does that work?
"People Magazine recently reported the last known surviving Civil War widow veteran died December 16, 2020 at 101 in Marshfield, Missouri. Helen Viola Jackson, at age 17, married 93-year-old widower James Bolin. He fought for the Union Army in Missouri during the Civil War which ended in 1865."

https://veteranshomecare.com/civil-war-widow-dies-2020

That pension paid out nicely!

BartholomewRoberts · January 22

.

Benpointer said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

state_go_away said:
I know its OT but a great and wonderful sport fact is this question - In what sport did the semi finalist in the 1938 world championships play the 2022 world champion in a professional match in 1992?

answer snooker - Fred Davis played 17 year old Ronnie O Sullivan in the 1992 grand prix and Ronnie won 5-1
Until you edited it in, I was going to guess Snooker, not because I knew the answer but due to the longevity of players in Snooker.

That's a great fact though. Like the US Civil War widow who was alive in the 21st century.
How does that work?

She died in 2020!

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/last-surviving-widow-civil-war-veteran-dies-101-180976702/

Foxy · January 22

No_Offence_Alan said:

dixiedean said:

state_go_away said:

dixiedean said:
Sorry to go off topic after such a header.
But I can't get apprehensive about Storm Jocelyn.
It's a bit like facing a Gladiator named Tristram.
The Economist published a survey a few years ago showing that in the USA ,hurricanes with female names caused significantly more deaths than male named ones . Given that male and female names are used alternatively the only explanation offered was that people were less scared of female named ones and so took less precautions
Isn't Jocelyn a male and female name?
Like Evelyn Waugh marrying a woman named Evelyn.
Tracy was originally a male name (after Spencer Tracy). Wigan RL used to have a big, rough red haired second row named Tracy Grundy.
Not to mention Shirley Crabtree.

John Wayne was actually Marion Morrison. You can see why he used a stage name.

Cleitophon · January 22

BartholomewRoberts said:

Cleitophon said:

Benpointer said:

Cleitophon said:
1) we are in a recession
2) inflation has gone up
3) in April new brexit checks will come in boosting inflation and jeopardizing 46% of farmers accelerating the recession
4) 60.000 companies are in financial distress and many will cave accellerating a recession
5) key policy areas like child care and nhs waiting lists are failing
6) once spring comes boat will kick off big time
7) house prices are in free fall and due to inflation, interest rates will stay up
8) polls are widening, rather than narrowing
9) the many arms of the Parliamentary group are at war with themselves
10) Sunak's favourability is at Truss and Johnson level at their worst, while Starmers are not glowing but respectable

Here is my take away: things could very well suddenly unravel for the tories. MPs start taking jobs kicking off byelections, there may be defections left and right, there may be letters and leadership contests. It is not under any circumstances a given that Sunak can keep this show on the road till November. Events will take over. Slowly at first and then all of a sudden.
Sorry Cleitophon, that's rubbish. House prices are not in freefall:

https://www.halifax.co.uk/media-centre/house-price-index.html

The other 9 points you make are all valid though.

Well, that is what I read: coverage of ONS numbers across various media outlets

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/bulletins/housepriceindex/november2023

https://www.forbes.com/uk/advisor/personal-finance/2024/01/17/house-prices-updates/#:~:text=Average UK house price £,since 2011, writes Jo Thornhill.

https://www.ft.com/content/d4e9537f-a486-4b8a-bead-e51a4bc68921
None of those links say "freefall".

A minor 2.1% correction in house prices after double-digit percentage rises in house prices is not even a proper correction, let alone freefall.

Try inflation adjusting those numbers my friend.

BartholomewRoberts · January 22

Foxy said:

Andy_JS said:

Benpointer said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

state_go_away said:
I know its OT but a great and wonderful sport fact is this question - In what sport did the semi finalist in the 1938 world championships play the 2022 world champion in a professional match in 1992?

answer snooker - Fred Davis played 17 year old Ronnie O Sullivan in the 1992 grand prix and Ronnie won 5-1
Until you edited it in, I was going to guess Snooker, not because I knew the answer but due to the longevity of players in Snooker.

That's a great fact though. Like the US Civil War widow who was alive in the 21st century.
How does that work?
"People Magazine recently reported the last known surviving Civil War widow veteran died December 16, 2020 at 101 in Marshfield, Missouri. Helen Viola Jackson, at age 17, married 93-year-old widower James Bolin. He fought for the Union Army in Missouri during the Civil War which ended in 1865."

https://veteranshomecare.com/civil-war-widow-dies-2020
That pension paid out nicely!

Despite being the reason she got married, she was too embarrassed to claim it so no it didn't.

kinabalu · January 22

williamglenn said:

state_go_away said:

dixiedean said:
Sorry to go off topic after such a header.
But I can't get apprehensive about Storm Jocelyn.
It's a bit like facing a Gladiator named Tristram.
The Economist published a survey a few years ago showing that in the USA ,hurricanes with female names caused significantly more deaths than male named ones . Given that male and female names are used alternatively the only explanation offered was that people were less scared of female named ones and so took less precautions
They should name them after famous dictators. You'd take Hurricane Hitler seriously.

I wouldn't run away from that one. I'd stay in my house and tough it out. I'd fight it in the kitchen, in the lounge, in the driveway, and in the garden. I'd never surrender.

(agree with Qs excellent header, 25 exit is value at evens or above)

BartholomewRoberts · January 22

Cleitophon said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Cleitophon said:

Benpointer said:

Cleitophon said:
1) we are in a recession
2) inflation has gone up
3) in April new brexit checks will come in boosting inflation and jeopardizing 46% of farmers accelerating the recession
4) 60.000 companies are in financial distress and many will cave accellerating a recession
5) key policy areas like child care and nhs waiting lists are failing
6) once spring comes boat will kick off big time
7) house prices are in free fall and due to inflation, interest rates will stay up
8) polls are widening, rather than narrowing
9) the many arms of the Parliamentary group are at war with themselves
10) Sunak's favourability is at Truss and Johnson level at their worst, while Starmers are not glowing but respectable

Here is my take away: things could very well suddenly unravel for the tories. MPs start taking jobs kicking off byelections, there may be defections left and right, there may be letters and leadership contests. It is not under any circumstances a given that Sunak can keep this show on the road till November. Events will take over. Slowly at first and then all of a sudden.
Sorry Cleitophon, that's rubbish. House prices are not in freefall:

https://www.halifax.co.uk/media-centre/house-price-index.html

The other 9 points you make are all valid though.

Well, that is what I read: coverage of ONS numbers across various media outlets

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/bulletins/housepriceindex/november2023

https://www.forbes.com/uk/advisor/personal-finance/2024/01/17/house-prices-updates/#:~:text=Average UK house price £,since 2011, writes Jo Thornhill.

https://www.ft.com/content/d4e9537f-a486-4b8a-bead-e51a4bc68921
None of those links say "freefall".

A minor 2.1% correction in house prices after double-digit percentage rises in house prices is not even a proper correction, let alone freefall.
Try inflation adjusting those numbers my friend.

Yes and its still not freefall.

Over any reasonable view of time, house prices are massively, massively overvalued relative to wages. House prices are higher today than they were at the start of 2020, let alone 2010 or 2000.

But not on a supply and demand level, because our supply has been artificially capped relative to our rising population demands.

dixiedean · January 22

No_Offence_Alan said:

dixiedean said:

state_go_away said:

dixiedean said:
Sorry to go off topic after such a header.
But I can't get apprehensive about Storm Jocelyn.
It's a bit like facing a Gladiator named Tristram.
The Economist published a survey a few years ago showing that in the USA ,hurricanes with female names caused significantly more deaths than male named ones . Given that male and female names are used alternatively the only explanation offered was that people were less scared of female named ones and so took less precautions
Isn't Jocelyn a male and female name?
Like Evelyn Waugh marrying a woman named Evelyn.
Tracy was originally a male name (after Spencer Tracy). Wigan RL used to have a big, rough red haired second row named Tracy Grundy.
Not to mention Shirley Crabtree.

Who was also a professional RL player. His nephew Eorl Crabtree played for Huddersfield and England.

dixiedean · January 22

Verulamius said:

HYUFD said:

AverageNinja said:
Leader satisfaction ratings
@IpsosUK

Dec 23. Sunak.
Sat 21%
Dissat 69%
Net: -48

Jul 22. Johnson.
Sat 24%
Dissat 69%
Net: -45

Oct 22 Truss
Sat 16%
Dissat 67%
Net: -51

Dec 19 Corbyn
Sat 24%
Dissat 68%
Net: -44

Sunak is now more unpopular than Corbyn!
Truss was less unpopular than Corbyn though, even if she had the worst satisified rating
I believe that Truss is due to launch next month a new conservative pressure group called Popular Conservatism.

Party Oxymoronic. Pox for short.

nico679 · January 22

Wow the Daily Hate has a devastating anti Starmer headline for tomorrow’s edition . Some drivel about him being on the side of woke !

As front pages go it surely must be one of the lamest.

ohnotnow · January 22

Foxy said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

dixiedean said:

state_go_away said:

dixiedean said:
Sorry to go off topic after such a header.
But I can't get apprehensive about Storm Jocelyn.
It's a bit like facing a Gladiator named Tristram.
The Economist published a survey a few years ago showing that in the USA ,hurricanes with female names caused significantly more deaths than male named ones . Given that male and female names are used alternatively the only explanation offered was that people were less scared of female named ones and so took less precautions
Isn't Jocelyn a male and female name?
Like Evelyn Waugh marrying a woman named Evelyn.
Tracy was originally a male name (after Spencer Tracy). Wigan RL used to have a big, rough red haired second row named Tracy Grundy.
Not to mention Shirley Crabtree.
John Wayne was actually Marion Morrison. You can see why he used a stage name.

Given the decline in the quality from Morrisons of late, I can entirely understand. Brand management at it's finest.

ohnotnow · January 22

Andy_JS said:

Benpointer said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

state_go_away said:
I know its OT but a great and wonderful sport fact is this question - In what sport did the semi finalist in the 1938 world championships play the 2022 world champion in a professional match in 1992?

answer snooker - Fred Davis played 17 year old Ronnie O Sullivan in the 1992 grand prix and Ronnie won 5-1
Until you edited it in, I was going to guess Snooker, not because I knew the answer but due to the longevity of players in Snooker.

That's a great fact though. Like the US Civil War widow who was alive in the 21st century.
How does that work?
"People Magazine recently reported the last known surviving Civil War widow veteran died December 16, 2020 at 101 in Marshfield, Missouri. Helen Viola Jackson, at age 17, married 93-year-old widower James Bolin. He fought for the Union Army in Missouri during the Civil War which ended in 1865."

https://veteranshomecare.com/civil-war-widow-dies-2020

His did a great turn in The Beiderbecke Affair in all fairness. As national treasures go - I'd vote him a pension.

AbandonedHope · January 22

It won’t be 14th November @Quincel. The King is touring the Pacific in October; an election would require that he abandon (or curtail) that tour just to grant a dissolution.

Moreover, the G20 meet in Brazil on 18th November. If the election is on the 14th, the new (or returning) PM would expect to visit the Palace on the morning of the 15th, appoint some of the Cabinet/Government on the 16th and fly to South America on the 17th. That’s just… folly (especially if Sunak managed to eke out a Hung Parliament and needed to negotiate with others).

When you look at the calendar and see what’s planned throughout the year (and what’s necessary to minimise inconvenience and cost), a May election is the sensible and practical solution.

So it will be December

Andy_JS · January 22

nico679 said:
Wow the Daily Hate has a devastating anti Starmer headline for tomorrow’s edition . Some drivel about him being on the side of woke !

As front pages go it surely must be one of the lamest.

Someone once told me that most of the people who work on the Daily Mail don't actually believe in any of it and don't hold those types of political opinions.

Eabhal · January 22

Interesting article on the quashing of Post Office convictions in Scotland:

https://www.scottishlegal.com/articles/lord-uist-respect-separation-of-powers-in-quashing-horizon-convictions

Theuniondivvie · January 22

Foxy said:

No_Offence_Alan said:

dixiedean said:

state_go_away said:

dixiedean said:
Sorry to go off topic after such a header.
But I can't get apprehensive about Storm Jocelyn.
It's a bit like facing a Gladiator named Tristram.
The Economist published a survey a few years ago showing that in the USA ,hurricanes with female names caused significantly more deaths than male named ones . Given that male and female names are used alternatively the only explanation offered was that people were less scared of female named ones and so took less precautions
Isn't Jocelyn a male and female name?
Like Evelyn Waugh marrying a woman named Evelyn.
Tracy was originally a male name (after Spencer Tracy). Wigan RL used to have a big, rough red haired second row named Tracy Grundy.
Not to mention Shirley Crabtree.
John Wayne was actually Marion Morrison. You can see why he used a stage name.

Like Trump descended from Lewismen, though further back (Morrison still quite a common surname on the island). I fear he’d be a fervent supporter of the orange one if still alive.

viewcode · January 22

ohnotnow said:

Andy_JS said:

Benpointer said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

state_go_away said:
I know its OT but a great and wonderful sport fact is this question - In what sport did the semi finalist in the 1938 world championships play the 2022 world champion in a professional match in 1992?

answer snooker - Fred Davis played 17 year old Ronnie O Sullivan in the 1992 grand prix and Ronnie won 5-1
Until you edited it in, I was going to guess Snooker, not because I knew the answer but due to the longevity of players in Snooker.

That's a great fact though. Like the US Civil War widow who was alive in the 21st century.
How does that work?
"People Magazine recently reported the last known surviving Civil War widow veteran died December 16, 2020 at 101 in Marshfield, Missouri. Helen Viola Jackson, at age 17, married 93-year-old widower James Bolin. He fought for the Union Army in Missouri during the Civil War which ended in 1865."

https://veteranshomecare.com/civil-war-widow-dies-2020
His did a great turn in The Beiderbecke Affair in all fairness. As national treasures go - I'd vote him a pension.

Oh, what happened to him? Whatever happened to me? What became of... never mind.

For myself, I really liked him in Capricorn One

DecrepiterJohnL · January 22

state_go_away said:
I know its OT but a great and wonderful sport fact is this question - In what sport did the semi finalist in the 1938 world championships play the 2022 world champion in a professional match in 1992?

answer snooker - Fred Davis played 17 year old Ronnie O Sullivan in the 1992 grand prix and Ronnie won 5-1

Ah yes, something to do with Ronnie proving he could play left-handed?

No_Offence_Alan · January 22

BartholomewRoberts said:
.
Benpointer said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

state_go_away said:
I know its OT but a great and wonderful sport fact is this question - In what sport did the semi finalist in the 1938 world championships play the 2022 world champion in a professional match in 1992?

answer snooker - Fred Davis played 17 year old Ronnie O Sullivan in the 1992 grand prix and Ronnie won 5-1
Until you edited it in, I was going to guess Snooker, not because I knew the answer but due to the longevity of players in Snooker.

That's a great fact though. Like the US Civil War widow who was alive in the 21st century.
How does that work?
She died in 2020!

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/last-surviving-widow-civil-war-veteran-dies-101-180976702/

And John Tyler (10th US President 1841-1845) has a living grandson.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Ruffin_Tyler

DecrepiterJohnL · January 22

rottenborough said:
Many more councils to follow??

The level of exceptional financial support [bankrupt] Nottingham City Council has requested from the Government has been revealed to total £65m.

Any support would likely be in the form of loans and special permission to raise money from council assets and spend it on day-to-day operational costs, rather than a grant.

https://nottstv.com/nottingham-city-council-requests-65m-government-help-but-it-could-mean-15m-in-cuts/

Another fire sale of public assets to Tory donors and foreign competitors. Great.

DecrepiterJohnL · January 22

nico679 said:
Wow the Daily Hate has a devastating anti Starmer headline for tomorrow’s edition . Some drivel about him being on the side of woke !

As front pages go it surely must be one of the lamest.

This front page.

Nigelb · January 23

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:
FP(x3)T
DecrepiterJohnL said:

nico679 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

nico679 said:

rottenborough said:

HYUFD said:

rottenborough said:

Andy_JS said:

rottenborough said:
"to ensure that constitutional government can endure"

DeSantis.

Utterly bonkers. Black is white. 2+2=5.

America has gone mad. Sheer decadency.

Trump isn't a danger to democracy. Ridiculous to suggest he might be.
Oh well, we shall have to agree to disagree.

We shall soon know.

If they elect him they wont be able to get him out again imho.

if he was elected again, depends if the army support him or not, in Jan 2021 when he was still President they didn't support attempts to overturn the election result
He changes the constitution.

You need two thirds to approve a proposal to change the constitution in both the House and Senate and then that goes to the state legislatures who must approve that and you need three quarters to agree to it .

So it’s not going to happen thankfully !

It is little known but there are actually five ways to change the US constitution.

1: Two thirds of Congress and three quarters of state legislatures.
2: Two thirds of Congress and three quarters of states conventions.
3: Two thirds of state legislatures and three quarters of state legislatures.
4: Two thirds of state legislatures and three quarters of state conventions.
5: Five ninths of the US Supreme Court dictating that the US constitution is different to how it is written.

The first four are all impossible, but the last one has come rocketing up from nowhere to now be in prime position.
Not sure about 5 . The SCOTUS as far as I’ve read can’t amend the US constitution.
He is making a political point copied from the American crank right, that the Supreme Court can reinterpret the constitution and thus change its meaning.
@DecrepiterJohnL I think you've not been paying attention to American politics in the last few years (or any of my posts on American politics either) if you think that point has come from the American crank right.

Who is it that has 6/9 of the SCOTUS Justices right now? Not the "liberals" in America.

The US Constitution says in black and white that office holders who attempt insurrection against the USA are disbarred from serving as President. No ifs, buts, or equivocation.
Donald J Trump committed insurrection against the USA while holding its most senior office, the Presidency.

So the US Constitution says that Donald J Trump is disbarred from being President.

But if 5 of the 6 "conservative" Justices decide in a partisan line vote that no he's not, then bish bash bosh what is written in the Constitution is amended to whatever the Justices want it to say instead. De facto, if not de jure.
Only 4 of the Justices are actually in the confirmed pro Trump camp, Barrett, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch who Trump appointed to the Court and ultra conservative Thomas.

Kagan and Sotomayer who Obama appointed and Jackson who Biden appointed are likely to vote against Trump.

Roberts and Ailto who George W Bush appointed could go either way, they are conservative but not fanatically so, have no special loyalty to Trump and will put the constitution first

Alito is not extreme ?
Good one, HYUFD.

Mexicanpete · January 23

That's five plays three SCOTUS judges to the orange one HYUFD. Looks like Biden will be Tangoed.

RobD · January 23

AbandonedHope said:
It won’t be 14th November @Quincel. The King is touring the Pacific in October; an election would require that he abandon (or curtail) that tour just to grant a dissolution.

Moreover, the G20 meet in Brazil on 18th November. If the election is on the 14th, the new (or returning) PM would expect to visit the Palace on the morning of the 15th, appoint some of the Cabinet/Government on the 16th and fly to South America on the 17th. That’s just… folly (especially if Sunak managed to eke out a Hung Parliament and needed to negotiate with others).

When you look at the calendar and see what’s planned throughout the year (and what’s necessary to minimise inconvenience and cost), a May election is the sensible and practical solution.

So it will be December

Parliament can be dissolved by the counsellors of state. It was dissolved by the Queen Mum and Margaret once in the 70s.

Mexicanpete · January 23

MoonRabbit said:
Great Header. Thank you. 🙏

I’m adding this topic to the Election on May 2nd argument. Not just Sunak, but a whole load of them wont want to hanging around into 2025 when they have proper jobs to go to and proper money to make.

Sorry Rabbit but you are unusually wrong. The General Election will be exactly one year today. Thursday 23rd January 2025.

Rejoice, just one year to go.

Andy_JS · January 23

O/T

Is John Foxx's Metamatic one of the most underrated albums of all time?

MikeL · January 23

John Woodcock, long time cricket correspondent of The Times, died in 2021.

His grandfather was born in 1813.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Woodcock_(cricket_writer)

Pulpstar · January 23

Nigelb said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:
FP(x3)T
DecrepiterJohnL said:

nico679 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

nico679 said:

rottenborough said:

HYUFD said:

rottenborough said:

Andy_JS said:

rottenborough said:
"to ensure that constitutional government can endure"

DeSantis.

Utterly bonkers. Black is white. 2+2=5.

America has gone mad. Sheer decadency.

Trump isn't a danger to democracy. Ridiculous to suggest he might be.
Oh well, we shall have to agree to disagree.

We shall soon know.

If they elect him they wont be able to get him out again imho.

if he was elected again, depends if the army support him or not, in Jan 2021 when he was still President they didn't support attempts to overturn the election result
He changes the constitution.

You need two thirds to approve a proposal to change the constitution in both the House and Senate and then that goes to the state legislatures who must approve that and you need three quarters to agree to it .

So it’s not going to happen thankfully !

It is little known but there are actually five ways to change the US constitution.

1: Two thirds of Congress and three quarters of state legislatures.
2: Two thirds of Congress and three quarters of states conventions.
3: Two thirds of state legislatures and three quarters of state legislatures.
4: Two thirds of state legislatures and three quarters of state conventions.
5: Five ninths of the US Supreme Court dictating that the US constitution is different to how it is written.

The first four are all impossible, but the last one has come rocketing up from nowhere to now be in prime position.
Not sure about 5 . The SCOTUS as far as I’ve read can’t amend the US constitution.
He is making a political point copied from the American crank right, that the Supreme Court can reinterpret the constitution and thus change its meaning.
@DecrepiterJohnL I think you've not been paying attention to American politics in the last few years (or any of my posts on American politics either) if you think that point has come from the American crank right.

Who is it that has 6/9 of the SCOTUS Justices right now? Not the "liberals" in America.

The US Constitution says in black and white that office holders who attempt insurrection against the USA are disbarred from serving as President. No ifs, buts, or equivocation.
Donald J Trump committed insurrection against the USA while holding its most senior office, the Presidency.

So the US Constitution says that Donald J Trump is disbarred from being President.

But if 5 of the 6 "conservative" Justices decide in a partisan line vote that no he's not, then bish bash bosh what is written in the Constitution is amended to whatever the Justices want it to say instead. De facto, if not de jure.
Only 4 of the Justices are actually in the confirmed pro Trump camp, Barrett, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch who Trump appointed to the Court and ultra conservative Thomas.

Kagan and Sotomayer who Obama appointed and Jackson who Biden appointed are likely to vote against Trump.

Roberts and Ailto who George W Bush appointed could go either way, they are conservative but not fanatically so, have no special loyalty to Trump and will put the constitution first
Alito is not extreme ?
Good one, HYUFD.

Alito is err... very very conservative.

viewcode · January 23

Pulpstar said:

Nigelb said:

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:
FP(x3)T
DecrepiterJohnL said:

nico679 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

nico679 said:

rottenborough said:

HYUFD said:

rottenborough said:

Andy_JS said:

rottenborough said:
"to ensure that constitutional government can endure"

DeSantis.

Utterly bonkers. Black is white. 2+2=5.

America has gone mad. Sheer decadency.

Trump isn't a danger to democracy. Ridiculous to suggest he might be.
Oh well, we shall have to agree to disagree.

We shall soon know.

If they elect him they wont be able to get him out again imho.

if he was elected again, depends if the army support him or not, in Jan 2021 when he was still President they didn't support attempts to overturn the election result
He changes the constitution.

You need two thirds to approve a proposal to change the constitution in both the House and Senate and then that goes to the state legislatures who must approve that and you need three quarters to agree to it .

So it’s not going to happen thankfully !

It is little known but there are actually five ways to change the US constitution.

1: Two thirds of Congress and three quarters of state legislatures.
2: Two thirds of Congress and three quarters of states conventions.
3: Two thirds of state legislatures and three quarters of state legislatures.
4: Two thirds of state legislatures and three quarters of state conventions.
5: Five ninths of the US Supreme Court dictating that the US constitution is different to how it is written.

The first four are all impossible, but the last one has come rocketing up from nowhere to now be in prime position.
Not sure about 5 . The SCOTUS as far as I’ve read can’t amend the US constitution.
He is making a political point copied from the American crank right, that the Supreme Court can reinterpret the constitution and thus change its meaning.
@DecrepiterJohnL I think you've not been paying attention to American politics in the last few years (or any of my posts on American politics either) if you think that point has come from the American crank right.

Who is it that has 6/9 of the SCOTUS Justices right now? Not the "liberals" in America.

The US Constitution says in black and white that office holders who attempt insurrection against the USA are disbarred from serving as President. No ifs, buts, or equivocation.
Donald J Trump committed insurrection against the USA while holding its most senior office, the Presidency.

So the US Constitution says that Donald J Trump is disbarred from being President.

But if 5 of the 6 "conservative" Justices decide in a partisan line vote that no he's not, then bish bash bosh what is written in the Constitution is amended to whatever the Justices want it to say instead. De facto, if not de jure.
Only 4 of the Justices are actually in the confirmed pro Trump camp, Barrett, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch who Trump appointed to the Court and ultra conservative Thomas.

Kagan and Sotomayer who Obama appointed and Jackson who Biden appointed are likely to vote against Trump.

Roberts and Ailto who George W Bush appointed could go either way, they are conservative but not fanatically so, have no special loyalty to Trump and will put the constitution first
Alito is not extreme ?
Good one, HYUFD.
Alito is err... very very conservative.

Battle Angel Alito.

I'll get my coat

Andy_JS · January 23

Tom Scott inadvertently talking, in 2018, about the Post Office Horizon scandal.

"The Consequences of Your Code"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZM9YdO_QKk

Peter_the_Punter · January 23

Good bets and good advice.

Thanks Q.

JosiasJessop · January 23

Quite an amazing, and worrying story, on the BBC:

"UK officials probe Iran generals' antisemitic talks to students"

"The regulator is also looking at footage of "death to Israel" chants at an Islamic charity's UK premises.

Verified by the BBC, two of the videos show talks by members of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. One described an apocalyptic war on Jews.

The group that promoted the online talks said it respects all communities."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68016330

ydoethur · January 23

One reason that Tory leaders remain in office as caretaker after resigning is, of course, that they have no official deputy. They may nominate one, but the position doesn’t exist in the rule book. So unlike Labour or the Lib Dems or indeed the SNP there is in fact nobody to take over.

That said, there have been occasions when even though officially remaining leader they have handed over the actual job to somebody else. Heath began his sulk by asking Robert Carr to chair the shadow cabinet and lead for the party in the Commons. Eden was on sick leave, so Butler was in charge - Bonar Law was also ill so Curzon was running the government and the party.

Nigelb · January 23

Is Trump just Michelle Mone writ larger ?

Donald Trump on his presidency: I was getting calls from people you would not suspect. Everybody got a piece of that action and it was a beautiful thing to see
https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1749629154784403802

Peter_the_Punter · January 23

rottenborough said:

williamglenn said:

state_go_away said:

dixiedean said:
Sorry to go off topic after such a header.
But I can't get apprehensive about Storm Jocelyn.
It's a It would be noisybit like facing a Gladiator named Tristram.
The Economist published a survey a few years ago showing that in the USA ,hurricanes with female names caused significantly more deaths than male named ones . Given that male and female names are used alternatively the only explanation offered was that people were less scared of female named ones and so took less precautions
They should name them after famous dictators. You'd take Hurricane Hitler seriously.
Well, Hurricane Trump is only months away.

It would be noisy and flashy, but incoherent and ultimately ineffectual.

I'd be more fraid of Hurricane Vennells - looks innocuous, but wreaks devastation.

Nigelb · January 23

More than 1,000 child refugees at risk after being classified as adults – report
Rushed and flawed age assessments leave hundreds of children exposed to abuse and exploitation
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/22/flawed-age-assessments-put-hundreds-of-uk-child-refugees-at-risk-report-finds-home-office

JosiasJessop · January 23

Nigelb said:
More than 1,000 child refugees at risk after being classified as adults – report
Rushed and flawed age assessments leave hundreds of children exposed to abuse and exploitation
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/22/flawed-age-assessments-put-hundreds-of-uk-child-refugees-at-risk-report-finds-home-office

How do you verify the age of someone, either way: an adult pretending to be a child, or a child pretending to be an adult, and how do you do it in a timely manner give the numbers coming over?

Casino_Royale · January 23

Excellent piece @Quincel

Nice to see an article on the betting again.

Nigelb · January 23

RIP Norman Jewison.

A staggering array of different films - In the Heat of the Night; Fiddler on the Roof; Jesus Christ Superstar ... Moonstruck (!)

One of my strongest cinematic memories is Toccata and Fugue on D minor being played at ear splitting volume as James Caan appeared on screen in Rollerball.

Casino_Royale · January 23

Andy_JS said:

nico679 said:
Wow the Daily Hate has a devastating anti Starmer headline for tomorrow’s edition . Some drivel about him being on the side of woke !

As front pages go it surely must be one of the lamest.
Someone once told me that most of the people who work on the Daily Mail don't actually believe in any of it and don't hold those types of political opinions.

Or so they say.

Probably makes their lives much easier down the pub.

Cicero · January 23

Mexicanpete said:

MoonRabbit said:
Great Header. Thank you. 🙏

I’m adding this topic to the Election on May 2nd argument. Not just Sunak, but a whole load of them wont want to hanging around into 2025 when they have proper jobs to go to and proper money to make.
Sorry Rabbit but you are unusually wrong. The General Election will be exactly one year today. Thursday 23rd January 2025.

Rejoice, just one year to go.

I think if they hang it out that long, then they may struggle to get above double figures in House of Commons.

Cicero · January 23

Andy_JS said:

nico679 said:
Wow the Daily Hate has a devastating anti Starmer headline for tomorrow’s edition . Some drivel about him being on the side of woke !

As front pages go it surely must be one of the lamest.
Someone once told me that most of the people who work on the Daily Mail don't actually believe in any of it and don't hold those types of political opinions.

No shit. The army of the fake.

JosiasJessop · January 23

Cicero said:

Andy_JS said:

nico679 said:
Wow the Daily Hate has a devastating anti Starmer headline for tomorrow’s edition . Some drivel about him being on the side of woke !

As front pages go it surely must be one of the lamest.
Someone once told me that most of the people who work on the Daily Mail don't actually believe in any of it and don't hold those types of political opinions.
No shit. The army of the fake.

And there will be Tory voters at the Guardian. Maybe not this GE, though...

I once worked at a trade union organisation. There were a few of what I would call Tory-leaning voters in the place - and that was amongst those I interacted with.

Chris · January 23

"When you've bowed, You leave the crowd."
- Buffy Summers

DougSeal · January 23

For those precluding a November election because the King is touring the Pacific, here’s the February 1974 London Gazette that announces The Queen Mother and Princess Margaret deigned to take a break from their drinking schedule to call an election at Edward Heath’s request. The late Queen was in New Zealand for the Commonwealth Games -

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/46205/

Cleitophon · January 23

BartholomewRoberts said:

Cleitophon said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Cleitophon said:

Benpointer said:

Cleitophon said:
1) we are in a recession
2) inflation has gone up
3) in April new brexit checks will come in boosting inflation and jeopardizing 46% of farmers accelerating the recession
4) 60.000 companies are in financial distress and many will cave accellerating a recession
5) key policy areas like child care and nhs waiting lists are failing
6) once spring comes boat will kick off big time
7) house prices are in free fall and due to inflation, interest rates will stay up
8) polls are widening, rather than narrowing
9) the many arms of the Parliamentary group are at war with themselves
10) Sunak's favourability is at Truss and Johnson level at their worst, while Starmers are not glowing but respectable

Here is my take away: things could very well suddenly unravel for the tories. MPs start taking jobs kicking off byelections, there may be defections left and right, there may be letters and leadership contests. It is not under any circumstances a given that Sunak can keep this show on the road till November. Events will take over. Slowly at first and then all of a sudden.
Sorry Cleitophon, that's rubbish. House prices are not in freefall:

https://www.halifax.co.uk/media-centre/house-price-index.html

The other 9 points you make are all valid though.

Well, that is what I read: coverage of ONS numbers across various media outlets

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/bulletins/housepriceindex/november2023

https://www.forbes.com/uk/advisor/personal-finance/2024/01/17/house-prices-updates/#:~:text=Average UK house price £,since 2011, writes Jo Thornhill.

https://www.ft.com/content/d4e9537f-a486-4b8a-bead-e51a4bc68921
None of those links say "freefall".

A minor 2.1% correction in house prices after double-digit percentage rises in house prices is not even a proper correction, let alone freefall.
Try inflation adjusting those numbers my friend.
Yes and its still not freefall.

Over any reasonable view of time, house prices are massively, massively overvalued relative to wages. House prices are higher today than they were at the start of 2020, let alone 2010 or 2000.

But not on a supply and demand level, because our supply has been artificially capped relative to our rising population demands.

Look, through 2022 and 2023 we had double digit inflation. Even at stagnant house prices that means that your house lost 10% in value in real terms.. money is like a treadmill that goes ever faster or an elastic measuring tape that just keeps getting longer and longer. It is not an objective unit against which to assess value. And at 2.1% decline in housing and money still inflating at 4% ... that is still a 6% drop per annum. In the real world that is substantial. And it matters not that houses are subjectively over priced, because people are objectively tied into mortgages with those numbers on them. What it means is that people are unable to sell without losses to cover commitments and are for all intents and purposes mortgage serfs... unable.to move. Divorce coming though... you stay together or take the hit.

Taz · January 23

Cicero said:

Andy_JS said:

nico679 said:
Wow the Daily Hate has a devastating anti Starmer headline for tomorrow’s edition . Some drivel about him being on the side of woke !

As front pages go it surely must be one of the lamest.
Someone once told me that most of the people who work on the Daily Mail don't actually believe in any of it and don't hold those types of political opinions.
No shit. The army of the fake.

There will be people who work on channel 4 news and Sky news who don’t hold the political biases they do. I cannot see how this can be a surprise.

Alanbrooke · January 23

Ireland puts continued use of cash in to law.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/supermarkets-convenience-stores-and-pharmacies-will-have-to-accept-cash-new-laws-to-see-oral-contraception-sold-over-counter/a212277028.html

Luckyguy1983 · January 23

DecrepiterJohnL said:

nico679 said:
Wow the Daily Hate has a devastating anti Starmer headline for tomorrow’s edition . Some drivel about him being on the side of woke !

As front pages go it surely must be one of the lamest.

This front page.

Presumably the balloon contains helium. Very Innovative weightloss approach.

MarqueeMark · January 23

Verulamius said:

HYUFD said:

AverageNinja said:
Leader satisfaction ratings
@IpsosUK

Dec 23. Sunak.
Sat 21%
Dissat 69%
Net: -48

Jul 22. Johnson.
Sat 24%
Dissat 69%
Net: -45

Oct 22 Truss
Sat 16%
Dissat 67%
Net: -51

Dec 19 Corbyn
Sat 24%
Dissat 68%
Net: -44

Sunak is now more unpopular than Corbyn!
Truss was less unpopular than Corbyn though, even if she had the worst satisified rating
I believe that Truss is due to launch next month a new conservative pressure group called Popular Conservatism.

Her course at Unpopular Conservatism is run?

Monksfield · January 23

JosiasJessop said:

Cicero said:

Andy_JS said:

nico679 said:
Wow the Daily Hate has a devastating anti Starmer headline for tomorrow’s edition . Some drivel about him being on the side of woke !

As front pages go it surely must be one of the lamest.
Someone once told me that most of the people who work on the Daily Mail don't actually believe in any of it and don't hold those types of political opinions.
No shit. The army of the fake.
And there will be Tory voters at the Guardian. Maybe not this GE, though...

I once worked at a trade union organisation. There were a few of what I would call Tory-leaning voters in the place - and that was amongst those I interacted with.

I know an Aslef shop steward who is about as Essex Tory as it is possible to be.

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Categories

Sunak’s Departure Schedule: Factoring in the Leadership Fight – politicalbetting.com

Comments