Categories
Will Ed Miliband’s time finally arrive? – politicalbetting.com
Will Ed Miliband’s time finally arrive? – politicalbetting.com
It’s not going terribly well for Sir Keir Starmer KC as Prime Minister and whilst I think the recent revelations about Lord Alli’s donations by the next general election will cost Labour as much the Ecclestone scandal did at the 2001 general election it is worth pondering who might succeed Sir Keir if he were to fall under the metaphorical bus or stand down quicker than anticipated.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
The first major politician to recognise ever increasing house prices are not aspirational and to reach out to Generation Rent.
https://x.com/maxtempers/status/1838942680950170092
I do wonder if this thread will trigger Rogerdamus after his mini meltdown on the last thread over SKS's longevity.
Perhaps the most dangerous minister in the cabinet after the Chancellor.
Will no journalist ask him just how much energy prices should rise for the average household compared to a 2021 baseline, to fund his accelerated Net Zero fantasy?
He clearly doesn’t care about the energy cost to the average manufacturing business, he’s happy to see those all offshored on the altar of reducing UK carbon emissions.
Ed Milliband.
" "
I promise to be modest and self effacing about it.
" "
Quit as leader then came back and took the SNP to power.
Interesting.
I think it's notable that Ed is back being Energy and Climate Secretary. I get the impression that this is the policy area he cares most about and that he's accepted the failure of his time as leader and wouldn't want to go back there.
You also have to consider that Labour Party rules would make a full contest very likely, while Starmer, or Rayner as his deputy, acted as a caretaker. If you ignore Labour Party rules you can just about imagine a scenario where Cabinet agrees on Ed as the safe pair of hands, but I'd have thought he would want to lose a leadership contest even less than become leader again - and the most likely outcome is that he would lose, because he lost in 2015, and he'd be up against younger Cabinet ministers like Streeting or Phillipson.
The use of it as a trading bet is much diminished when he isn't even listed on Betfair.
Superficially appealing, but a bad value bet is my view on this.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2024/sep/26/rise-arrests-football-matches-england-wales
Drug offences behind 14% rise in arrests at football games in England and Wales
https://x.com/WeAreTheFSA/status/1839290718835085645
Almost 11% of this year’s “football arrest stats” were made up of people watching Euro 2024 on the TV in England or Wales (aka not matchgoers).
Many of them will probably never have been to a game in their lives and they certainly weren’t in the stands. How is that a legitimate “football arrest”?
Are people arrested while watching music on the TV included in Glastonbury’s arrest figures? Obviously not.
And Graham Brady is still an option for next PM.
WAKE UP, BETFAIR.
Tugendhat's naughty answer is even worse on seeing it. Badenoch's refusal was done with a lot more charm on screen than comes out from reading the page. Jenrick actually makes you warm to him with his answer.
But Cleverly comes across as generally the most human/normal and maybe with an ability to think about things, whether or not he actually has any answers.
PS There's another Ed that they should add to next PM too!
Nuttall was investigated by police. He managed to prove to them that he used his house regularly as a “base” in the campaign for the 2017 Stoke By-Election. Starmer has accidentally admitted that he lived in a different property to the one on his declaration – did he campaign from his Kentish Town house? Downing Street will have to say so…
K-E-I-R.
I would have hoped you of all people would be able to spell.
Lord Cameron has shown the way.
Don't give a fuck if people misspell his name.
https://www.kier.co.uk/
His most notable political contribution was to undermine Blair as part of the Brownite cabal
In fact, on that point, punters should pay careful attention to the rules of the market. IIRC, an Acting Leader of Labour can serve for up to 18 months before a leadership election is required. What would count as a 'permanent' leader in those circumstances is anyone's guess. You'd assume they'd mean the winner of the next leadership contest but that's not 100% guaranteed.
However, I think Labour really will want a female leader next time. It's very embarrassing for them that it'll be more than forty years since the Tories first chose a woman to lead them, and have done so twice more since then so far (with a realistic prospect of it become at least three times before the next Labour contest). They also have credible female candidates in senior roles now.
100/1 does initially seem long odds for an ex-leader who's still an MP, in the cabinet and far from too old. But. The dynamics look wrong. How likely is a Labour leadership election this side of 2029? Not very. Labour leaders are far harder to push out than their Tory equivalents and all PMs tend to be highly reluctant to resign for just about any reason. Labour has a bomb-proof majority in parliament and the Tories are in a mess and have Reform snapping at them from the right. That's a scenario that favours Labour on tactical voting as long as it lasts. And when a leadership election does come, how likely is it that Miliband will even be a candidate, never mind win?
Chances are that there won't be a Labour leadership contest for 7+ years and when there is, the field will be very difficult to anticipate from today's position. Sure, 100/1 shots whose best chance is in the next few years mitigate the timeframe question quite a bit but this is not a market I'd be that keen to enter on behalf of anyone.
https://www.itv.com/news/2024-09-26/the-rise-of-dine-and-dash-a-third-of-hospitality-businesses-out-of-pocket
In principle Starmer shouldn't be worried by any of these.
Geert Wilders has hinted he could withdraw his support for the Dutch government if other coalition parties fail to back the use of emergency powers to declare a “crisis” in the asylum system."
https://www.dutchnews.nl/2024/09/wilders-pvv-could-pull-out-of-coalition-over-emergency-law-row/
It doesn't seem very happy at the moment, or coherent.
I'm in Birmingham for the Tories next week. I get the sense they're actually enjoying a bit of a break from the spotlight and not tearing each other apart either.
Really, TSE? So would Larry the cat.
I expect HM Opposition will have come up with something a bit better by the next GE, as would Labour, if necessary.
Meanwhile, no bet is no problem.
This story has resurfaced. Perhaps unlike the submarine...
"China’s newest nuclear-powered attack submarine sank in the spring, a major setback for one of the country’s priority weapons programs, U.S. officials said.
The episode, which Chinese authorities scrambled to cover up and hasn’t previously been disclosed, occurred at a shipyard near Wuhan in late May or early June."
https://www.wsj.com/world/china/chinas-newest-nuclear-submarine-sank-setting-back-its-military-modernization-785b4d37
It will be Philipson imho.
You can all bookmark this one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25ouDZ16CXU
(My daughter changed my email user name to that and I don’t know how to change it back…)
Particularly encouraging for Gallego who leads the odious Lake by 10 points in Arizona .
Sounds like an exciting book of a previously uninteresting text!
My impression of Lab, under Keir or EdM or anyone, is that they want us to behave and think in a particular way that conforms to a set of nebulous ideals that no one will articulate clearly beyond the buzzwords.
Is why they are always so dangerous.
But a coherent costed programme of what UKplc would look like, and how it would function if, say, a very modest 10% (roughly £100 billion) were removed from State Managed Expenditure would be interesting. Anyone who thinks the Tories are either going there or have been there in the last 50 years are mistaken.
For how difficult this is, contemplate the fuss over WFA, which might save £1.5 billion, and probably will save nothing as Pension credit and its accompanying perks, such as no council tax, kicks in.
I didn't think Starmer's speech was well delivered or well written. It had no easy flow and I couldn't see much point in most of it. Even the bit about the racist rioters which was the best received was not well delivered. And as for his joke.....
By contrast Rachel Reeves timing was excellent as was her delivery. It was also well constructed and even quite moving in parts. I feel she has much the best chance of changing the face of British politics and if everything aligns she could well be a star.
My final tip is Wes Streeting. He reminds me of David Milliband. He's articulate authentic and can talk about any subject without appearing to be evasive. He's likable and all round a witty and engaging 'bloke'.
So in answer to Eagles question "if the proverbial bus....." it would be between Reeves and Streeting. Maybe Reeves
I think in 2016 and 2020, Donald Trump benefited from non-Trump supporting Republicans turning up to vote for - say - Ron Johnson in Wisconsin. And they got to the booths and said "well, I'm not a great fan of Trump, but he's better than Hillary, and I'm here anyway". In other words, he got a meaningful leg up from down ballot races bringing out Republican voters.
The number of non-Trump enthused Republicans who will be making a special trek to the polling station to give Lake their support is... checks... none.
And that - along with the abortion referendum, and the general demographic trends in the State - is why I think Arizona is a better Dem shot than, for example, Georgia.
The model Naomi Campbell has been banned from being a charity trustee after a watchdog found charity funds were spent on luxury hotels and spa treatments.
A Charity Commission inquiry found Fashion for Relief was not passing on as much of the money raised as it was supposed to.
Instead it was being spent on cigarettes and security for Campbell and other unauthorised payments to one of her fellow charity trustees.
Campbell, 54, has been banned from charity involvement for five years with two other trustees, Bianka Hellmich and Veronica Chou, being banned for nine years and four years respectively.
..
The inquiry, which looked at Fashion for Relief's expenses between April 2016 and July 2022, found that just 8.5% of funds raised were spent on grants to charity.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c70zn97q1n8o
"On the basis that Cleverly is obviously the most aligned to my political opinions.."
You're welcome.