Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Discussing George Osborne’s chances for the Conservative le
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Discussing George Osborne’s chances for the Conservative leadership
Just picked up this short Spectator discussion on George Osborne’s chances of becoming next CON leader and how he might go about it. There are some interesting ideas here and certainly the view from the Speccie team is that Osbo is in with a serious shout.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
For a start, it'll take either a Conservative outright win or a Con-Lib coalition. Then a Foreign Secretary position would be significantly affected by the possible Yes, and the certainty (otherwise Cameron will be axed) of an EU referendum vote.
Would Osborne campaign for Out? If he doesn't, the sceptics might well opt for one of their own.
FPT: In unrelated news, a dead drug baron's hippos are proving problematic:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-27905743
Yes, the offer is still open, be warned, as driver, I get to choose the music played, and my playlists and compilation CDs are erm legendary.
Now, I would not be surprised if George Osborne, the country's most popular UK wide politician became the next Tory leader
The Tories would be mad to go for him though, which probably means they will.
Also, Isabel Hardman. Yum. Brains, looks and a personality.
If I had a forced choice I'd back rather than lay right now (@12-1)
However if the economy continues to do well between now and the election, he would be in with a real chance replacing Cameron if he lost in 2015 or taking over 2018 / 19 if Cameron wins.
The perception of Osborne has shifted in a positive way in the nation and party since his dismal reception at the Olympics.
Edited extra bit: as an aside, Ilkley Moor really is a splendid place.
In particular, if the Tories win (or at least form the next government), then a lot of the credit will go to Osborne, and rightly so. That is likely to increase his popularity in the party, and perhaps to an extent in the country generally. Perceptions of politicans change substantially over time, and in the event of victory Osborne's stock will definitely rise.
If OTOH the Tories don't get to form the next government, Osborne will probably get the blame along with Cameron. The party will probably go for someone new in such a scenario.
Overall 12/1 feels about right.
Of the other main contenders, Boris has the obvious problem of being in parliament when a vacancy arises, Gove's favorability ratings rule him out for the time being, and May probably hasn't done herself any favours recently by pushing herself so obviously.
Time of payout and cost of capital over the the time period are slight dampeners on the value.
Personally, I see this bet as being in considerable part a bet that the Conservatives are largest party at the next election. If they are, then the Conservatives under David Cameron will in all probability remain in government. I expect that David Cameron would stand down in the middle of the next Parliament (he'd already have been party leader for 12 years by 2017). While not a shoo-in by any means, George Osborne would be the obvious successor in such circumstances. He certainly has the party machinery in place in the House of Commons.
12/1 remain good odds in my opinion.
If Cameron couldn't get the electorate to love him* and get him a majority, after all the spin, all the make-overs, Osborne sure as hell wont. If Cameron is Blair-lite, Osborne is Brown-lite. Not as bonkers, not as bad tempered, but who was the one the public booed at the Olympics etc? Do you know anybody who, even if they think the economy is on the mend, say well he is a good egg, love to have him round for tea, even with his new barnet trim.
Post Cameron, they can't have Gove, Boris is a train wreck waiting to happen (the public love the rogue, but really for the top job?)...they need to find somebody totally different.
The most competent and normal person the Tories in a high profile position is Hammond, but he will bore the electorate to death.
*IMO the position is that they don't hate him in the same way as Brown or end of Blair, nor the love/hate of Thatcher. It is more a collective groan..but not as loud groan as for Miliband, but a groan. And this show in his ratings, they have bumped along at a little bit negative, but even the Tory supporting electorate don't really love him.
All the cuts, loads of bad press about Murdoch, Europe etc, and it is more a meh than outright hatred.
One thing that does neither of them any favours is they are both quite ugly.. this shouldn't matter but it does.
It could be that all Cameroons will be tainted by failing to win a majority in 2010 and losing outright in 2015. Conservatives will blame the pandering to the left, and appoint a right winger.. or a leftfield choice
What price Priti Patel, or Rory Stewart?
Could also be a runner for Mayor... A Right wing BAME is perfect to unite the segregated capital
http://order-order.com/2014/06/26/damian-mcbride-leaves-cafod/
Wonder what he will do next? They say the next election is going to be a dirty one.
George Osborne is probably one of the few leading Conservative politicians that most members think has done a good job and not offended their views in the process. He has steered clear of getting involved in any social policy as far as I am aware. So the question becomes who would the other candidates be?
Theresa May - too old?
Michael Gove - there is doubt in the membership about his reforms.
Boris Johnson - Not even in Parliament.
I can't think of any others that would have high recognition or support in the party. People used to talk about Justine Greening but she now comes with baggage.
Gove's far too divisive.
Justine Greening remains a future Prime Minister.
I read a book, think it was called The Political Punter or similar, and in it the author suggested that Labour tend to pick safe bets whereas the Conservatives (ironically) often go for outsiders.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10927865/UK-has-had-fastest-growing-population-in-Europe-for-a-decade-official-figures.html
I knew it was going to be bad. I never thought it would be this bad, though.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-28032264
If they win outright then maybe 12swould look good, but you are backing a 7/2 & 2/1 double.. not for mine
183,400 net immigrants. Bloody hell.
Watford is perhaps the most interesting one - in that there is a tremendously popular LibDem mayor, who got - what - 44% of the vote last year. Given UKIP's rise, she'd only need to keep 70% of that to win the seat. If she stands, Watford is probably a 3-1 shot for the Libs.
Oxwab is almost certainly a Conservative hold. And the LibDems will not take Ashfield or Maidstone.
But 16-1 says it all, really.
Well knock me down with a feather, I thought it was an equal two way street?
And according to defenders of this open door madness, most English emigrants are pensioners retiring to Spain, spending their pension there, paying over the odds for everything and creating an industry that needs Spanish workers?
ie not depressing wages, not taking any Spaniards jobs, and not claiming benefits
http://community.betfair.com/football/go/thread/view/94070/30292951/absolute-free-money-suarez-betting-on-his-ban#flvWelcomeHeader
It said the other day to e mail Mike if interested but do not have his details can anyone help.
If the Tories win and Osborne is not a candidate when Dave retires, go for Sajid Javid.
Teenage logic don't you just love it
I mean iirc Japan would be more of the low immigration etc you're looking for and has serious problems with an aging society and worker to retiree ratio?
(This post is meant in a vague questioning sense, rather than a declaration of expertise of Japanese society and age demographics and economic consequences thereof).
I would be prepared to bet that a bigger % of English emigrants had private healthcare than EU migrants to England
IIRC Jeremy Thorpe asked for his case to be put off until after the election, and much good did it do him. He got off, but lost his seat and his political career was finished. If he’d held his seat his chutzpah was such that he might well have come back.
It is all a bit murky and there are no moves to replace him as a candidate. I don't know if it would necessarily affect things regarding the election. It did not seem to hurt them in the locals this year. I think most people who vote UKIP ignore all this stuff as an establishment conspiracy.
Secondly, as a once-upon-a-time agent, I would be very chary of having such a candidate. The last thing one wants is it all going pear-shaped in the middle of a campaign. There are enough things which can go awry without the police sitting in the committee room interviewing the candidate!
This is supposed a priority seat for UKIP, yet they are willing to string this along. I guarantee any of the main parties would have re-selected by now and give a fresh candidate time to bed in. If this drags on at what point do they enter panic mode.
The problem is that UKIP lack political experience with their local leadership, they haven't been seriously contesting elections for very long, at least with a shot of winning. We can all sit here and speculate about which seats they might target and potentially win but the truth is that if they are going to win it will be with a very small majority and these amateur mistakes could easily cost them a victory.
I recall, when it looked as if my candidate might be on the edge of a famous victory, being asked what arrangements we had in place to provide them with the support an MP needed, and having to reply that we’d have to deal with that if necessary!
I believe that when Clement Freud won the Isle of Ely in the 70’s that he funded the constituency office for the first few years out of his winnings from Ladbrokes! The constituency didn’t have either the funds or the personnel!
Boy George will never lead the Conservative Party or become Prime Minister!
http://www.euractiv.com/sections/euro-finance/merkel-renzi-agree-eu-budget-rules-flexibility-303090
Sweet FA is the answer. Because the EU doesn't give a sod about us and ignores our concerns.
http://www.euractiv.com/sections/eu-elections-2014/hollandes-ambitious-new-deal-europe-303055
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/migration1/migration-statistics-quarterly-report/may-2014/index.html
Figure 2.3 is interesting as it seems to indicate that the net immigration of non EU citizens is about 150 000. This would indicate that the scale of net EU immigration is much less significant. As net outward migration of UK citizens is about 50 000 per annum, then immigration from the EU is about 80 000 per year. Interestingly most of the increase was in the movement from the older countries of the EU, particularly Italy.
As the fertility rate of non EU migrants is considerably higher than both UK and EU citizens, much of the Birthrate increase is being driven by this group. In short, I think that the Coalition has it right in attempting to control population increase by restricting non EU migration.
Non EU immigration is everything from Aussia doctors to ISIS fighters. Is there a breakdown of where the non EU immigration is coming from by location?
Theresa May remains their best bet.
Royally shafted is my guess at the outcome for the UK.
We are the Millwall of the EU.
What puzzles me is why anyone is surprised. Cameron decides to pick a fight with the EU after his party took a pounding at the hands of an anti-EU Party, 40% of whose voters used to support his Party.
Fine - Juncker's a poor candidate for a number of reasons and I get that, I really do. However, instead of simply rubbishing the only candidate, the wise man would have provided a credible alternative, a dynamic young centre-right reformer who could have been an easy sell to Sweden, Netherlands and above all Germany.
On top of that, the wily old Juncker has clearly out-manoeuvred Cameron at his own game - the business of politics which revolves around garnering support through promises many and various. Juncker, who clearly plays the Coalition game far better than Cameron as well, has wheeled and dealed his way through his opponents softening them all up with promises and gaining support.
In many ways, a master class in how to do politics - not attractive but effective.
Most of the Aussies that I know came here with British passports or at least a partiality stamp, as do most of the South Africans. There are about 50 000 per year immigrants per year with UK passports. Presumably most are returning expats after being out of the country for a year, but some will be from the old colonies with dual nationality. There are approx 10 million UK passport holders resident outside the UK.
A master class in how to do the politics of yesterday.
Juncker is the personification of why there is a large and growing protest vote all over Europe. The protest will only grow whilst the EU's leaders do business in this fashion.
Cameron realises this.
The last decent negotiator we had to deal with Europe was the blessed Margaret.
The fans of AV and PR would of course be happy with the result, stitching up deals after an election....
If the other countries wish to choose another Federalist President and one that lacks other skills, so be it. It will bring about a quicker Brexit. The stupidity is with the Europhiles. If they really really wanted their EC to thrive and survive they would have picked real reformers from the pre-2014 election groupings. instead the previous "big 3" all picked Federalists that lacked the drive and understanding to create an EC that can compete in the global economy.
Nick Clegg summed it up with his vision of the EC in 5+ years time. "much the same as it is". Another complacent EC dinosaur.
How are pensioners treated in France? France has a national health service free at the point of use - it is paid for by compulsory insurance ie tax.
"The fans of AV and PR would of course be happy with the result, stitching up deals after an election...."
Cameron should have went with a minority government then?
I don't disagree Juncker personifies some of the worst characteristics of the career Eurocrat but sometimes you have to play the game by the existing rules. Cameron needed a credible willing alternative that would have made Juncker look like yesterday's man.
Instead, he's been made to look like a political novice by Juncker and has been reduced to impotent isolation as bad as in the times of "no negotiation" under John Major.
The Head of the German central bank thinks such a move would be detrimental for the Euro but Merkel needs Italy to vote for Junker so is going along with the bribe too.
The reason Merkel is going along with the bribe is that she has done a deal with her coalition partners that she will get Junker elected in exchange for their support for domestic political reasons.
By Germany and Italy voting for Junker against their better judgement, this brings the EU governance process into disrepute and highlighrs the need for reform.
Well done Cameron - and UKIP.
So we get more immigrants from areas we have the power to control (Asia and Africa), than we do from the areas of free movement.
That being the case, what will getting back the power to control EU immigration achieve, exactly?
If we really wanted to slash immigration to 'tens of thousands' we could do it legally by having a moratorium on immigration from Asia and Africa (I'm using this an an example only, not advocating it). There would be nothing the ECHR could do about that.
He's picked a bad fight at a bad time and made a bad job of it and if you took off your anti-Lib Dem anti-EU blinkers you might just understand what's happened.
As for the ECR, they've done well despite the British Conservative losses but I suppose the question is whether Juncker would have been the EPP candidate if the British Conservatives had stayed within the group - we'll never know. The point is the two main power blocs in the European Parliament are where the power resides and the Tories are in neither.
Giving up our rebate for nothing in return. Losing the Financial Commissioner because of an ill-advised play for the top job. Tying us into funding the Eurozone bailouts before Cameron managed to extract us.
The reality is the EU is different to what we want, and the direction of travel is taking us further from where we want to be. It's right to try and change it - there is value in European cooperation - but there is a real possibility that meaningful change is not possible. If that proves to be the case, then we have a clear choice to make as a country.
Cameron's opposition to the Juncker appointment is driven far more by the debate on austerity vs. stimulus than it is by domestic political needs.
The Eurozone is about to face a new crisis. Whereas the periphery has taken its dose of austerity medicine and is now showing signs of recovery, the body to which these limbs are attached is beginning to decompose.
After coming out of nine quarters of recession for a single quarter, Italy returned to contraction in Q1 2014 and latest indicators show its economy is, at very best, still stagnating. France is following Italy's path with its economy having grown by less than 1% in the past two years and with current indicators even more pessimistic than Italy's.
The ECB is battling deflation having reduced its bank rate to 0.15% this month and introduced negative interest rates for commercial bank deposits. Unemployment rates are rising again in France and Italy and are mostly stagnant at just below 12% on average elsewhere.
Yes, Germany is still growing with a 5.2% unemployment rate and a strong fiscal position, but its rates of growth have dropped to half those of the UK over the past two years. With its major major markets going backwards, even Germany is threatened.
Meanwhile Eurozone borrowing rates are flattered by safe haven status due to tensions in the Ukraine and Iraq, uncertainties about the US economy and Chinese debt risk, retrenchment more generally in the BRICS bloc, and, ECB fiscal easing. But this is a temporary lull. Bond investors are beginning to be concerned again about the extent of their exposure to the EU. No panic yet but no appetite either for a massive bond fuelled stimulus programme as being proposed by Hollande.
What Cameron needs is a pretext to avoid having to underwrite Hollande's stimulus proposals. What Hollande wants is to divert funds from debt reduction to infrastructure investment and get the EU as a whole to take on the borrowing risk. This is a completely opposite strategy to that being undertaken successfully by Osborne. Germany may need to go along with it to save France and Italy as their major trading partners but there is no need for the UK to pick up the tab.
This is not about Juncker. It is about underwriting Eurozone risk. If the price of getting Juncker is a pretext for the UK to refuse to underwrite further Eurozone risk then it is well worth paying.
It is Merkel not Cameron faced with the difficult decisions and with the most to lose.
This is what defeats Stodge's argument for me. Blair and Brown tried the 'Juncker way' of doing EU politics and Britain got comprehensively shafted. They played the game by the rules and lost far bigger than Cameron will do.
Are you arguing that these are the 'consequences' Cameron is talking about? No more debt underwriting?
1) I'm surprised he's prepared to continue to push for his appointment in these circumstances. He is likely to become the poster child of EU failures, so he had better hope that the EU outperforms expectations in the next few years and show that he is on his A game if he is not going to find his stint as Commission President a miserable one.
2) The British are being thrown out of the balloon. The date will be deferred if Labour win the next election, but EU exit in the next decade now seems odds on to me. The carelessness with which the rest of the EU is doing this is shocking. It will diminish Britain but it will diminish the EU also. Still, at least we know where we stand.
3) If Britain leaves the EU, non-Eurozone countries are going to have to decide quickly whether they join the Euro or leave the EU. Euro membership is going to become a prerequisite of EU membership.
But not completely black and white. It is in the UK's long term interests for the French and Italian economies in particular and the Eurozone in general to return to reasonable growth levels, and for deflation to be avoided and unemployment to fall.
I don't think Cameron is saying that UK will never contribute to the revival of Europe. The issue is whether France and Italy should be permitted to avoid the structural reforms to their economies which the periphery have had forced on them, and ,which Germany, the UK and Northern European Countries have mostly implemented (semi) voluntarily.
What Cameron is saying is that there is no pain free exit from the debt fuelled socialist binge of the early noughties and that he will not underwrite further debt fuelled stimulus without such structural reform.
The UK (and Germany to a lesser extent and the peripheral countries in early returns) are winning the argument not in words but numbers. Every quarter that the UK produces the highest growth figures in the G7 (and amongst the EU's largest economies) and especially when such growth is coupled with the highest fiscal consolidation figures is a demonstration that OECD/Osbornomics works.
Much better for the UK to sit back and demonstrate than to risk the progress it has made by joining in a chase of the Eurozone's tail.
We shouldn't provide any more money to these crackpot Eurozone countries. They will promise lots of reforms. They may even pass them into law. But they'll never fully enact them. Once they have the extra cash, the inertia will set in, and we'll be left with the bill. The single currency was a stupid idea, we told them so when they did it, so we absolutely should not get stuck with the bill when it goes wrong. If we don't get any say in who runs Europe, we shouldn't give them any more money when they make bad decisions.
Eurozone membership is already a requisite for new EU members.