Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Boris might be a CON election winner but it could just be t
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Boris might be a CON election winner but it could just be that he gets over-stated in the polls
Hills have cut their odds for Boris Johnson to be the next Prime Minister from 8/1 to 6/1 second favourite behind 4/5 favourite Ed Miliband. This seems weird because just about the only chance there is of a vacancy occurring is if Cameron wins the election when, surely, he’ll remain at Number 10.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Thankfully.
And, as it happens no I didn't go to Mass last night. I'm going this evening.
JohnLilburne's scenario does make sense of the odds as Hill doesn't limit it to 2015. There's a stray reference to "31 Jan 23.59" at the start of the relevant box - no idea what that means.
http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w_articles_wsite1_1_03/01/2015_545924
Tim Montgomerie ن @montie 5h5 hours ago
Silly for Cameron to say Cabinet ministers won't be able to campaign for Out. There'll be resignations... #MarrShow
Just when I think there isn't anything more the Tories can do that I despair of, Cameron says now, before the renegotiation that his ministers won't be allowed to campaign for Out. Sorry but the guy is just as big an idiot as Ed Miliband.
That was when he was still relatively fresh, but the self-deprecating oaf routine is now wearing extremely thin and would never have washed outside London and the SE in the first place. Plus, he has no power base inside the Party, his constituency is in the media, and last time I checked they do not have a vote in the next Tory Party leadership election.
Amazing to think that the PB Tories slate us Kippers for not voting Tory as apparently they are the only hope of a referendum, then this. Anyone surprised we don't trust him and his cast iron, no ifs no buts bollocks?
There's also the small matter that Boris Johnson will remain Mayor of London until 2016. It's one thing doing the Mayoral job and being a backbench MP (Ken did it as well) but quite another to hold a Cabinet post let alone be LOTO.
He made it crystal clear in 2012 that he would serve a full term as London Mayor - indeed, it was one of his strongest final messages and one which, I think, saved the election for him as there was a strong groundswell of opposition to what was perceived to be a "part time Mayor".
Beyond that there's Boris's own policy positions which seem to be whatever the audience he's speaking to wants to hear. The problem he has as Mayor is that attitudes to the EU and to immigration within London (and especially within the City) aren't perhaps reflective of the general mood - the same will bedevil the next Conservative candidate for the Mayoralty.
Indeed, if you walk along the likes of Cornhill, King William Street and London Wall, it's amazing how often you hear French, German and Italian spoken. This other facet of immigration - the import of highly-skilled finance professionals from Europe and Asia - doesn't get the attention other forms of migration get but is hugely important for the City and Docklands as financial centres.
(continued)
Various insurance schemes were available, and some of the best were run by the trades unions. But these were erratic in terms of coverage, and also in terms of what they would or would not pay out for. It could, for example, be difficult to insure children on some schemes designed to get working men treated and back to work as fast and as cheaply as possible. Basic healthcare was also available via National Insurance, but that of course only helped workers, not stay at home mothers (a common phenomenon) or children.
In the 1940s the government accepted greater responsibility for national health, largely because it needed to keep hospitals running steadily and didn't want to have endless administrative hang-ups. In effect, it nationalized the medical system for the duration of the war (a bit like the railways or the coal industry). Therefore, bizarrely, at a time when there were fewer resources available, medical treatment became much easier to get.
In 1945, on the election of the Labour government, it was generally agreed, including by the Conservatives, that this needed sorting out. The obvious solution, the one favoured by just about everybody, was an extension of National Insurance to everybody within a working family so that there was a straightforward system of payment according to means, with government paying out for those people who were unable for whatever reason to work. This would have been cheap, simple and effective. It would not have required a massive reorganisation and the members of the BMA, who foresaw (rightly) that they would get a lot more work under such a scheme, were very much in favour of it.
What torpedoed this was a very unfortunate decision to make Aneurin Bevan health minister. He later admitted that he didn't care about making sick people well, he cared about making rich people poor. So he quite deliberately made healthcare free at the point of use to justify confiscatory taxes on the rich. He also tried to seize doctors' practices without compensation, and make them direct employees of the state. To manage his empire, he employed a vast network of civil servants (it is striking to reflect that less than a hundred years ago the Civil Service numbered in the hundreds only) at even vaster expense.
(continued)
Although a threatened doctors strike choked off one of those reforms (so doctors can still buy and sell practices - Bevan described his climbdown as 'stuffing [doctors'] mouths with gold') Bevan fought for the rest past all reason. Even when Britain ran up a colossal debt to pay for this, as the income from taxation was simply inadequate, he refused to accept the means testing of certain items or the charging for non-essential items (wigs, for example) and resigned in a hissy fit, leading to chaos within the government.
So in one sense you're right - there was a bit more in the 1930s than was generally assumed (although in fairness that was also true of pre-Obama America - his policies are extensions at least at much as they are innovations). And it is also true that the NHS is a sub-optimal system. Where you and I differ is (a) in the extent of what was available and (b) that it was a 'mistake' to bring it in in this way. It was definitely deliberate, and it achieved its aim. The error is to think that that had anything to do with the health of the nation.
The days are getting longer and sun's getting warmer even if the air's still getting colder. Chestnuts roasting on an open fire, Jack frost nipping at your nose. The promise of new beginnings, winter ale .. er ... er ...
Still that's not bad.
That's fair enough and if anyone in his Cabinet can't support that, they have to go.
The 1975 experience won't be lost on Cameron - it was a big step on the eventual road to schism for Labour and Wilson's attempt at principled neutrality made no difference. It must be a concern that history will repeat itself only with the Conservatives facing a split. In addition, Cameron has invested so much personal political capital in this referendum that were his position to be rejected, his own career would be forfeit.
Happy New Year! Never has there been a less suitable greeting.
Granted, the point is moot in that we all know no significant package would ever be acceptable to Brussells, and even getting that far given how poor a position Cameron is in now would be very very hard, but still, Cameron's call is not unreasonable.
As ever with Cameron however, it is poor party management, a critical weakness of his. Though again in fairness, what else could he do? Those who want out will accept nothing less than Cameron declaring right now that we will leave regardless - we've seen that with UKIP and others saying a referendum is no good unless the person calling it campaigns for our - and Cameron cannot do that, so he's just trying to stall the inevitable argument until he gets his pretend negotiation package done.
An EU referendum is not in the national interest and the Tories internal problems forever banging on about Europe with Farage holding Cameron on strings providing the policy.Only Labour can prevent this potential catastrophe to our nation.The Tories and Cameron are putting this all at risk.
Twitter
Tim Montgomerie ن @montie 6h6 hours ago
Silly for Cameron to say Cabinet ministers won't be able to campaign for Out. There'll be resignations... #MarrShow
RealWitan @RealWitan
@montie a reform deal with #EU agreed by cabinet then ministers either support cabinet decision or resign that is usual.So your problem is?
How do you hold a Referendum on EU membership without said Referendum splitting the Conservative party asunder as it did Labour in the 1970s ? The Rubicon becomes the Conservative Party actively supporting withdrawal but that's NOT and never has been party policy. Cameron knows, and any historian will tell him, that IF the Party splits on Europe it will be out of office for a generation or more just as it was with Peel.
So the last twenty-five years (and it was much easier outside Government because it didn't matter) has been nuancing round this conundrum. Under pressure from within the party and the rise of UKIP, Cameron was forced to concede the Referendum as a concrete pledge (though I suspect it's the last thing he wants) and he cannot back down from that.
The logical conclusion to that becomes either a) Labour wins and the position becomes moot or b) the Referendum has to be couched in such a way as to both get a positive result and keep the Party united. Cameron might hope by sheer force of loyalty he can achieve this but it didn't work for Thatcher or Major and it seems to this non-Tory observer that there are plenty of Conservatives who, if given a forced choice between David Cameron and EU withdrawal will go for the latter.
Ironically, defeat in May might be better for preserving the unity of the Conservative Party than victory - Stodge's Third Law of Politics states "be careful what you wish for. Victory is when the problems start, not when they end".
1. A referendum on the EU will let the British people decide whether they wish to continue letting the EU make so many decisions for the nation.
2. EV4EL will introduce fairness into the British political system where only English MPs will vote for those laws which apply only to England.
The only reason Labour backed Europe was to take advantage of the Social Chapter, obtaining regulations which would probably not have been passed by a British Parliament.
The only reason Labour opposes EV4EL is to maintain a power base which can oppress the English people.
Socialists are all the same - principally undemocratic.
"The market prefers stability" - yes and some people would sell their freedom for a few pounds.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2896125/Russell-Brand-calls-Labour-s-Ed-Balls-clicky-wristed-snidey-c-foul-mouthed-rant-Channel-4.html
This merely reinforces the impression the negotiation is so much fluff.
Frankly this is the most sinister comment made by Germany in peacetime since 'itler started banging on about the Sudetenland.
The roots of the NHS are Conservative and Liberal as much as Labour; though the final version was in a centralised nationalised system as in vogue with the left in the 40's.
The 1930s were bad times for some areas, notably mining and shipbuilding, but boom times for other areas, including much of the Midlands and South.
So any party that objects to the "privatisation" of the NHS, presumably wants to nationalise GPs like Aneurin Bevan did. This could also be extended to the pharmaceutical companies who provide the drugs and any NHS supplier.
Few have been the General Elections in this country held mid-winter, for good reasons. It's not just getting people out to vote, it's that 'feel good' matters. Mid to late spring should, all things being equal, favour the governing party. That didn't stop the tidal wave in 1997 but then nothing would have done.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2764092/Bruiser-Balls-leaves-journalist-bruised-bloodied-charity-friendly-football-clash.html
It is specious to compare the wholesale sell off of hospitals and services that is underway in some areas (and commenced by New Labour) with the limited subcontractor nature of NHS GPs, dentistry optical services etc. They are not the same.
Tory leader and PM is likely a step too far, not least because after a considerable time in the spotlight his star is probably dimming, not to mention all the internal party factors acting against him, but that it is credible enough to warrant polling and the like on the question, shows it is not a non-story; it's just not likely.
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/Politics/article1503123.ece
And it's bad form to agree with your own sockpuppet.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2896077/Anti-EU-ministers-face-sack-not-referendum-Cameron-warns-takes-swipe-appalling-Ukip.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ukip-mp-mark-reckless-left-feeling-sore-after-nigel-farage-changed-immigration-policy-9877429.html
He gave a straight and unambiguous answer.
What "less shifty" answer would you have preferred?
"Cabinet responsibility will be suspended because that's a better way of running the country"
FFS
Though no fan of political Christianity, I though AudreyAnne was out of order.
I can't figure out if Cameron is actually stupid or just thinks everyone else is.
This isn't to say religion is entirely private, nor that it should keep out of politics entirely. What it should never be is party political .
* You will not, I suspect, incidentally find much wholehearted support for UKIP amongst UK Catholic church goers.
This is just Cameron showing his true Europhile credentials. He's going to force all government ministers to back his claim we've got a major repatriation even if all we get is a nice press release.
Just last week Tories on here were arguing that Cameron's renegotiation was credible because people like Gove and Hammond would call him out if he didn't achieve much. Look how long that argument lasted!
I am sure they all know this and won't really mind. They know Cameron will not win back anything substantive, that's impossible given the EU's inflexibility, so whatever Cameron ends up campaigning on (should he ever get the chance), they can say they gave the EU a last shot and even hoped Cameron would succeed, but he didn't. If they complain now, perhaps leaking their unhappiness or something, it's just whinging.
Closer to the date, I imagine Cameron will suspend collective responsiblity, but Harold Wilson did not fight the 1974 campaigns on that basis and Cameron is probably holding that card in reserve.
Yes, Cameron has stitched up his front benchers good and proper. We all know Cameron is going to recommend staying in whatever he gets from Brussels, so cabinet ministers are going to be expected to go out and claim something's a great deal entirely on the whims of Angela Merkel. They will have to sacrifice either their jobs or their credibility because Cameron's strategic ineptness has backed himself into a corner. Knowing that he's going over a cliff, he's now intent on taking all other senior conservatives with him.
And if this is the way his closest colleagues are going to be treated, you can be damn sure that any junior MP will have their careers threatened if they dare argue for leaving.
He's made it very clear that if you support leaving the EU, the Tory party is not the one for you.
For most people, as the entry to free health treatment, GPs are the NHS.
GP practices do employ salaried doctors of course but they don't participate in the risks or profits of the doctors in the business partnership.
For two, in what world do you think we live in where Cameron will be able to force all government ministers to back his claim we've got a major repatriation. In what world has Cameron got enough control of enough of the senior members of his party to, in some theoretical world where he is in government again, to fill a Cabinet if he excludes all those who want to campaign for out, for all time. No, they will be resigning eventually rather than keep their posts, and Cameron has helpfully outlined when that when they can best do that - once they've given him a chance and seen what repatriation he can offer.
Cameron is a weak leader of the Tory party, and what he needs is time, time to win more of his party over and win the public over. If he is in power and undertakes a negotiation on repatriation, undoubtedly he will claim he has gotten something substantive, but I would bet significant sums he knows perfectly well plenty in his party will never agree that that is the case. He will be unable to prevent them at that time from campaigning for out and if at that point they must leave his government, then that works out well for identifying the wings of the party clearly. And why would anyone mind that? It will clearly show for everyone who is on what side for the following Tory civil war. Cameron forcing their resignations at that point makes the following fight simpler.
If he can however ensure they shut up about campaigning for out until it cannot be avoided, he can keep everyone in the government for 2 years until his negotiation fails.
It's not a perfect scenario, but it delays the inevitable conflict within the party from being more open for a couple of years at least.
The question then becomes which scenario will we have:
a) "I have in my hand a printed email, signed by Frau Merkel, that endorses the renegotiated treaty of membership in the European Union. I commend the Treaty to the House and to the Country"
b)"Despite my best efforts, I have failed to persuade the other members of the European Union of the need to address the concerns of the British people over our continuing membership. I am therefore forced to conclude that Britain's interests can only be served by withdrawal from the European Union and I commend this to the House and to the Country."
I suspect there are circumstances under which the majority of Conservatives could support either a) or b) but there will be those who couldn't support either.
I am on the moderation teams of three forums elsewhere, one with more traffic than PB and two with much less. All three have issues with users opening multiple accounts which we try to keep on top of using the software available.
The more amusing multi's are sometimes left open for a while, though, because the more creative ones often argue quite aggressively with themselves. It's very funny watching it happen when you are in on the joke, especially when the insults get personal! It gets even better when someone interrupts and White Knights for one side.
I get they won't like being put in the situation, but I don't see how it's unfair on them. Cameron is telling them to put up or shut up, and eventually they will make their choice be it now or in 2 years. They're are grown ups, they can decide which is more important to them, that is their right, and we will find out all we know about them depending on what they choose,
Anyone who stays in the Cabinet and campaigns for in after Cameron claims he has succeeded, cannot with any credibility claim they were forced. As you say, they will have been asked to sacrifice their jobs or their credibility. If they stay with Cameron purely to keep a Cabinet job despite wanting to campaign for out, then we are all the better for it, as we will be spared their lack of credibility when he falls.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-2833369/Thailand-one-dangerous-tourist-destinations-Earth-Ex-pat-investigation-lifts-lid-dark-Land-Smiles.html
But I suspect that some bits are OK still.
Anyways you need to be careful what you say you'll be sucking up to Mr Robinson soon enough.
His colleagues are no fools, I am sure they know this too. They can choose to say so now and lose out on a cushy Cabinet job for a couple of years, or they can wait for Cameron to claim he has succeeded and use that moment for their dramatic resignations en masse while enjoying a cushy Cabinet job in the meantime.
One gives Cameron a very immediate problem, one at least has the opportunity to delay that problem until after the Conservatives have won re-election, while in reality only restricting those without any integrity from acting as they wish to do come the main event of the referendum.
We are going to get royally screwed by all this.
The prospect of two years of Tories banging heads over Europe makes Miliband and Balls seem appealing!
The EU is like a golf club. It is the decisions of the other members that matter.
Cameron would be negotiating with the other heads of state (Merkel, Holland, Renzi, Rajoy etc.) to get changes made to EU treaties.
But a useful circus to distract the population from the real issues.
Thus, the Party either sinks or swims with the Prime Minister and they are shackled to him until either a) they lose the election or b) he walks away or c) the Party believes they have a viable alternative leader.
Cameron has therefore bet the farm on being able to carry via personal authority (enhanced by a re-election) the party through the negotiation and the referendum.
Many on here have opined it will be impossible for Cameron to achieve anything substantive from the re-negotiation so the final call is the threat of withdrawal. The EU may regard this as a bluff either because a) he won't support it or b) the British people won't support it.