Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why I have had a punt at 16-1 that Theresa May will be next
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why I have had a punt at 16-1 that Theresa May will be next PM
By far the best Theresa May bet is the 16/1 from Hills that she’ll be next PM. I’ve just had a punt.bit.ly/u6wr8r
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
May to be next Tory leader 5/1 (lets say 14.5%)
Doesnt that make her to be PM pre 2015 about 26.5/1? (0.25*0.145) =0.036
Unless there is another way she can be PM I reckon the 5/1 next Tory leader is better, and you could back the 5/2 Cameron out before 2015 as a hedge.. you might get both, or might get paid out if he leaves but she doesnt take over (pre 2015) or if she takes over after they lose the next election (if they do)
Unless of course you think Cameron is shorter than 3/1 (25%) to go pre 2015 and May is shorter than 5/1 (16.6%) to be next Tory leader
Are you alleging I am a racist, carl? Or are you talking about isam?
I can't quite see the Conservative Parliamentary Party uniting behind an attempt by Theresa May to depose Cameron, when she's the politician who is most well known for describing the Tories as "the nasty party".
Boris still isn't anywhere near the commons nor is yet another Etonian a particularly safe bet.
For all the talk of a brand new generation none of them have the profile or the experience yet and likely won't for years.
Gove is no more voter friendly than Osbrowne.
Hammond is boring though not quite the safe pair of hands that was assumed. His positioning on BOO is an indication that he would certainly not be averse to the job and which issue he might go big on.
May could seem a bit too pro IN unless she too does some positioning and posturing in the next couple of years.
I can't see any future leadership battle in the tory party not being dominated by the EU, IN or OUT. That was Cammie's 'gift' to the party should he lose. He would then retreat to a safe distance and watch the ensuing carnage, for carnage it would be.
It's important to consider whether we'll get a new PM this side of the election. If not then Miliband (*sighs*) is likely to be next PM. If not, then I'd probably prefer to back someone like Hammond.
The fact remains that there is not only not a range of potential successors, there isn't even a single successor who would be notably better than, or equal to, Cameron. Boris may be mentioned but he isn't even an MP.
Although to be fair when its 66s into 16s its not the same as 6/4 into 5/4
Theresa doesn't. Still Boris hands down for me. If he drifts wider than fives, its looking a bit tasty.
After a Tory defeat, however, I'm not sure she'd be a good choice. Perhaps a fresh face, and a true moderniser. The Cameron "project" never really got off the ground on that front, it was all far too superficial.
But peak then fall.
So its the chance of NOM times the chance of Cameron resigning/LDs refusing to work with him (20%??) and May replacing him... (0.37*0.2*0.145) = 100/1 not all that significant to the bet
Id prefer 2.5pts @ 5s next Con Leader 1pt@5/2 Cam out <2015 GE
It may come as a surprise, but most people are not obsessed with the backgrounds and wealth of the leading lights of the conservative party, like you are. No politician ever lost or won an election because of their class.
All most voters care about is if the person can deliver. Background is irrelevant beyond the bitterer parts of the left.
Your use of the former to denote the latter is a bit confusing, and any realistic appraisal of the uncertainty bounds on the science, let alone the uncertainty bounds on the economics*, is unable to distinguish which of the two is an optimal response.
When it comes to these known unknowns societies historically takes a wide variety of responses, from over-reacting in an attempt to prevent the worst case scenario (for example in response to terrorist attacks) to a fatalism bordering on contempt for the evidence gathered (for example in response to deaths due to gun crime in the US).
Of course, what people judge to be which depends on their underlying philosophy, and you may have different examples to mine. I suspect that most people's judgement of where they place societies [lack of] response to global warming on this "Chicken Little to Panglossian" scale has everything to do with political philosophy and, unfortunately, very little to do with the evidence.
* Which, given the last ten years, must surely be greater than the uncertainties in the science.
If the Tories are still palpably the largest party in a hung Parliament ie they have 40 plus seats than Labour, then Cameron will be safe. If they advance even modestly from 2010, (e.g. 5-10 seats) he may even be loved!
In the latter scenario I would put the chances of his leading a minority government at around 80%: in the former only a little less, say 70%. Why? The LibDems are bound to suffer losses in 2015 in both instances - not horrendous by any means, but sufficient for the internal pressures for them to regroup and that can only happen in opposition.
The decision therefore will not be Dave's but Nick's.
Cam will be the leader at the next election - nailed on.
I wonder what happens if the outcome of the next election is something like Con 290, Lab 280, Lib Dem 45. The Lib Dems could put either side into government, offer supply and confidence, or just go into opposition.
It's not a "matter of faith". Climate change caused by the burning of fossil fuel is almost certainly happening, and the impact will probably be destructive.
Even if you only, conservatively, put the chances of the former at 90%, and the latter at 50%, that's still a huge risk cost that should be borne by producers or consumers*, but isn't. Only Governments can correct a market failure like that, and they don't for various reasons.
*In the case of a poorly functioning "market" like energy, the extra external cost needs to be primarily borne by producers.
I'm entitled to my view sunshine, if you don;t like it you know what you can do.
It's not as if Cammie hasn't made complete and utter Cast Iron fools of gullible tory Eurosceptics plenty of times already. It's why, despite all their angry temper tantrums, he still feels pretty damn safe till 2015.
Should Cammie get back in and they start foaming at the mouth in 2017 (with not a sausage from the EU in sight) Cammie would give them a mandate referendum, tell them it's still an EU referendum, and they would pretty much have to swallow it.
When push comes to shove a large amount of tory Eurosceptics aren't even particularly rock solid on OUT. However, they sure do need to at least sound like it and posture as hard as they can while the Kippers suck tory votes from marginals.
I wonder whether cricket will ever do the same?
It's a simple strategy that you should follow your betters in matching.
I agree with the former assertion, and not with the latter. I find many of the claims of the effects of climate change to be frankly ridiculous. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't think so.
However any increase in cost will always trickle down to the consumers, whether it is in the form of more charges or higher taxes.
Let me ask you a question: what would your ideal vision of energy generation in Britain be in 2030, if you disregard cost? How much power would be generating from each of gas, coal, wind, wave/tital, nuclear?
Goodness. THAT's where I've been going wrong!! LOL
If Cam lucky enough to be PM in June 2015 then there is a good chance that the bodies of his EU enemies will float down the river before he ever has to suit up for battle.
Nearest analogy is 1974: I reckon it would be 50/50 on Cameron remaining party leader (assuming he wanted to stay). Everything would depend on the duration of Miliband's honeymoon and that second election.
LD/Con pact take 2 is a very likely scenario IMHO.
Very high risk if they try and block a coalition unless the Cons give up on a referendum.
I heard he top scores in 60% of Engs ODIs.. is this true? If so he must be a bet every time
I doubt the blues will be as naive in any deal this time either as they were in 2010.
If Lib+Con was the only viable option (ie Lib+Lab have gained less than 0-10 seats net) it gets a bit trickier for them, but tactically coalition might actually be less of a no-brainer than 2010, because:
1) The EU referendum thing would be tricky for them.
2) They've shown they'll work with the Tories if the terms are right, whereas if they'd turned them down in 2010 it would have looked like they'd never work with them under any circumstances.
3) In 2010 a new election would very probably have meant Tory gains and LibDem losses, but in 2015 it could well be the other way around.
"The media coverage of our political and social life is important, particularly a week before a Holyrood by-election. It’s clear failing us all.
Question Time tonight will be in Edinburgh in front of an audience of 16 and 17 year olds. Before them will be a panel comprising Nigel Farage, George Galloway, Anas Sarwar (Labour), Ruth Davidson (Tory), Lesley Riddoch, and Angus Robertson (SNP)
So one pro-indy politician, and four Unionists. What a disgraceful manipulation by our national broadcaster.
You don’t have to be a supporter of sovereignty for Scotland to be against this level of media imbalance."
http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2013/06/13/tv-nation/
http://moneyweek.com/how-john-prescott-wasted-22bn/
Pathfinder was a symbol of all that was wrong with New Labour.
SAVE's viewpoint: Also see: http://www.savebritainsheritage.org/news/campaign.php?id=144
Weather for London on Sunday is 14 degrees and heavy rain:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/2643743
A 10% equity scheme that hasn't yet been fully announced, hasn't started , hasn't paid out a penny, which can be stopped at any time is in danger of inflating a borrowing bubble against a backdrop of the nation paying off HE at £8Bn a quarter when under Brown it was withdrawing £16Bn a quarter ?
All this against a history of government schemes to encourage lending usually failing miserably to see any money changing hands.
Time to stock up on guns and bottled water methinks - this sucker is going to bring down the economy - we'll be using bitcoins and bartering cat furs to keep warm.
You'd almost think there is no economic bad news to spin....
Call me weird, but 50/50 would have been good. Alternatively, the five Holyrood parties could each have had a representative, in which case it would have been three anti-independence, two pro-independence. What UKIP and Respect are doing on a Scottish edition is anyone's guess.
Who in their right mind is going to tune in to see what the Scottish Greens or Socialists have to say about the price of turnips - would be a total yawnfest.
With a "relaxed" Farage straight from the pub and Galloway just off the plane from Tora Bora it might be entertaining - in a car crash kind of way.
Galloway is Scottish (albeit serving an English constituency), and represents the hard left. Farage is an interesting and deserved choice after the shameful way he was treated in Edinburgh and deserves a hearing. Riddoch is a journalist with strong Scottish connections.
So you have three left-of-centre, two right-of-centre, and one journalist whose political affiliations I am not familiar with. Oh no! It's biased towards the left!
I know you want everything to be about independence, but there are many other issues facing Scotland. The Scottish government has a great deal of good work to be doing before the referendum.
Try to ease up, it wasnt a challenge, I was interested in your opinion.
I agree, why are UKIP & Respect on? My guess would be Farage is on to wind up the people who caused trouble when he last visited Scotland, and Galloway because he is a controversial Scotsman, but thats pretty lame from the Beeb.
The five parties with a pro independence celebrity maybe? Maybe your good self?!! haha!
Zerohedge is the home of the conspiracy. I would pay it no heed.
According to New York Magazine it's run by a former convicted insider trader (http://nymag.com/guides/money/2009/59457/?imw=Y&f=most-viewed-24h10), and there have been allegations (http://gross-law.com/dalrymple.pdf) that that they - according to the lawsuit attached - engaged in a strategy of "short and distort".
So why isn't there a fair split? Where are the Greens, who actually have two MSPs, compared to UKIP and Respect, who have none? (Indeed, Respect have hardly ever put up candidates in Scotland.)
"Farage is an interesting and deserved choice after the shameful way he was treated in Edinburgh and deserves a hearing."
Are you suggesting that Farage is only there because the producers are making a moral judgement about the way Farage "was treated" in Edinburgh? Now that really would be a disgrace.
"I know you want everything to be about independence, but there are many other issues facing Scotland."
From what I can gather, the programme has been specifically billed as a referendum special.
If I was campaigning for Scottish independence I'd want this Home Counties golf club bore on every week along with Richard Littlejohn and Jeremy Clarkson"
Yes, I agree, if the audience are at all representative of Scottish 16 and 17 year olds, Farage is going to get the reaction from hell tonight, from unionists and nationalists alike. But it's the principle of the thing.
Its just that there aren't as many UKIP candidates to choose from as other parties.
When is any Green bar the leader on? Or any Respect member bar Galloway? (last week there was an ex member)
Brave Sir Ed ran away ?
Time to dust off the chicken suit ?
Important point about democracy & balance on tonight's @bbcqt where Nigel Farage makes 11th appearance as panellist http://www.patrickharviemsp.com/2013/06/scottish-greens-lodge-complaint-with-bbc-question-time …
Lesley Riddoch @LesleyRiddoch 5m
1/2 @bbcqt says "Tonight's prog aims 2 provide its unique audience of 16 & 17 year olds with as broad a range of political opinion as poss.
Lesley Riddoch @LesleyRiddoch 52s
2/2 while offering UK wide audience a varied & interesting political debate" Greens & LDs r in Scots "broad range" - UKIP & Respect r not.
The program is broadcast throughout the UK; it is not Scotland only. It therefore has to try to be of interest to viewers outside Scotland. Therefore it should represent the full nation, with a slant to whatever areas they are in. The questions should cover both national and local issues.
However, if it has been spelt out as a 'referendum special', then I am minded to agree with you. But if that is the case, I would be interested to know why such a special has been placed just before a by-election where many other issues are at stake.
He got more than a fair hearing. Are you seriously suggesting he didn't? He got an absurd amount of TV and radio coverage.
"The program is broadcast throughout the UK; it is not Scotland only. It therefore has to try to be of interest to viewers outside Scotland."
Curiously enough, English editions of QT never seem to take much account of "it has to be interesting to viewers outside England". And let's not forget the notorious Glasgow edition a couple of years back when the first quarter of the show was taken up with an English-only matter, but then Nicola Sturgeon was told to shut up for daring to talk about a Scottish-only matter -
http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/2010/10/please-remember-youre-talking-to-whole.html
Can we agree that we *know* Ed Miliband is a hypocrite and that David Cameron *might* be a hypocrite (specifically re: taxation) but we don't have the evidence to prove it one way or the other?
Very close to both the French and German governments. His comment was that Cameron's gambit was seen as basically akin to blackmail (and, to be fair, it is) and that it hasn't gone down that well. In terms of the UK leaving, the view is that it would be a lose-lose situation - the key element is that France and Germany would go very aggressively for the City if the UK was outside the EU in a way that they aren't right now.
As I said, idiots.
I haven't watched QT much in recent months, but when I used to watch it regularly I often found the questions on local affairs to be the most interesting. And that is key: local. A question about an issue in Cornwall does not have much effect on me here in Cambridge, yet comes under your 'English' banner. And yet such questions are often the most interesting.
You know that the Tories didn't promise to deliver Lords reform - because they couldn't. The party is split on that issue too.
If Farage gets an undue amount of coverage from broadcasters, that is the responsibility of the broadcasters. It is not the responsibility of a small group of young (and for the most part peaceful) protesters, regardless of whether in your personal opinion they are "idiots" or not.
"A question about an issue in Cornwall does not have much effect on me here in Cambridge, yet comes under your 'English' banner. And yet such questions are often the most interesting."
There are very, very rarely those kind of specific local issues. What there is on a regular basis, however, is English-only issues such as health and education, which have no relevance whatever to a Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish audience. That is not to say those English-only issues shouldn't be covered, but they should be balanced by proper coverage of Scottish-only issues when the programme makes a rare foray north of the border. There are plenty of opportunities for the composition of QT panels to represent the party system of England - it happens on a weekly basis. Tonight it should be representing the party system of Scotland - which means Greens in, UKIP and Respect out.
Excluding this one, unless its tim or an SNP supporter, do you only respond to posts you disagree with?
If that sort of scene is acceptable in Scotland, then God help you if you get independence. It was pathetic, as were their motives - Farage is no racist. And As I've said, I've got no particular fondness for him.
Scotalnd: where the mob rules. Do not dare to have a contrary opinion, or we'll hound you out. There is only one truth...
A largely peaceful protest? Yes, God help us if that sort of nonsense is allowed to continue. Much better we taser the bastards, or lock them up under trumped up anti-terror charges, yes?
Share frustration out there about yet another #bbcqt panel. Greens would love to be on, look forward to BBC reply to our complaint.
"Excluding this one, unless its tim or an SNP supporter, do you only respond to posts you disagree with?"
I don't follow?
The point is that he had every right to speak. You may not like him or his politics, but he is far from extreme and certainly a million miles away from the likes of Griffin. But these idiots (and yes, it is my opinion, but I bet the majority agree) seem to think that because they (wrongly) think he is racist, they can stop him speaking.
As I said, it's a bad indication of the state of political debate in Scotland.
And behaviour you seem to support.
It was. In fact from the TV pictures it looked entirely peaceful - I gather there were a couple of arrests, but I'm not sure of the details of those.
"The point is that he had every right to speak."
And by God was he allowed to speak. If only the Scottish Greens were being given the same opportunity tonight -
Scottish Greens have lodged an official complaint with the BBC about the lack of balance on Question Time, and have asked for an urgent meeting with corporation managers so they can explain how they will remedy the problem.
Tonight's edition of the programme comes from Edinburgh, features an audience of 16 and 17 year olds and is billed on the BBC website as including discussion on independence.
The panel comprises a representative of the SNP, a non-party political journalist and four anti-independence politicians, two of whom do not represent Scottish constituencies nor do they have any party representation in Scotland. Yet there is no Scottish Green representation despite the party having 2 MSPs and 14 councillors. Scottish Greens have only appeared on Question Time once in the 14 years since the start of the Scottish Parliament – and that was over two years ago.
Scottish Greens Co-convener Patrick Harvie MSP said:
"Tonight's Question Time line up is particularly bizarre, and following a telephone discussion with the editor it is clear to me that this programme has been contrived to deliver sensationalist confrontation, rather than serious debate. The lack of balance is staggering and I know from comments we've received it's not just Green supporters who are alarmed.
"This situation is particularly unacceptable a week before the Scottish Parliamentary by-election in Aberdeen Donside, which should require particular attention to political balance. The BBC has shown serious misjudgement in allowing tonight's programme to go ahead and we look forward to meeting senior managers to discuss how they intend to rectify a situation that will have harmed the broadcaster's reputation for fairness."
http://www.scottishgreens.org.uk/news/show/6836/scottish-greens-lodge-official-complaint-with-bbc-question-time
If there's a time to be calling someone fascist scum, it's when you're a 20-year-old student. A 49-year-old politician who wants to influence a nation and who hangs up the phone in a huff afterwards, not so much.
Councils where the LDs won the most votes in the local elections:
1. Eastbourne
2. Eastleigh
3. Cheltenham
4. Oadby & Wigston
5. South Lakeland
6. Watford
Councils where UKIP won the most votes in the local elections:
1. Basildon
2. Castle Point
3. Forest of Dean
4. Swale
5. Thanet
6. Boston
7. Great Yarmouth
8. Adur
9. Arun
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dHBJLWkxVDlsdHZXMnFTQjNDUEE2MGc#gid=0
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/350940/mick-jagger-margaret-thatcher-fan-john-fund