Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The widespread assumption that Dave won’t lead CON into the
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The widespread assumption that Dave won’t lead CON into the next election might be wrong
All this is based on the televised kitchen conversation that the PM had with the BBC’s James Lansdale in March a week or so before the official campaign began. My reading after watching the video again is that this was not a firm commitment to stand aside and that we cannot necessarily conclude that a new person will lead the Tories in 2020.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Even in a parliamentary election, people would reasonably expect to know who will be the next PM.
The proverbial could hit the fan if this were to happen.
I still cannot understand how nation-states plus the huge air power of the US cannot stop a motley crew no matter how many billions it has.
Regarding the billions, how does it get them ? Surely not by bank transfer ?
David Cameron will be aware of the precedents of Blair's and Thatcher's increasing hubris and also of Thatcher's and Wilson's health problems.
16/1 is not tempting as a 5-year bet. Perhaps with a view to trading or as part of a portfolio of next leader bets it might be, but that is for deeper thinkers than me.
It still has a motley crew of head-bangers , possibly fewer than before, but nonetheless who may not go along with Cameron's "negotiations" with the EU with such a low bar to declare "victory" in the negotiations. Most of the "demands" can be implemented today !
On listening again to the interview, it’s exactly as I remember it. This is Cameron's final term.
Leaving on his own terms and at a time of his own choosing would also distinguish him from both Maggie and Blair. In many ways this Parliament will be a rougher ride than 2010-15 was. Although he bears the burden of office more lightly than most (possibly because he is not an obsessive) I have little doubt that he told nothing other than the unvarnished truth in that interview. And having said it he would make himself look ridiculous by departing from it. Why would he want to do that?
My view to your first question: we (and by this I mean the west) don't have the political will to stop them.
1) Air power cannot do everything, and massed use of airpower risks more al-Kaseasbeh-type incidents. We had several aircrew captured during the first Gulf War, and their predicament would be very different now.
2) For proper use, especially in bulk, air power needs proper targeting. This means trusted people on the ground, and a knowledge of the ground game.
3) 'No boots on the ground' after Iraq. Thanks, Tony...
4) Risk of civilian casualties, which some would paint as making 'us' as bad as 'them'.
5) Perhaps something that goes through the minds of policy makers: the risk of mass attacks on ISIS/L severely pi^^Ing off certain populations in their own countries, decreasing internal security.
6) ISIS/L is not all a 'motley crew', and people who survive battle learn very quickly. ISIS/L will have some very experienced fighters in it, both ex-army units and people who have gone to fight and learnt on the job.
7) It would mean us picking a side in each country that had a chance to win, and sticking with them, whatever their bad points. This is not just helping them win the war, but helping them with security afterwards.
Basically, we in the west are mortally afraid of using our power well, for some good and bad reasons. Deeper involvement would involve risking our own people to a large degree, and we don't have the will to do that.
The prospect of Cameron continuing beyond the next GE, however briefly, brings into play the attractions of backing the likely next Labour leader but one's chances of becoming the next Prime Minister, were the Blue team to win again in 2020 and in such an event one would inevitably be drawn to that currently reluctant candidate Chuka Umunna who might well feel differently by then.
Those nice people at Paddy Powell are offering odds of 66/1against such an eventuality, but would only allow me to stake £1.06 to win £70. That said, it's not exactly the sort of outcome you'd want to bet the farm on.
DYOR.
I sense he will want to spend more time with Samantha, who he clearly thinks the world of, and his children as soon as he feels his work his done.
I expect that to happen fairly late on in this parliament. Probably in the last 12 months of the parliament.
At present, based on his newly elevated cabinet status, George Osborne appears to be Dave's likely pick, but this may well change over the next 3-4 years and if so he is likely to opt for a rather younger and perhaps as yet largely unknown figure in the Tory hierarchy. Spot who this might be and you could make yourself a pile of dough!
Come on Mike, you're usually good at spotting emerging talent.
Although the choice of 'dramatic events' could be his.
I genuinely believe he doesn't want to, but I also think he wouldn't want a disorderly transfer to a new leader, or to transfer over with some 'work' left undone. He seems to be the sort of person who wants to leave his desk tidy.
May lead you in the right direction?
Apart from the emergency scenario, the only way I can see Cameron serving into a third term is if there's an early election for some reason, which he then wins. That's not impossible.
Overall, the odds are probably about right but the timescale isn't attractive.
On topic, I don't think this is a runner. Cameron has done nothing to correct the notion he'll be gone in late 2019/early 2020. He means it and will do it. 16-1, tied up for five years, with negligible prospects of success isn't worth it. 50-1 wouldn't be worth it.
My guess would be that by 2018 Cameron will have had 13 years as leader, 8 as PM, will be either on an exceptional high or a dreadful low depending on the result of this referendum and will walk before he's pushed. He strikes me as much more self-aware than a Heath or Thatcher, and not likely to hang on until he's worn out his welcome like Blair (he's got less excuse for the sort of colossal hubris that did for Blair anyway - he's had to fight hard for even narrow election victories, rather than do some window-dressing and watch huge majorities fall into his lap).
Moreover, at age 53 he would still have 10-15 years to earn himself some big money, again as Blair did, and it wouldn't at all surprise me if he decided that was his next priority and he would like to leave at the moment when he has the best chance to do so. I know he's not exactly from a poor background, but it's not quite as wealthy as some people suggest and he may feel he wants to ensure a luxurious retirement.
Labour need to be careful now they've embraced the referendum. Were Cameron to extract serious and popular concessions. the voters would know that it would not have been achieved with a Labour government.
They'll probably be lucky, though and all that will be achieved will be a little tinsel and lots of grandstanding. It's a win-win for Cameron to make the most of it.
IN still looks certain to win barring some very silly actions by the EU.
1. A Tory leadership election over the summer of 2019, with the new leader to be announced at the Party Conference in October.
2. Cameron standing down at the conference, with the leadership election running through to December.
Any later and it becomes difficult for the new man or woman to sufficiently make their stamp on the general election campaign without undue disruption. Also, either timetable would overshadow the other two conferences without obviously hijacking the news.
Not according to foxinsoxuk they weren't! I suspect the odds to which Sir Norfolk refers were on offer AFTER she had declared herself as a candidate. I'm talking way before that stage when she would have been considered an unknown quantity - that's where the serious money is to be made.
Dave doesn't want to go; Con seats > 314; 98% probability Dave doesn't get hit by a bus; and also say 15% loss of stake interest, and your own morbidity.
It's actually around 17-2 you're getting that Dave changes his mind I think.
Cameron is much more balanced. He'll want to step back while things are going well (assuming they are) and before anyone is calling on him to go. Spend time with his kids, let Sam have a crack at her career (until he became PM she was much more high-flying than him, but put everything on hold) and make some serious money himself.
Much more like John Major - disappears from public view, becomes a senior adviser to Carlyle (a not badly paid gig), watches cricket and pops up from time to time to make some portentous statement which everyone listens to as he is now a "respected statesman".
I'd be that he'd rather follow that model than Heath (sad), Thatcher (mad), Blair (cad) or Brown (bad)
Tipped at 50/1 and retipped at 20/1 in Feb
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2015/02/01/could-my-501-bet-on-liz-kendall-being-the-next-labour-leader-be-a-winner-in-the-next-few-months/
He wants to be a family man.
He will go down in history as one of our greatest Prime Ministers ever.
For example when he became Tory Leader, in Scotland the Tories had 40 fewer MPs than Labour, now they have an equal number of MPs.
Stunning achievement, though his eradication of the Lib Dems might be even more impressive.
The most compelling reason of the lot to bet on an early Cameron exit may just be because he wants to be remembered as the man who saved the UK in a referendum - he won't want to spoil that record by being the man who destroyed it...
http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/2020-geography-of-labours-next-campaign.html
I think making sure that his kids have the same chances he was given will be a major consideration.
It's sort of covered in this article in the New York Times as well, if you're interested:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/25/opinion/how-britain-became-european.html
I know little about the subject but I thought the air support in Iraq/Syria works more by sapping morale. Death from the clear blue skies and all that, and having to scuttle along in uncertainty.
But as IS are as crazy as shit house rats anyway, I can see the problem. I can't see boots on the ground unless we are hit closer to home.
I am however reminded of the judge who dismissed the case against a defendant, because on a careful recount it was discovered that he had only committed the offence 143 times.
How did that one finish up?
I don't imagine Cameron caring that much about it - especially as a third term did them both in.
To whom do IS sell their oil? N Korea? And how do they transport it?
On a similar note, does anyone know what Fatah and Hamas's views are on ISIS/L?
*heads off the meeting, whistling innocently*
Many thanks for that summary. A surprise of 2015 was that the Cons both gained 2 Labour seats in Wales and successfully defended Cardiff North. The 2016 Assembly elections may provide further clues. Wales Labour weakness is that it will shout for more money but will run away from any suggestion of FFA.
Welsh Labour will suffer more in the Boundary review as many of its seats in the Valleys are smaller population constituencies. The same may affect Labour in its England Metropolitan seats and as the drift to the smaller towns continues, this will expand Cons potential seats - a sort of a double squeeze on Labour's potential seats in 2020.
All the promises in the world cannot pre-guess what events will occur in the next five years, which could prevent/delay his intention.
I believe that it is highly likely that there will be a military confrontation between the West and fundamentalist Islam in the next five years. This will involve not only the Middle East but parts of Africa and even Asia.
R4: Are you saying lying is widespread in politics?
Sir Malcolm Bruce: No...yes!
#DoItDave
One of the few concrete things we have learnt about Cameron these past few years is that he is not obsessed or ideological about politics in the same way as say Brown and Miliband. He is more like Blair and he will go at the right time rather than shoved out by the electorate or his party.
We may not want to take the risk but I think we are going to have to, sooner or later, so best be prepared for it. IS are not going to stop and just stay in some convenient desert hole committing their barbarism. They will come after the West so we had better be prepared.
As for your point 5, you have described a fifth column pretty accurately there. If we have populations who would be annoyed by attacks on IS then that is a good reason for dealing with IS rather than the opposite.
Westmorland
Norfolk North
Ceredigion
I think.
Westmorland and Lonsdale is the only properly safe seat I reckon.
The other thing to consider is whether Cameron would go early enough that the new leader would get one Queen's Speech and one session of Parliament before the election - so departing in autumn 2018, rather than 2019. I know that Boris has been cited in the media as desiring that Cameron stands aside soon after the EU referendum, rather than soon before the general election.
To give some heart to Labour, they have fought back-to-back elections with woeful leaders. A half-way decent leader might start clawing back from both the None of the Above and Can't Be Arsed parties, both of which have been a safe refuge away from Labour leaders for the past two elections.
Set against that, Labour has to get real. There are a swathe of seats which were won by Blair. He was a once in a lifetime leader (or certainly was at the time; somewhat less through the prism of history). Unless they can find another Blair, those seats are gone for good. There is no Blair in the current crop of candidates. Probably not one in the House.
Labour needs to fight a similar fight to the Tories in 2015 - a 40:40 strategy. It is admittedly an acknowledgment that majority government is out of reach. But then, it is out of reach. Labour's best hope for 2020 is to prise the fingers of the Tories off the door-frame of Number 10. The troubling message from 2015 though is that the voters got bored with Coalitions. They wanted firm government. And it is very, very hard to see a route to that again for Labour.
Which is exactly how I see it.
@AGKD123: On seat boundaries, the phrase "the Lib Dems could lose half their seats" doesn't exactly carry as much weight now that it means "lose four"
A strategic failure by Labour same as when it failed to address the weaknesses in SLAB that were clear in 2007 when the SNP overtook SLAB in vote share.
Who Won the UK General Election, How and Why?
http://bbc.in/1HI5Z1L
There is also a non-negligible risk that ISIS/L will spread into further adjoining states. Affiliated groups are already in Egypt and Yemen in a limited way, and Jordan and Turkey could be next. The latter in particular would be particularly serious.
I'm not sure I would describe it as Western cowardice: it is just that politicians currently see the risks (and particularly political risks) of heavy action against ISIS/L (within our capabilities) are greater than the risks of letting things continue.
That may, or may not, continue to be the case.
"Farron, party of one, your table is ready....
Carslake, party of one, your table is ready...."
Hmmm. Majority of 8,672. Now number 83 on the target list.
The two big mistakes have been to assume that (1) they are a rabble and like other terrorists will fall apart; and (2) to underestimate their ideological aims and determination. I have no doubt that Western supported states like Saudi Arabia and Jordan are in their sights, that the aim of recreating the old reach of the Islamic world (which once occupied Spain) is a long-term aim and that they will seek to use those supporters already in the West to help them achieve their aims.
Our leaders should be planning on this basis. Not talking - like that empty suit, Obama - of a junior varsity group.
Btw the Welbeck vs Falcao special has been settled up at Paddy's with dead heat rules, so anyone on the 4-1 will have a return of 2.44* Stake.
If you have a paper slip, go cash !
The other thing to consider is that voters may decide they want a change, and if the Conservatives don't offer that change, they will go looking elsewhere. This is a pretty good reason for Cameron to stick to his decision to bow out, as a new leader would find it easier to evolve the Conservative message.
I think I'd better lie down now!
"My reading after watching the video again is that this was not a firm commitment to stand aside and that we cannot necessarily conclude that a new person will lead the Tories in 2020."
Yes. Of course.
Surely by now people realise that DC can be parsimonius with commitment.
Actually, on 2nd thought, apparently many people do not.