politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » I now have huge doubts about the political judgment of Philip

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » I now have huge doubts about the political judgment of Philip Hammond

EXC: In small hours of election morning Phil Hammond texted Boris to say he would back him for leader

Read the full story here

DecrepitJohnL

Re end of OP -- yes, that's the point. That is why Theresa May is so weak. She cannot sack any minister who has a substantial backbench following, or who is supported by someone who has.

DecrepitJohnL

OT -- Frau Merkel is 1.02 for next German Chancellor.

ydoethur

I have doubts about anything from Shipman frankly. Leaving aside the fact that he's a proven idiot and a fluent liar a la Campbell or Macbride with his knife stuck firmly into Hammond, the following question arises: why would Hammond put Boris forward for leader when he knows full well that Boris can't win a leadership contest? Moreover, how would Shipman know? Who might have found out about this text who is on speaking terms with him?

As for the rebels, how many times were we told Brown's enemies had the numbers to topple him? Once a week? Yet they never did. Pledges of support are meaningless until they are translated into actual letters to the Chairman of the 22 committee.

Labour spokesman wriggling on the single market on the radio at the moment.

DecrepitJohnL

It is very quiet. Am I trapped in one of those ghost threads or is everyone getting ready for church?

ydoethur

DecrepitJohnL said:

It is very quiet. Am I trapped in one of those ghost threads or is everyone getting ready for church?

Everyone is asleep except for the hard core like you and me?

DecrepitJohnL

Deleted.

RobD

ydoethur said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

It is very quiet. Am I trapped in one of those ghost threads or is everyone getting ready for church?

Everyone is asleep except for the hard core like you and me?

Others are silent in the shadows....

SquareRoot

Fish and chip paper is a more interesting read.

SquareRoot

DecrepitJohnL said:

It is very quiet. Am I trapped in one of those ghost threads or is everyone getting ready for church?

I am.. I am doing intercessions this week!

DecrepitJohnL

SquareRoot said:

Fish and chip paper is a more interesting read.

When did they stop using newspapers to wrap fish and chips?

Edit: and was it due to interference from Europe?

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

Ha. Because the triumvirates were stable for the state and good things for all the triumvirs, weren't they?

This does reveal something worthwhile, though. Does May have a single genuine supporter, or merely opponents who believe it more sensible to wait before deposing her?

ydoethur

DecrepitJohnL said:

SquareRoot said:

Fish and chip paper is a more interesting read.

When did they stop using newspapers to wrap fish and chips?

Edit: and was it due to interference from Europe?

This board does blame Europe although health warning as the link is broken:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=429839

However I think it's more likely to be because newspaper got more expensive and tabloid sizes meant there was less of it, while greaseproof paper became cheaper.

Old Soviet joke: 'Why is newspaper more useful than a TV?

You can't wrap herring in a TV.'

And as things got Venezuela style bad under Perestroika:

'You can't wipe your arse with a TV.'

surbiton

I would not say Philip Hammond has poor judgement. He has no judgement. He also thinks he is not one of the big boys.

DecrepitJohnL

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Ha. Because the triumvirates were stable for the state and good things for all the triumvirs, weren't they?

This does reveal something worthwhile, though. Does May have a single genuine supporter, or merely opponents who believe it more sensible to wait before deposing her?

Neither; it is (c) opponents who cannot agree who should replace her. Theresa May is safe so long as she does nothing to provoke her rivals into action, which is why anyone betting on backbenchers or junior ministers as next leader needs to find them a path into the Cabinet which does not involve sacking a current minister.

ydoethur

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

Ha. Because the triumvirates were stable for the state and good things for all the triumvirs, weren't they?

This does reveal something worthwhile, though. Does May have a single genuine supporter, or merely opponents who believe it more sensible to wait before deposing her?

Bluntly, I think everyone knows - including May - that she will be leaving office before the next election. I know she's said otherwise but she said that about the election too. By 2020, when the situation is clearer, she will have found a reason to renege on that promise too (diabetes would be my guess).

However, curiously, right now she is best placed to reunite Party and even country, as while few people rate her highly outside a few fanatics like TSE and Osborne she's not loathed either. A leadership election that would tear open the wounds of conflict would be unwise and also time-consuming when we've just accepted we're short of time anyway.

Moreover, time is on everyone's side right now. The longer Boris is in post, the more chance he makes a monumental and unforgivable cock-up such as accusing the Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea of capitalism cannibalism or Juncker of sobriety, and has to resign. That would allow a reshuffle bringing younger talent through.

Moreover Corbyn's basic problems have not gone away and in 2019 he will be 70. Yet at the same time he shows no sign of quitting in favour of somebody who could actually break 40% of the vote and win an election. The longer he is there, the more time the weaknesses of both him and his top team have to come to light - already his polling figures are slipping back. But put him in the heat of an election where he just has to make off-the-cuff promises and he's absolutely formidable. The Tories need a huge cushion into the next election if he's still the leader, but they should have one if it's far enough off.

And that's even before considering Brexit.

So yes - time is what May offers, and it's vital enough that I doubt if she's going anywhere.

Edit - autocorrect turned 'cannibalism' into 'capitalism'. Clearly my iPhone has Marxist leanings. Or maybe he'll accuse the Chinese of that...

ydoethur

surbiton said:

I would not say Philip Hammond has poor judgement. He has no judgement. He also thinks he is not one of the big boys.

I'll put you down as a 'maybe' Surbiton

DecrepitJohnL

ydoethur said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

SquareRoot said:

Fish and chip paper is a more interesting read.

When did they stop using newspapers to wrap fish and chips?

Edit: and was it due to interference from Europe?

This board does blame Europe although health warning as the link is broken:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=429839

However I think it's more likely to be because newspaper got more expensive and tabloid sizes meant there was less of it, while greaseproof paper became cheaper.

Old Soviet joke: 'Why is newspaper more useful than a TV?

You can't wrap herring in a TV.'

And as things got Venezuela style bad under Perestroika:

'You can't wipe your arse with a TV.'

I suspect your source is correct, and that it was regulation of what can be used to wrap food that meant newspapers of unknown provenance were ruled out, rather than an explicit ban. It is this sort of distinction that got Boris into trouble in a select committee hearing over whether the EU had banned recycling tea-bags.

ydoethur

DecrepitJohnL said:

ydoethur said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

SquareRoot said:

Fish and chip paper is a more interesting read.

When did they stop using newspapers to wrap fish and chips?

Edit: and was it due to interference from Europe?

This board does blame Europe although health warning as the link is broken:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=429839

However I think it's more likely to be because newspaper got more expensive and tabloid sizes meant there was less of it, while greaseproof paper became cheaper.

Old Soviet joke: 'Why is newspaper more useful than a TV?

You can't wrap herring in a TV.'

And as things got Venezuela style bad under Perestroika:

'You can't wipe your arse with a TV.'

I suspect your source is correct, and that it was regulation of what can be used to wrap food that meant newspapers of unknown provenance were ruled out, rather than an explicit ban. It is this sort of distinction that got Boris into trouble in a select committee hearing over whether the EU had banned recycling tea-bags.

Stupid thing about European regulation - and the reason it was particularly unpopular here - was the way it was implemented.

Give you an example. A few years back the EU decided to harmonise regulations on battery chickens. They asked the Dutch to draw up something as they have expertise in cruelty to farm animals this particular industry. So they came up with something 12 pages long that covered everything.

The French took one look and cut it to 7 pages.

Some dim-witted civil servant at DEFRA who got the job because Daddy pulled the right strings took one look, decided it wasn't good enough and increased it to 248 repeat 248 pages. And then blamed Europe for the resulting shambles because it was complex and badly written, telling the minister (Beckett, at that time, who isn't bright enough to spot bullshit) there was nothing they could do.

If we had had the pragmatic and intelligent attitude towards Europe the French do (a) it would work better for everyone and (b) we'd still be in. Our politicians blaming Europe for their own errors is certainly part of it, but I frankly wonder whether large chunks of our arrogant and supremely incompetent civil service isn't a much bigger problem.

OldKingCole

surbiton said:

I would not say Philip Hammond has poor judgement. He has no judgement. He also thinks he is not one of the big boys.

What was he drinking at the time?

FF43

The speech in Florence is a definite can kick by May. My central prediction is that she will try to hold things together through Article 50, agree a two year continuation, the money and whatever is needed on citizen rights. Celebrate leaving the EU and resign, so her successor can deal with the mess. Come what may, it won't be May.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. 43, probably not but don't underestimate inertia. Brown had Labour on 19%, and held on.

Recidivist

The interesting thing is that take out the three

ydoethur said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

ydoethur said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

SquareRoot said:

Fish and chip paper is a more interesting read.

When did they stop using newspapers to wrap fish and chips?

Edit: and was it due to interference from Europe?

This board does blame Europe although health warning as the link is broken:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=429839

However I think it's more likely to be because newspaper got more expensive and tabloid sizes meant there was less of it, while greaseproof paper became cheaper.

Old Soviet joke: 'Why is newspaper more useful than a TV?

You can't wrap herring in a TV.'

And as things got Venezuela style bad under Perestroika:

'You can't wipe your arse with a TV.'

I suspect your source is correct, and that it was regulation of what can be used to wrap food that meant newspapers of unknown provenance were ruled out, rather than an explicit ban. It is this sort of distinction that got Boris into trouble in a select committee hearing over whether the EU had banned recycling tea-bags.

Stupid thing about European regulation - and the reason it was particularly unpopular here - was the way it was implemented.

Give you an example. A few years back the EU decided to harmonise regulations on battery chickens. They asked the Dutch to draw up something as they have expertise in cruelty to farm animals this particular industry. So they came up with something 12 pages long that covered everything.

The French took one look and cut it to 7 pages.

Some dim-witted civil servant at DEFRA who got the job because Daddy pulled the right strings took one look, decided it wasn't good enough and increased it to 248 repeat 248 pages. And then blamed Europe for the resulting shambles because it was complex and badly written, telling the minister (Beckett, at that time, who isn't bright enough to spot bullshit) there was nothing they could do.

If we had had the pragmatic and intelligent attitude towards Europe the French do (a) it would work better for everyone and (b) we'd still be in. Our politicians blaming Europe for their own errors is certainly part of it, but I frankly wonder whether large chunks of our arrogant and supremely incompetent civil service isn't a much bigger problem.

I think you might be right. EU regulations in my field are a bit over the top but are at least clear and can be followed. The ones from Westminster are/were a bit more delphic. If we are going to be setting our own rules from now on we could do a lot worse than look at the way the EU commission works as a model.

Jonathan

Hammond is chancellor. He is therefore one of the 'big boys' whether we accept it or not.

If we also accept that Tory politics is always conducted with quiet brutality, surely after the election debacle this sort of positioning is not just predictable, it is necessary.

WRT supporting Boris. He may be flawed, but - in the absence of anyone else - he is the clear front runner. It is therefore necessary to frame the question, "who is next" along the lines of whether you are pro or anti Boris.

FF43

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. 43, probably not but don't underestimate inertia. Brown had Labour on 19%, and held on.

You're talking to the expert in inertia, so I don't underestimate it! The problem is someone has to decide what to do about Brexit, unless we keep renewing the transitions on two year cycles - and that option as well as being dire, probably won't be available indefinitely. The inertia option is Single Market + Customs Union, but we're a long way from consensus on that, particularly in the Conservative Party, who are running the show, after a fashion. Crashing out with no agreement creates a massive crisis, so it isn't an inertia option. In fact it's the temporary absence of an option.

TGOHF

Dianne Abbot melting down over Brexit on R5 - incredible.

ydoethur

Recidivist said:

The interesting thing is that take out the three <

I think you might be right. EU regulations in my field are a bit over the top but are at least clear and can be followed. The ones from Westminster are/were a bit more delphic. If we are going to be setting our own rules from now on we could do a lot worse than look at the way the EU commission works as a model.

The irony of that would be truly delicious! However, I would frankly prefer to severely restrict the power of civil servants in government departments. A lot of their behaviour seems to be about ego and empire building, rather than good regulation and administration. Which is also of course costly and inefficient. I was asked recently if anyone would notice should the Department for Education be abolished. To which I answered yes, of course - we'd see a dramatic improvement in the quality of the national education system.

Is there something missing at the top there?

ydoethur

TGOHF said:

Dianne Abbot melting down over Brexit on R5 - incredible.

Has she said Theresa May is offering £200,000 a year?

Jonathan

By the way, whatever happened to "The Democrats"?

Was supposed to be this Autumn's big thing.

JosiasJessop

DecrepitJohnL said:

SquareRoot said:

Fish and chip paper is a more interesting read.

When did they stop using newspapers to wrap fish and chips?

Edit: and was it due to interference from Europe?

I was once told that it was due to the advent of colour in newspapers in the 1980s. The printing process changed to support colour, and the new inks were not suitable for ingestion. (I also STR they were less permanent: the new inks smudged and came off the paper more easily).

No idea if that's true, but it's what I was told.

ydoethur

Jonathan said:

By the way, whatever happened to "The Democrats"?

Was supposed to be this Autumn's big thing.

Let us not remind OGH of his embarrassing moments...

FF43

Jonathan said:

Hammond is chancellor. He is therefore one of the 'big boys' whether we accept it or not.

If we also accept that Tory politics is always conducted with quiet brutality, surely after the election debacle this sort of positioning is not just predictable, it is necessary.

WRT supporting Boris. He may be flawed, but - in the absence of anyone else - he is the clear front runner. It is therefore necessary to frame the question, "who is next" along the lines of whether you are pro or anti Boris.

The brutality is deafening right now. The Conservative Party selectorate think Johnson is popular with voters, so that will help his leadership ambitions. He's a colourful charlatan, who seem electable as a category in today's politics, if Trump is anything to go by.

OldKingCole

ydoethur said:

TGOHF said:

Dianne Abbot melting down over Brexit on R5 - incredible.

Has she said Theresa May is offering £200,000 a year?

You are being a cynic this morning!

CD13

One problem with European rules can be our civil servants, but they are under the control of ministers (or should be)..

There are two sorts of 'rules' from Europe. One is a Regulation and this is enforced in its entirety (unless you're France or the Mediterranean countries where they take a more 'relaxed' attitude).

The other form is a Directive which needs to be implemented into the country's laws. This allows civil servants to add bureaucracy and complications (and gold-plating according to some) - should they want to do so. Again that's up to the minister.

If our politicians are poor, at least we can change them. We can't change the Regulations, and we seldom adapt the Directives.

Morris_Dancer

F1: still a week off but the weather forecast has deteriorated. Rain remains eminently possible, and there might be rather a lot of it.

foxinsoxuk

TGOHF said:

Dianne Abbot melting down over Brexit on R5 - incredible.

On BBC AQ on Friday she sounded slow and slurred. She used to be articulate and I wonder if she has overdone the Blue Nun.

ydoethur

OldKingCole said:

ydoethur said:

TGOHF said:

Dianne Abbot melting down over Brexit on R5 - incredible.

Has she said Theresa May is offering £200,000 a year?

You are being a cynic this morning!

Only this morning, Mr Cole?

CD13 said:

One problem with European rules can be our civil servants, but they are under the control of ministers (or should be)..

There are two sorts of 'rules' from Europe. One is a Regulation and this is enforced in its entirety (unless you're France or the Mediterranean countries where they take a more 'relaxed' attitude).

The other form is a Directive which needs to be implemented into the country's laws. This allows civil servants to add bureaucracy and complications (and gold-plating according to some) - should they want to do so. Again that's up to the minister.

If our politicians are poor, at least we can change them. We can't change the Regulations, and we seldom adapt the Directives.

Which is my point. We could and we should have done more to play down the regulations, not play them up. And with respect, and knowing full well you are a former civil servant, I see far too much of the latter for no discernible reason that is wrongly blamed on Europe.

As for ministers, it depends on the minister. Getting silly stuff past Miliband was reputed to be hard because whatever his shortcomings he did read the information he needed to. Getting stuff past Margaret Beckett, on the other hand...and there in a nutshell you have the RPA fiasco, another entirely home grown fiasco blamed on Europe.

Monksfield

FF43 said:

Jonathan said:

Hammond is chancellor. He is therefore one of the 'big boys' whether we accept it or not.

If we also accept that Tory politics is always conducted with quiet brutality, surely after the election debacle this sort of positioning is not just predictable, it is necessary.

WRT supporting Boris. He may be flawed, but - in the absence of anyone else - he is the clear front runner. It is therefore necessary to frame the question, "who is next" along the lines of whether you are pro or anti Boris.

The brutality is deafening right now. The Conservative Party selectorate think Johnson is popular with voters, so that will help his leadership ambitions. He's a colourful charlatan, who seem electable as a category in today's politics, if Trump is anything to go by.

I think the parallel may actually be with Hillary. An 'obvious' candidate but one who starts with the population's views already fully formed. Very high negatives.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Flashman (deceased), is it really incredible?

Mr. Doethur, anyone who makes predictions will get them wrong sometimes.

Less than a week until the referendum-or-not in Catalonia.

ydoethur

foxinsoxuk said:

TGOHF said:

Dianne Abbot melting down over Brexit on R5 - incredible.

On BBC AQ on Friday she sounded slow and slurred. She used to be articulate and I wonder if she has overdone the Blue Nun.

I'm not Abbott's biggest fan as you know but clearly there is something very wrong with her. I'm wondering - although you are the medic - whether it is more than the official explanation of diabetes. Surely it should be possible for anybody of reasonable intelligence to manage that so disasters like this don't happen.

ydoethur

Monksfield said:

FF43 said:

Jonathan said:

Hammond is chancellor. He is therefore one of the 'big boys' whether we accept it or not.

If we also accept that Tory politics is always conducted with quiet brutality, surely after the election debacle this sort of positioning is not just predictable, it is necessary.

WRT supporting Boris. He may be flawed, but - in the absence of anyone else - he is the clear front runner. It is therefore necessary to frame the question, "who is next" along the lines of whether you are pro or anti Boris.

The brutality is deafening right now. The Conservative Party selectorate think Johnson is popular with voters, so that will help his leadership ambitions. He's a colourful charlatan, who seem electable as a category in today's politics, if Trump is anything to go by.

I think the parallel may actually be with Hillary. An 'obvious' candidate but one who starts with the population's views already fully formed. Very high negatives.

Comparing Johnson to Clinton seems a stretch. She sold herself on competence and stability. Trump on optimism, total rubbish and his (manufactured) outsider status. The latter looks closer to Boris (and indeed Corbyn).

May to Clinton is an entirely even eerily valid parallel.

TGOHF

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Flashman (deceased), is it really incredible?

Mr. Doethur, anyone who makes predictions will get them wrong sometimes.

Less than a week until the referendum-or-not in Catalonia.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Flashman (deceased), is it really incredible?

Mr. Doethur, anyone who makes predictions will get them wrong sometimes.

Less than a week until the referendum-or-not in Catalonia.

Incredible that she is a shadow minister and incredible that she didn’t have Labour handlers who wouldn’t prevent her going on in that state.

CD13

Mr ydoethur,

I'm not disagreeing. I was a civil servant in my later career, but as a scientist, I was restricted to scientific matters (on tap not on top). European scientists are fine, but the bureaucrats can make you shudder. But that is their life. I voted Leave for that reason.

UK bureaucrats are little better, but they should be under Ministerial control. And you're right in that Europe 'rules' were was often used as an excuse to pass on their own pet projects.

Jonathan

ydoethur said:

May to Clinton is an entirely even eerily valid parallel.

They are similar. But there are three big difference IMO.

* May actually was elected (just).
* May did it on her own (she was not married to an ex Prime Minister).
* However, May was not the first female PM. The hard work was done for her.

ydoethur

TGOHF said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Flashman (deceased), is it really incredible?

Mr. Doethur, anyone who makes predictions will get them wrong sometimes.

Less than a week until the referendum-or-not in Catalonia.

Incredible that she is a shadow minister and incredible that she didn’t have Labour handlers who wouldn’t prevent her going on in that state.

Now I'm going to be controversial. Have a read of this article.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/20389954/west-indies-legacy-left-hands-schoolboys

Now, instead of the top West Indian performers not in the Test side, imagine the top Labour supporters doing other things:

Burnham, Khan, Cooper, Balls, the Miliband brothers, Leslie, Creagh, Bradshaw, Benn, Flint, Lewis.

Admittedly I shudder at some of those names - especially the odious Creagh - but there is no doubting their ability, compared to the muppets on the Labour front bench.

To follow up, remember the Maroons stunned the world by winning the next Test. Suddenly all the talk was of 17 years of hurt coming to an end at last, and how it would reignite Test cricket.

And then they collapsed limply on the penultimate day of the Third Test and order was restored.

Spooky parallel? Perhaps. The key point is that right now Labour could be grinding the Tories into the dust with their top team and they are not doing so. And some of that top team may never return to politics.

Admittedly none of them looks quite like a leader, but that's a side issue.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Jonathan, interesting points. Does being the first female PM count as 'doing the hard work', though?

In Thatcher's day, perhaps. But now, I don't think it's a factor that people consider much beyond making ridiculous points about how modern they are [and I include May's 2-0 nonsense comment at the dispatch box].

We've got female leaders for the UK, Scottish and Northern Irish governments (such as the latter is, anyway), a female Home Secretary and Shadow Home Secretary [that's Abbott's gig, right?]. I don't think people care that much now.

Clinton lost because she was incompetent. Calling half the electorate deplorable and failing to campaign in the right areas was what lost her the election. Her being a woman was neither here nor there.

nielh

ydoethur said:

Recidivist said:

The interesting thing is that take out the three <

I think you might be right. EU regulations in my field are a bit over the top but are at least clear and can be followed. The ones from Westminster are/were a bit more delphic. If we are going to be setting our own rules from now on we could do a lot worse than look at the way the EU commission works as a model.

The irony of that would be truly delicious! However, I would frankly prefer to severely restrict the power of civil servants in government departments. A lot of their behaviour seems to be about ego and empire building, rather than good regulation and administration. Which is also of course costly and inefficient. I was asked recently if anyone would notice should the Department for Education be abolished. To which I answered yes, of course - we'd see a dramatic improvement in the quality of the national education system.

Is there something missing at the top there?

Some of this is true, but what exactly do you suggest as an alternative to the civil service?

In my experience, I started off as a policy advisor in 2009 incredibly sceptical, by 2013 when I left I was convinced that the civil service is the last line of defence for civilisation vs insanity. Just a personal view.

I think the issues about transcribing EU regulations and directives stem from our complex and ancient legal system. Many EU countries are not even a hundred years old even now.

DavidL

May spent the campaign making it painfully clear that Hammond was toast. He was not allowed to campaign and had clear disagreements with May on policy. This was of course one of her many huge mistakes as it meant that there was not nearly enough focus on the economy where the Tories had a massive advantage over Labour in the polling.

On election night Hammond probably expected to be sacked notwithstanding the chronic result. I have little doubt that he would have been minded to retaliate and combine with another to replace her. One of May's very few political skills is making enemies that loathe her and Osborne's judgment that she was a dead woman walking seemed perfectly valid at the time.

So far, so sensible. Since he took the view (probably correctly) that he did not have enough of a power base in the party to launch a leadership campaign himself he looked at the options. Boris has several drawbacks as a politician but if the choice is between him and Davis I'd take Boris in a heartbeat. Davis is seriously over promoted in his current role. To say he is not fit to be PM is like suggesting that the Atlantic ocean tends toward dampness.

Just because this story comes from Shipman it is not necessarily untrue. Broken clocks etc.

ydoethur

CD13 said:

Mr ydoethur,

I'm not disagreeing. I was a civil servant in my later career, but as a scientist, I was restricted to scientific matters (on tap not on top). European scientists are fine, but the bureaucrats can make you shudder. But that is their life. I voted Leave for that reason.

UK bureaucrats are little better, but they should be under Ministerial control. And you're right in that Europe 'rules' were was often used as an excuse to pass on their own pet projects.

Fair enough, apologies for misunderstanding.

My father is similar - he works on epidemiology - but curiously came to the opposite conclusion. Although he will forever hate the French for their behaviour over BSE, and loathes civil servants for their behaviour over regulations, precisely because disease doesn't respect national boundaries he is all in favour of closer EU integration to have super-blocks that minimise the disruption they cause. He also gets on well with his fellow epidemiologists in Europe and finds they all agree on key things. So he voted remain.

I voted Remain in an attempt to avoid the chaos now kicking off. It didn't work. These things happen.

foxinsoxuk

ydoethur said:

foxinsoxuk said:

TGOHF said:

Dianne Abbot melting down over Brexit on R5 - incredible.

On BBC AQ on Friday she sounded slow and slurred. She used to be articulate and I wonder if she has overdone the Blue Nun.

I'm not Abbott's biggest fan as you know but clearly there is something very wrong with her. I'm wondering - although you are the medic - whether it is more than the official explanation of diabetes. Surely it should be possible for anybody of reasonable intelligence to manage that so disasters like this don't happen.

I wouldn't want to diagnose from such a distance and limitedpublic appearances, but diabeted is difficult to manage with a political lifestyle.

Good control requires healthy meals at regular times, predictable physical activity and not too much alcohol. It is very hard to maintain these with a front bench position. Jezza shows admirable loyalty to her, and vice versa, but a real friend would ask her to step back for her own good.

RochdalePioneers

Its incredible to watch. A zombie left in Number 10 because one side think she's going too far, the other side don't think she's going far enough. So she does nothing, clinging to her chair like someone whose had too much champagne hoping that 'do nothing' will keep the opposing sides at bay.

That the thing she's doing nothing on is Brexit is a problem. A 2 year delay - even if the EU will allow it on the terms she set out - just prolongs the uncertainty for business, especially if the out of the EU in the EEA "transition" period turns out to be quite good.

If as is being reported this morning BoJo "successfully" stopped her from declaring the Norway option in Florence then the man needs to meet the same fate as Mussolini.

ydoethur

Jonathan said:

ydoethur said:

May to Clinton is an entirely even eerily valid parallel.

They are similar. But there are three big difference IMO.

* May actually was elected (just).
* May did it on her own (she was not married to an ex Prime Minister).
* However, May was not the first female PM. The hard work was done for her.

Didn't Clinton win the popular vote by much the same margin as May? But because Corbyn's vote was less efficient than Trump's he couldn't force the overall win.

The other two points are valid but your last point is perhaps exaggerated. Between 1975 and 2016, I think I am right in saying that only four women in total stood in party leadership elections - Beckett in 1994, Abbott in 2010, and Cooper and Kendall in 2015. None came higher than third. In the case of Beckett she was acting leader, and Abbott was a joke candidate - meanwhile for all her faults Cooper was clearly the ablest candidate in 2015. So that does suggest a latent problem with sexism.

May herself may have been helped by Fox's dodgy past and Gove's erratic behaviour, coupled to the inexperience of the other two. Certainly I do not think she would have been a given to beat Hammond had he not stood aside in her favour.

ydoethur

nielh said:

ydoethur said:

Recidivist said:

The interesting thing is that take out the three <

I think you might be right. EU regulations in my field are a bit over the top but are at least clear and can be followed. The ones from Westminster are/were a bit more delphic. If we are going to be setting our own rules from now on we could do a lot worse than look at the way the EU commission works as a model.

The irony of that would be truly delicious! However, I would frankly prefer to severely restrict the power of civil servants in government departments. A lot of their behaviour seems to be about ego and empire building, rather than good regulation and administration. Which is also of course costly and inefficient. I was asked recently if anyone would notice should the Department for Education be abolished. To which I answered yes, of course - we'd see a dramatic improvement in the quality of the national education system.

Is there something missing at the top there?

Some of this is true, but what exactly do you suggest as an alternative to the civil service?

In my experience, I started off as a policy advisor in 2009 incredibly sceptical, by 2013 when I left I was convinced that the civil service is the last line of defence for civilisation vs insanity. Just a personal view.

I think the issues about transcribing EU regulations and directives stem from our complex and ancient legal system. Many EU countries are not even a hundred years old even now.

My immediate questions would be (1) do we need so many of them and (2) should they not be directly accountable to ministers for what they do so they can be properly controlled? Because at the moment as I understand it they are not.

OldKingCole

foxinsoxuk said:

ydoethur said:

foxinsoxuk said:

TGOHF said:

Dianne Abbot melting down over Brexit on R5 - incredible.

On BBC AQ on Friday she sounded slow and slurred. She used to be articulate and I wonder if she has overdone the Blue Nun.

I'm not Abbott's biggest fan as you know but clearly there is something very wrong with her. I'm wondering - although you are the medic - whether it is more than the official explanation of diabetes. Surely it should be possible for anybody of reasonable intelligence to manage that so disasters like this don't happen.

I wouldn't want to diagnose from such a distance and limitedpublic appearances, but diabeted is difficult to manage with a political lifestyle.

Good control requires healthy meals at regular times, predictable physical activity and not too much alcohol. It is very hard to maintain these with a front bench position. Jezza shows admirable loyalty to her, and vice versa, but a real friend would ask her to step back for her own good.

May is also a diabetic but has a body shape much more appropriate for good control.

Jonathan

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Jonathan, interesting points. Does being the first female PM count as 'doing the hard work', though?

It's a big deal. In America they have not had a female commander in chief. Think of all those puffed up 5 star generals and macho lobbyists and tell me that does not matter.

Whereas we have (whether you agree her politics or not) a role model that demonstrates a woman can thrive in the job. We have also had a history of successful female monarchs. Again something America does not have.

Clinton had a bigger hill to climb, without doubt.

ydoethur said:

Didn't Clinton win the popular vote by much the same margin as May? But because Corbyn's vote was less efficient than Trump's he couldn't force the overall win.

The task is always to win the election, not the popular vote. One failed, one just scraped it. The popular vote is - at best - a technical consolation to Clinton. She would swap it for an election win in a heartbeat.

ydoethur

RochdalePioneers said:

Its incredible to watch. A zombie left in Number 10 because one side think she's going too far, the other side don't think she's going far enough. So she does nothing, clinging to her chair like someone whose had too much champagne hoping that 'do nothing' will keep the opposing sides at bay.

That the thing she's doing nothing on is Brexit is a problem. A 2 year delay - even if the EU will allow it on the terms she set out - just prolongs the uncertainty for business, especially if the out of the EU in the EEA "transition" period turns out to be quite good.

If as is being reported this morning BoJo "successfully" stopped her from declaring the Norway option in Florence then the man needs to meet the same fate as Mussolini.

Leaving aside the fact I disapprove of violence against politicians - even truly dangerous and evil ones like Juncker - you have now given me the mental image of Boris Johnson stripped naked dangling upside down from a lamp post. Which is not a nice mental image.

Any suggestions as to what penalty we should exact for this?

ydoethur

Jonathan said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Jonathan, interesting points. Does being the first female PM count as 'doing the hard work', though?

It's a big deal. In America they have not had a female commander in chief. Think of all those puffed up 5 star generals and macho lobbyists and tell me that does not matter.

Whereas we have (whether you agree her politics or not) a role model that demonstrates a woman can thrive in the job. We have also had a history of successful female monarchs. Again something America does not have.

Clinton had a bigger hill to climb, without doubt.

ydoethur said:

Didn't Clinton win the popular vote by much the same margin as May? But because Corbyn's vote was less efficient than Trump's he couldn't force the overall win.

The task is always to win the election, not the popular vote. One failed, one just scraped it. The popular vote is - at best - a technical consolation to Clinton. She would swap it for an election win in a heartbeat.

That's true, and I suppose the American system does discriminate against the popular vote to a greater degree than ours does (here only once since 1928 has a party won a majority without winning the popular vote as well, although in February 1974 the Tories got more votes but fewer seats).

foxinsoxuk

OldKingCole said:

foxinsoxuk said:

ydoethur said:

foxinsoxuk said:

TGOHF said:

Dianne Abbot melting down over Brexit on R5 - incredible.

On BBC AQ on Friday she sounded slow and slurred. She used to be articulate and I wonder if she has overdone the Blue Nun.

I'm not Abbott's biggest fan as you know but clearly there is something very wrong with her. I'm wondering - although you are the medic - whether it is more than the official explanation of diabetes. Surely it should be possible for anybody of reasonable intelligence to manage that so disasters like this don't happen.

I wouldn't want to diagnose from such a distance and limitedpublic appearances, but diabeted is difficult to manage with a political lifestyle.

Good control requires healthy meals at regular times, predictable physical activity and not too much alcohol. It is very hard to maintain these with a front bench position. Jezza shows admirable loyalty to her, and vice versa, but a real friend would ask her to step back for her own good.

May is also a diabetic but has a body shape much more approp[riate for good control.

I think May has type 1 diabetes of late onset (LADA), so not too surprised at her body shape.

https://www.diabetes.org.uk/about_us/news/1-in-5-cases-of-diabetes-diagnosed-in-the-over-40s

Her rather puritanical tastes and rather rigid controlling personality probably makes for good control. Nonetheless diabetes is difficult to manage for a politician.

DavidL

The battery hen story is not true. This is the schedule to the 2007 regulations which specifically dealt with battery hens: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/2078/schedule/2/made. It runs to a single page. Since then there have been 2 additional regulations that were introduced during the coalition. Neither were of any great length.

What I suspect is being talked about is the guidance which was developed with a lot (perhaps too much) input from animal welfare groups. This is not the legislation itself although it does indicate how the somewhat sparse, European style legislation should be interpreted by those responsible for checking compliance.

This is indicative of a part of a more general problem. Our construction of legislation is traditionally restrictive. It is read down and if there is a construction which makes what was done not illegal that is a defence. In most continental systems and EU law legislation is purposive. That means you look at what the legislation was intended to achieve and apply the intention rather than the specific words. This difference of outlook often means that the UK equivalent will be more detailed than the French one for example. It does not necessarily mean that our regulation is gold plated, it is just a different legal tradition.

williamglenn

A theory: the cabinet Brexit committee's real goal has always been to renegotiate membership of the single market without free movement of people.

- The tried prenegotiation but that didn't work. The assumed this was because the EU didn't think they would go through with leaving.
- They announced we would leave the single market. This didn't have the shock effect they were hoping for. Instead the EU welcomed the apparent clarity of the position.
- Hoping we could still shock the EU into submission we invoked Article 50, but instead of a generous offer we got a watertight set of negotiating guidelines that gave us no room for manoeuvre.
- Panic sets in, and they decide that they need a massive majority to force the EU to take them seriously. May calls the election expecting this to happen.

They completely misjudged the strategic from start to finish and now don't how to get out of the mess.

DavidL

williamglenn said:

A theory: the cabinet Brexit committee's real goal has always been to renegotiate membership of the single market without free movement of people.

- The tried prenegotiation but that didn't work. The assumed this was because the EU didn't think they would go through with leaving.
- They announced we would leave the single market. This didn't have the shock effect they were hoping for. Instead the EU welcomed the apparent clarity of the position.
- Hoping we could still shock the EU into submission we invoked Article 50, but instead of a generous offer we got a watertight set of negotiating guidelines that gave us no room for manoeuvre.
- Panic sets in, and they decide that they need a massive majority to force the EU to take them seriously. May calls the election expecting this to happen.

They completely misjudged the strategic from start to finish and now don't how to get out of the mess.

Stripping out the spin it is undoubtedly true that what the UK wants is unrestricted access to the single market with freedom of movement being at the UK's discretion. It seems to be an entirely sensible objective. Whether it is achievable remains to be seen.

kle4

DavidL said:

williamglenn said:

A theory: the cabinet Brexit committee's real goal has always been to renegotiate membership of the single market without free movement of people.

- The tried prenegotiation but that didn't work. The assumed this was because the EU didn't think they would go through with leaving.
- They announced we would leave the single market. This didn't have the shock effect they were hoping for. Instead the EU welcomed the apparent clarity of the position.
- Hoping we could still shock the EU into submission we invoked Article 50, but instead of a generous offer we got a watertight set of negotiating guidelines that gave us no room for manoeuvre.
- Panic sets in, and they decide that they need a massive majority to force the EU to take them seriously. May calls the election expecting this to happen.

They completely misjudged the strategic from start to finish and now don't how to get out of the mess.

Stripping out the spin it is undoubtedly true that what the UK wants is unrestricted access to the single market with freedom of movement being at the UK's discretion. It seems to be an entirely sensible objective. Whether it is achievable remains to be seen.

Probably not, but that being an ideal goal doesn't seem a big secret.

HYUFD

All these revelations do is make it more likely that none of the above, Boris, Davis or Hammond will receive the crown.

Indeed with 2 new polls giving a Tory poll lead and most others still making it close, May now having ensured some stability around Brexit with the 2 year transition period and Corbyn moving towards a clearer 'bash the rich' platform and Labour's ban of Uber showing a clear anti competition agenda (which polls show is unpopular) I now think there is a chance, a small chance, May could call a general election in 2019 after we technically leave the EU and win a small majority. If not she may also be tempted to promote the likes of Rory Stewart, Jonny Mercer and Tom Tugendhadt over the next few years into Cabinet to offer an alternative to the big 3, much as Thatcher rapidly promoted her ultimate successor John Major (who let us not forget also beat a Labour leader confident of victory on his second attempt)

RochdalePioneers

ydoethur said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Its incredible to watch. A zombie left in Number 10 because one side think she's going too far, the other side don't think she's going far enough. So she does nothing, clinging to her chair like someone whose had too much champagne hoping that 'do nothing' will keep the opposing sides at bay.

That the thing she's doing nothing on is Brexit is a problem. A 2 year delay - even if the EU will allow it on the terms she set out - just prolongs the uncertainty for business, especially if the out of the EU in the EEA "transition" period turns out to be quite good.

If as is being reported this morning BoJo "successfully" stopped her from declaring the Norway option in Florence then the man needs to meet the same fate as Mussolini.

Leaving aside the fact I disapprove of violence against politicians - even truly dangerous and evil ones like Juncker - you have now given me the mental image of Boris Johnson stripped naked dangling upside down from a lamp post. Which is not a nice mental image.

Any suggestions as to what penalty we should exact for this?

For clarity I was of course referring to Mussolini being ripped from office by the people, not being literally strung up - I'dforgotten it went that far. Was not and am not suggesting violence or lynching against BoJo. Like you I dislike the aggressive tones against politicoans which I appear to have inadvertently blundered into.

As BoJo (long may he remain healthy) would say, Cripes!

kle4

I do welcome any historical reference like this. Granted it apparently didn't succeed, but let's say that Crassus(Hammond) reached too far and he has now perished (insofar as political ambitions), the next step will be Boris and Davis in all out war, which Boris will win, but before too long he will be taken down (he has enough skeletons in his closet) and a family member will rally his support and take over for a long period.

The next but one Prime Minister - Jo Johnson.

Quincel

DecrepitJohnL said:

Re end of OP -- yes, that's the point. That is why Theresa May is so weak. She cannot sack any minister who has a substantial backbench following, or who is supported by someone who has.

True, but I'm struck by how Brown survived for years, and Major. Replacing May requires more than the Tories wanting to replace May - they have to either be willing to sack her with no clear successor or coalesce around one prior to sacking her. And in either case, be willing to risk the ensuring instability despite not even having a majority of Tory MPs.

I've got a series of bets on her surviving until at least 2020 and at least 2022. It's touch and go, but the odds (5/1 on 2020, 7/1 on 2022) are very good imho. Likewise, PP has very long odds on the next election being in 2022 - I'm not sure why.

MarqueeMark

Greetings peeby-peeps. Back from my sabbatical from all things political.

The Good Lady Wifi has finally deliverd her Ferrari movie to Universal. A degree of normality reigns in the household. For about a week, until the next movie starts prep.....

DavidL

kle4 said:

I do welcome any historical reference like this. Granted it apparently didn't succeed, but let's say that Crassus(Hammond) reached too far and he has now perished (insofar as political ambitions), the next step will be Boris and Davis in all out war, which Boris will win, but before too long he will be taken down (he has enough skeletons in his closet) and a family member will rally his support and take over for a long period.

The next but one Prime Minister - Jo Johnson.

Surely the bigger difference is that Crassus was a seriously wealthy man who could buy military support whilst Hammond simply has control of our money ex officio. Sack him and he doesn't. I think his assessment that he could not hope to start a leadership campaign himself was the right one, he has an insufficient base. I wonder if it was Boris who made him staying in post a condition of service. If so that is a serious favour banked.

Dura_Ace

Jonathan said:

Think of all those puffed up 5 star generals and macho lobbyists and tell me that does not matter.

There hasn't been any "five star" (OF-10) generals since Bradley died. The US does have female OF-9s though which would be absolutely impossible in the British forces.

kle4

Quincel said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Re end of OP -- yes, that's the point. That is why Theresa May is so weak. She cannot sack any minister who has a substantial backbench following, or who is supported by someone who has.

True, but I'm struck by how Brown survived for years, and Major. Replacing May requires more than the Tories wanting to replace May - they have to either be willing to sack her with no clear successor or coalesce around one prior to sacking her. And in either case, be willing to risk the ensuring instability despite not even having a majority of Tory MPs.

I've got a series of bets on her surviving until at least 2020 and at least 2022. It's touch and go, but the odds (5/1 on 2020, 7/1 on 2022) are very good imho. Likewise, PP has very long odds on the next election being in 2022 - I'm not sure why.

If she makes it through the next year, it's hard not to see her lasting until at least 2020, or even a little beyond. The only reason 2022 even seemed a viable shot for the Tories was on the assumption they could get a big win this year, they are not and do not have a Merkel and winning an election after effectively 12 years in office was never going to be easy otherwise - heck, avoiding a calamitous result is probably not easy when you build up so much baggage politically, even if you do a good job. If no one is prepared to go for it now (and I doubt they will given after denying she needed a personal mandate after taking over from Cameron May sought one, so any new leader would look frit if they did not, and might well lose if they did do it), might as well leave her to, they would hope, soak up some of the negative feeling and that a new leader will energise the support base a bit.

Casino_Royale

I don't think much of Hammond's political judgement either, but he was treated appallingly prior to the election, so I'm not surprised.

JosiasJessop

MarqueeMark said:

Greetings peeby-peeps. Back from my sabbatical from all things political.

The Good Lady Wifi has finally deliverd her Ferrari movie to Universal. A degree of normality reigns in the household. For about a week, until the next movie starts prep.....

Welcome back!

A Ferrari movie sounds intriguing. Is it about Enzo, the company, or something else (I doubt it's Nick Ferrari) ?

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Mark, welcome back, and best of luck with the film

NickPalmer

Quincel said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Re end of OP -- yes, that's the point. That is why Theresa May is so weak. She cannot sack any minister who has a substantial backbench following, or who is supported by someone who has.

True, but I'm struck by how Brown survived for years, and Major. Replacing May requires more than the Tories wanting to replace May - they have to either be willing to sack her with no clear successor or coalesce around one prior to sacking her. And in either case, be willing to risk the ensuring instability despite not even having a majority of Tory MPs.

I've got a series of bets on her surviving until at least 2020 and at least 2022. It's touch and go, but the odds (5/1 on 2020, 7/1 on 2022) are very good imho. Likewise, PP has very long odds on the next election being in 2022 - I'm not sure why.

I agree in general that it's usually best to bet against dramatic events - they tend not to happen as soon as punters expect. That 5-1 for 2020 looks excelelnt value, less sure about 7-2 for 2022. Where are the markets for this?

MarqueeMark

Hammond's election camapign flounce gave Labour a splash-the-cash vote buy, free of any forensic examination of their manifesto. May and Hammond are equally at fault for that.

HYUFD

kle4 said:

Quincel said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Re end of OP -- yes, that's the point. That is why Theresa May is so weak. She cannot sack any minister who has a substantial backbench following, or who is supported by someone who has.

True, but I'm struck by how Brown survived for years, and Major. Replacing May requires more than the Tories wanting to replace May - they have to either be willing to sack her with no clear successor or coalesce around one prior to sacking her. And in either case, be willing to risk the ensuring instability despite not even having a majority of Tory MPs.

I've got a series of bets on her surviving until at least 2020 and at least 2022. It's touch and go, but the odds (5/1 on 2020, 7/1 on 2022) are very good imho. Likewise, PP has very long odds on the next election being in 2022 - I'm not sure why.

If she makes it through the next year, it's hard not to see her lasting until at least 2020, or even a little beyond. The only reason 2022 even seemed a viable shot for the Tories was on the assumption they could get a big win this year, they are not and do not have a Merkel and winning an election after effectively 12 years in office was never going to be easy otherwise - heck, avoiding a calamitous result is probably not easy when you build up so much baggage politically, even if you do a good job. If no one is prepared to go for it now (and I doubt they will given after denying she needed a personal mandate after taking over from Cameron May sought one, so any new leader would look frit if they did not, and might well lose if they did do it), might as well leave her to, they would hope, soak up some of the negative feeling and that a new leader will energise the support base a bit.

Merkel today is unlikely the match the 42% May got according to German polls. Current polling also has neither Hammond, Davis or even Boris doing better than May against Corbyn.

The Tories may well be best placed to stick with May unless and until a new face rises up the Cabinet ranks and polls competitively when matched with the Labour leader

kle4

DavidL said:

kle4 said:

I do welcome any historical reference like this. Granted it apparently didn't succeed, but let's say that Crassus(Hammond) reached too far and he has now perished (insofar as political ambitions), the next step will be Boris and Davis in all out war, which Boris will win, but before too long he will be taken down (he has enough skeletons in his closet) and a family member will rally his support and take over for a long period.

The next but one Prime Minister - Jo Johnson.

Surely the bigger difference is that Crassus was a seriously wealthy man who could buy military support whilst Hammond simply has control of our money ex officio. Sack him and he doesn't. I think his assessment that he could not hope to start a leadership campaign himself was the right one, he has an insufficient base. I wonder if it was Boris who made him staying in post a condition of service. If so that is a serious favour banked.

I suppose Crassus was more of a Trump figure? He was into property development as I recall (I think wikipedia says he used to buy people's homes while they were burning down, in exchange for his fire fighters putting it out, so they could save some of their possessions at least, the little scamp).

kle4

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

Quincel said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Re end of OP -- yes, that's the point. That is why Theresa May is so weak. She cannot sack any minister who has a substantial backbench following, or who is supported by someone who has.

True, but I'm struck by how Brown survived for years, and Major. Replacing May requires more than the Tories wanting to replace May - they have to either be willing to sack her with no clear successor or coalesce around one prior to sacking her. And in either case, be willing to risk the ensuring instability despite not even having a majority of Tory MPs.

I've got a series of bets on her surviving until at least 2020 and at least 2022. It's touch and go, but the odds (5/1 on 2020, 7/1 on 2022) are very good imho. Likewise, PP has very long odds on the next election being in 2022 - I'm not sure why.

If she makes it through the next year, it's hard not to see her lasting until at least 2020, or even a little beyond. The only reason 2022 even seemed a viable shot for the Tories was on the assumption they could get a big win this year, they are not and do not have a Merkel and winning an election after effectively 12 years in office was never going to be easy otherwise - heck, avoiding a calamitous result is probably not easy when you build up so much baggage politically, even if you do a good job. If no one is prepared to go for it now (and I doubt they will given after denying she needed a personal mandate after taking over from Cameron May sought one, so any new leader would look frit if they did not, and might well lose if they did do it), might as well leave her to, they would hope, soak up some of the negative feeling and that a new leader will energise the support base a bit.

Merkel today is unlikely the match the 42% May got according to German polls. Current polling also has neither Hammond, Davis or even Boris doing better than May against Corbyn.

The Tories may well be best placed to stick with May unless and until a new face rises up the Cabinet ranks and polls competitively when matched with the Labour leader

You don't need as much to win there though (since they expect coalitions), so exact comparisons don't work perfectly. Within their systems it would be easier to get that fourth term than in ours.

MarqueeMark

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Mark, welcome back, and best of luck with the film

Thank you Mr. Dancer, I believe the trailer goes live this week. I'll post you a link when it does. The mid --> late Fifties isn't just another era, it's another sport. A blood sport. There's footage of a flaming upturned car in the middle of the track, with two cars going past at full racing speed. What's a Safety Car?

PClipp

Reading through TSE`s introduction, it seems the country had a narrow escape. Any one of the three would have been a disaster. Talk about frying pans and fires! At least Mrs May is an extinct volcano.

Isn`t there anybody at least half good in the Conservative Party?

HYUFD

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

kle4 said:

Quincel said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Re end of OP -- yes, that's the point. That is why Theresa May is so weak. She cannot sack any minister who has a substantial backbench following, or who is supported by someone who has.

True, but I'm struck by how Brown survived for years, and Major. Replacing May requires more than the Tories wanting to replace May - they have to either be willing to sack her with no clear successor or coalesce around one prior to sacking her. And in either case, be willing to risk the ensuring instability despite not even having a majority of Tory MPs.

I've got a series of bets on her surviving until at least 2020 and at least 2022. It's touch and go, but the odds (5/1 on 2020, 7/1 on 2022) are very good imho. Likewise, PP has very long odds on the next election being in 2022 - I'm not sure why.

If she makes it through the next year, it's hard not to see her lasting until at least 2020, or even a little beyond. The only reason 2022 even seemed a viable shot for the Tories was on the assumption they could get a big win this year, they are not and do not have a Merkel and winning an election after effectively 12 years in office was never going to be easy otherwise - heck, avoiding a calamitous result is probably not easy when you build up so much baggage politically, even if you do a good job. If no one is prepared to go for it now (and I doubt they will given after denying she needed a personal mandate after taking over from Cameron May sought one, so any new leader would look frit if they did not, and might well lose if they did do it), might as well leave her to, they would hope, soak up some of the negative feeling and that a new leader will energise the support base a bit.

Merkel today is unlikely the match the 42% May got according to German polls. Current polling also has neither Hammond, Davis or even Boris doing better than May against Corbyn.

The Tories may well be best placed to stick with May unless and until a new face rises up the Cabinet ranks and polls competitively when matched with the Labour leader

You don't need as much to win there though (since they expect coalitions), so exact comparisons don't work perfectly. Within their systems it would be easier to get that fourth term than in ours.

True, though Merkel is now clearly losing votes to her right with the rise of the AfD unlike May (although we wait to see if UKIP get a post from her transition period speech)

Quincel

NickPalmer said:

Quincel said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Re end of OP -- yes, that's the point. That is why Theresa May is so weak. She cannot sack any minister who has a substantial backbench following, or who is supported by someone who has.

True, but I'm struck by how Brown survived for years, and Major. Replacing May requires more than the Tories wanting to replace May - they have to either be willing to sack her with no clear successor or coalesce around one prior to sacking her. And in either case, be willing to risk the ensuring instability despite not even having a majority of Tory MPs.

I've got a series of bets on her surviving until at least 2020 and at least 2022. It's touch and go, but the odds (5/1 on 2020, 7/1 on 2022) are very good imho. Likewise, PP has very long odds on the next election being in 2022 - I'm not sure why.

I agree in general that it's usually best to bet against dramatic events - they tend not to happen as soon as punters expect. That 5-1 for 2020 looks excelelnt value, less sure about 7-2 for 2022. Where are the markets for this?

PP have the best odds, they've actually lengthened to 7/1 on 2020 or later now.

http://www.paddypower.com/bet/politics/other-politics/uk-politics?ev_oc_grp_ids=3774633

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Mark, I think I saw that footage in the Jackie Stewart documentary a year or two ago about the death rate (think it was, over three years, 33% in the 1970s).

F1: both the next races will be early morning ones (Malaysia and Japan) and are back-to-back. I think Malaysia is conveniently early and Japan will be annoyingly early. Pre-qualifying, therefore, is likely to come on Friday rather than Saturday.

kle4

PClipp said:

Reading through TSE`s introduction, it seems the country had a narrow escape. Any one of the three would have been a disaster. Talk about frying pans and fires! At least Mrs May is an extinct volcano.

Isn`t there anybody at least half good in the Conservative Party?

Of course. Oh, you mean in Parliament? Inconclusive.

foxinsoxuk

williamglenn said:

A theory: the cabinet Brexit committee's real goal has always been to renegotiate membership of the single market without free movement of people.

- The tried prenegotiation but that didn't work. The assumed this was because the EU didn't think they would go through with leaving.
- They announced we would leave the single market. This didn't have the shock effect they were hoping for. Instead the EU welcomed the apparent clarity of the position.
- Hoping we could still shock the EU into submission we invoked Article 50, but instead of a generous offer we got a watertight set of negotiating guidelines that gave us no room for manoeuvre.
- Panic sets in, and they decide that they need a massive majority to force the EU to take them seriously. May calls the election expecting this to happen.

They completely misjudged the strategic from start to finish and now don't how to get out of the mess.

That is pretty much my impression too. The transition period is the final version of the above(but transition will only exist as part of an A50 deal. It is not a pathway).

It seems that the only people who understand Brexit means Brexit are the EU27, and the Tory headbangers. The rest are in denial.

I thought this interesting. Civil Servants are covering their backs ready for a Chilcott type enquiry: https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/911855130911404032?s=09

Big_G_NorthWales

Nick Clegg on Marr - We should rejoin the outer orbit of the EU - what is he on!!!

DavidL

kle4 said:

DavidL said:

kle4 said:

I do welcome any historical reference like this. Granted it apparently didn't succeed, but let's say that Crassus(Hammond) reached too far and he has now perished (insofar as political ambitions), the next step will be Boris and Davis in all out war, which Boris will win, but before too long he will be taken down (he has enough skeletons in his closet) and a family member will rally his support and take over for a long period.

The next but one Prime Minister - Jo Johnson.

Surely the bigger difference is that Crassus was a seriously wealthy man who could buy military support whilst Hammond simply has control of our money ex officio. Sack him and he doesn't. I think his assessment that he could not hope to start a leadership campaign himself was the right one, he has an insufficient base. I wonder if it was Boris who made him staying in post a condition of service. If so that is a serious favour banked.

I suppose Crassus was more of a Trump figure? He was into property development as I recall (I think wikipedia says he used to buy people's homes while they were burning down, in exchange for his fire fighters putting it out, so they could save some of their possessions at least, the little scamp).

And don't ask how the fire started either. At least if you know what is good for you. But he was no general and that turned out to be a fatal weakness.

HYUFD

PClipp said:

Reading through TSE`s introduction, it seems the country had a narrow escape. Any one of the three would have been a disaster. Talk about frying pans and fires! At least Mrs May is an extinct volcano.

Isn`t there anybody at least half good in the Conservative Party?

Tom Tugendhadt, Rory Stewart, Jonny Mercer all potential successors to May if she promotes them to Cabinet

Big_G_NorthWales

Corbyn on Marr rejecting membership of the single market on grounds of state aid and nationalisation

DecrepitJohnL

DecrepitJohnL said:

OT -- Frau Merkel is 1.02 for next German Chancellor.

1.01 now.

OldKingCole

I suggest that if May calls an election any time soon the Conservatives are toast, unless a large black swan has appeared. If on the other hand a different Conservative PM calls an election some time in 2019 the outcome will depend much more on events.
If an election is called in the next twelve months because the Conservatives have ‘lost the confidence of the House’, then holding the likes of Witham and SW Surrey might be difficult.

DavidL

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Corbyn on Marr rejecting membership of the single market on grounds of state aid and nationalisation

Which is where I think he always was. Labour have only got away with this because they don't have to make any actual decisions. A few more seats and they could have been making this government look competent.

Big_G_NorthWales

Corbyn has no answers on Brexit other than cake and eat it

MarqueeMark

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Corbyn on Marr rejecting membership of the single market on grounds of state aid and nationalisation

Labour are in a complete mess on the EU. Risible. And the rest of their policies are quickly catching up.... Tories need to settle down, get on with delivering Brexit - and let the inevitable cataclysm at the heart of Labour run its natural course.

Sunil_Prasannan

I've read more than a hundred books
Seeing Gove mentioned many thousand times
But despite all the places I've looked
It's still no clearer
I'm still no nearer
The meaning of Gove

Noted down all my observations
Spent an evening watching television
Still I couldn't say with precision
Know it's a feeling and it comes from above
But what's the meaning
The meaning of Gove
(tell me)

From the notes that I've made so far
Gove seems something like wanting a scar
Well I could be wrong
I'm just not sure you see
I've never been in Gove before

Next I asked several friends of mine
If they could spare a few minutes of their time
Their looks suggested that I've lost my mind
Tell me the answer
My Lord high above
Tell me the meaning
The meaning of Gove

The meaning of Gove
(tell me)
Tell me the meaning of Gove
(tell me)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEoU0pgnFNc

Big_G_NorthWales

MarqueeMark said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Corbyn on Marr rejecting membership of the single market on grounds of state aid and nationalisation

Labour are in a complete mess on the EU. Risible. And the rest of their policies are quickly catching up.... Tories need to settle down, get on with delivering Brexit - and let the inevitable cataclysm at the heart of Labour run its natural course.

And to think he expects to be PM for 10 years

Sunil_Prasannan

MarqueeMark said:

Greetings peeby-peeps. Back from my sabbatical from all things political.

The Good Lady Wifi has finally deliverd her Ferrari movie to Universal. A degree of normality reigns in the household. For about a week, until the next movie starts prep.....

All the best with the movie!

HYUFD

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Corbyn on Marr rejecting membership of the single market on grounds of state aid and nationalisation

Corbyn says he does not want the UK to be a 'tax haven' doing a deal with Trump and is opposed to 'sweetheart trade deals'. He wants an effective trading relationship with Europe and that the UK will remain part of some EU agencies and agrees with May on some judicial obligations.

Understands the point of free movement but says it is abused by employers. He wants a transitional period but says it will be definitely less than 10 years when asked by Marr before he implements full departure from the single market and customs union.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. NorthWales, Honorius was emperor for longer, I think. (Nearly 30, upon checking). Nero lasted over a decade too.

Big_G_NorthWales

Under serious examination Corbyn 'waffles'

Quincel

Quincel said:

NickPalmer said:

Quincel said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Re end of OP -- yes, that's the point. That is why Theresa May is so weak. She cannot sack any minister who has a substantial backbench following, or who is supported by someone who has.

True, but I'm struck by how Brown survived for years, and Major. Replacing May requires more than the Tories wanting to replace May - they have to either be willing to sack her with no clear successor or coalesce around one prior to sacking her. And in either case, be willing to risk the ensuring instability despite not even having a majority of Tory MPs.

I've got a series of bets on her surviving until at least 2020 and at least 2022. It's touch and go, but the odds (5/1 on 2020, 7/1 on 2022) are very good imho. Likewise, PP has very long odds on the next election being in 2022 - I'm not sure why.

I agree in general that it's usually best to bet against dramatic events - they tend not to happen as soon as punters expect. That 5-1 for 2020 looks excelelnt value, less sure about 7-2 for 2022. Where are the markets for this?

PP have the best odds, they've actually lengthened to 7/1 on 2020 or later now.

http://www.paddypower.com/bet/politics/other-politics/uk-politics?ev_oc_grp_ids=3774633

On a related note, what on earth are PP doing laying 5/4 on Trump surviving to 2020? That's so long it's actually arbable with other PP markets (though I've no interest in profit taking on such a value bet).

http://www.paddypower.com/bet/other-politics/donald-trump/What-year-will-Trump-cease-to-be-President?-11841435.html?force_racing_css=N
http://www.paddypower.com/bet/other-politics/donald-trump/Will-Trump-complete-his-1st-term-in-office?-11841437.html?force_racing_css=N