Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The more a challenge to May’s leadership looks likely the less
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The more a challenge to May’s leadership looks likely the less the chances of Corbyn becoming next PM
For some time now the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, has been the favourite in the betting markets on who will succeed Theresa May as prime minister.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/916679814169485312
Odds for that should be in triple figures - so I agree with Mike that the punters have this one wrong.
This hit home - I lived about 3 mins walk when I was a student (at Imperial College) from the scene of the collision
JC to become next PM after TM is only 17%
If the market was "PM after next election?" he'd be double that.
"Labour PM after next election?" = >50%
The odds have already accounted for your logic.
I think JC's price on this market is about right - or at least not that wrong. The others, less so.
I think it is known I am not the biggest fan of the Jezziah. But given a choice between a fascist junta led by Corbyn backed by Macdonnell, Abbott, Rayner, Thornberry and other certifiable lunatics, or Michael Gove, I would vote Labour.
Yoons, predicting 43 out of the last 0 SNP busted flushes; long may it continue.
I agree with that. It's a matter of logic.
But the next general election could be soon. It is possible that some Tory MPs will see that May continuing as PM in her weakened position will severely damage her party's prospects, but that a Tory leadership election, because of the Brexit schism in the Tory party, would do even more damage.
In those circumstances, it is possible that sufficient Tory MPs will engineer a hospital pass to Corbyn with a general election in 2018 that he barely wins (or requires a C&S to survive). Given the clock ticking on Brexit and the declining state of the economy, Corbyn would be tightly constrained and probably wouldn't last the five years. A reinvigorated Tory party would then again take power.
This might be preferable to a Tory civil war and Brexit disaster that leads to a large Corbyn majority in 2022, with Brexit done and dusted (for better or for worse).
I think there is a reasonable chance of a hospital pass and Corbyn as next PM.
Plus in his brief stint as Justice Secretary, we saw a great reforming mind.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/916635677432930304
To coin a phrase.
I did go off him during the referendum and the nasty xenophobic tone of the Vote Leave campaign, I thought he was better than that.
As Prime Minister, he would be an intelligent version of Corbyn - I am right, if the facts disagree, the facts must be wrong and if you disagree, you are an evil monster and my enemy.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/02/28/michael-gove-could-be-set-to-play-the-role-of-brutus-to-david-camerons-caesar/
Gove did of course make that clearer than Boris had wanted, but it made no diffference to the result.
Mr. Jonathan, surely the absence of inflation is the natural status of a scrotum?
Mr. Doethur, it would've been at least a contest. Gove holed HMS Boris below the waterline and threw a few snakes onto the deck for good measure.
The Conservatives should do their best to avoid having a massive war that lasts decades.
I also disagree with ydoethur about the new A level history which seems to me to be a return to the far more testing curriculum that I had in the early 80s compared to the very poor standards of the last decade or so.
The previous three Tory PMs have been destroyed by European affairs.
In the 19th century the Tory party fractured over trade and tariffs, it could happen again in the next few months.
Had Mrs Thatcher been forced out because of the poll tax, then the Tory melodrama over Europe wouldn't be so pronounced.
If Mrs May is toppled over being crap, and not Brexit, then the Tories might be ok.
Does he think the Colombine shooters were secret ISIS agents?
https://twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/916682926821167104
I also think Farage is welcome to it, it's not an accolade anyone else is likely to covet.
With the new exams in GCSE history, the content is better but the questions are absurd - see here:
Imagine that an artist has been hired to do a painting showing the diversity of everyday life at your site, at a particular time in its past. What would you tell the artist to help make the painting historically accurate? Use physical features of the site as well as your knowledge
Even such a facile question is a great improvement on their first draft, believe it or not.
And it doesn't get better - do by all means sample the others here:
http://www.ocr.org.uk/qualifications/gcse-history-b-schools-history-project-j411-from-2016/
The moderator Anita Anand was scintillating, incidentally - haven't heard her before, but she had a very nice balance of probing, giving a fair chance to speak and wit. Someone complained that she the connection was bad and she was breaking up - she instantly replied, deadpan, "It's hard to do."
https://twitter.com/BloomfieldSJ/status/916643027006971904
2017 Work horse v pushmypullu.
Labour is only 1% or 2% ahead in the polls -even under a PM like May who has lost authority. No opposition leader has ever become PM without his/her party being at least 15% ahead between elections.
Corbyn may have increased the size of Labour's vote by piling up useless votes in seats Labour already holds, and by taking a handful of student heavy constituencies, but he is very bad at taking Tory marginals.
A newe Tory leader, learning from the lessons the 2017 campaign, together with the self denying prophecy of people thinking that there is a real risk of Corbyn becoming PM means that Corbyn will never be PM.
Thus the Tories will be saved, and Labour will be saved from the disastrous legacy of a Corbyn premiership. Because the Tories would rise again from a Corbyn government. Labour would never recover from it.
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2017/10/japan-pre-race-2017.html
http://www.ocr.org.uk/Images/386188-history-around-us-candidate-style-answers.pdf
For the life of me I cannot see what relevance the artist or the diversity of life have to do with that answer.
However, the 1970s model is what the academic historians roped in to advise the Government asked for - and were overruled.
As you indicate, his only chance of being the next PM is if TM stays on to fight the next election. The chances of that happening are small, and diminishing daily. I would make it at least 10/1 against, maybe more like 20/1, and even in the event that she does endure the full term, Corbyn has to still be Labour Leader and still has to beat her. Though both conditions are likely, they are not givens.
It follows therefore that Corbyn's price in the next PM market should be somewhere in excess of 10/1, quite a bit in excess in my view.
I'll express an interest. I have layed the bearded wonder for as much as I could find, but I would not be doing my duty with my PB punting friends if I did not say that the man is the lay of the year. The decade, even. Nay, the century!
Fill yer boots.
Every prospective Labour Government has been belittled even before it has taken office. Ever since the Zinoviev Letter, a campaign of not-terribly-subtle fear-mongering has preceded the possibility of Labour taking power.
Labour leaders were characterised as either being pro-Moscow stooges or in the grip of the Unions or simply not being up to the job. Blair was supposedly a weak character who would, once elected, be under the control of the Unions ("New Labour, New Danger"). With the Cold War over, Labour leaders are now under the thumb of the SNP (apparently).
If you want to believe the propaganda and quiver in fear at the prospect of Jeremy Corbyn in Downing Street, that's up to you. I don't - there are aspects of the Labour proposals that worry me but I've not got millions to move to other countries nor do I believe we'll be queuing for toilet paper in six months. Thinking beyond the fear might be a good start.
Or has Diane Abbott hacked your account?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pK6aVsps10I
https://twitter.com/julesskynews/status/916708908068229121
The Govt loses an absolutely vital vote on Brexit within the next 18 months and the Govt collapses resulting in an immediate GE.
OK, there are still caveats - eg Commons would still have to vote for a GE.
And it is of course those of us who don't have millions to move abroad and support us there who would suffer most. That's the irony of socialism - it hurts the poor most. (Not I suppose that I am currently especially poor.)
I don't see a historian could be expected to answer it.
It is not the "regnal dates and battles" history taught a lifetime ago, certainly, or even "great chaps" of 50 years back but the question seems pretty clear to me as a non-historian. Whether it is useful or not is another matter but you could ask that of most school subjects.
The majority of the question is meaningless flim.
Like you aspects of it worry me but I suspect it would not be quite as bad as the worst worries make out, but for someone usually so reasoned and reasonable, on this particular issue you keep bringing up that you do not have millions to move out of country in a way that makes it seem those who disagree with your view are motivated for that reason, having or focusing on those with the millions, and that would seem unkind, unreasonable and unwarranted if that was your intention. Even if your assessment is correct and others' are not, that doesn't mean they blindly follow propaganda, they may have assessed the risk differently, and whether you have millions or they have millions is irrelevant, and some level of concern about those who do possess it moving out of country is not unreasonable (though it should not be the overriding concern, certainly) so why bring it up?
Since it is apparently important, I don't have millions either.
And should we really have red herrings appropriate to a four year old's story book in a public exam? Why do we patronise the candidates like this?
In reality, no cases are ever sent up. It's win-win.
Rotherham Council has been nominated for an award for its work with vulnerable children.
Also it's more interesting for a lay person, but that's neither here nor there.
Or to the fact that Michael Riley, the man who wrote it, is a tool (I have met him and I am trying to be generous).
But I can't understand why they think it's appropriate to set a question like that, then send out a sample answer that ignores 50% of the words.