Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » History suggests one of Philip Hammond, Jeremy Hunt, and Sajid
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » History suggests one of Philip Hammond, Jeremy Hunt, and Sajid Javid will be Theresa May’s successor if she goes before the next election
if("undefined"==typeof window.datawrapper)window.datawrapper={};window.datawrapper["6kdpx"]={},window.datawrapper["6kdpx"].embedDeltas={"100":715.011364,"200":588.011364,"300":562.011364,"400":537.011364,"500":537.011364,"700":511.011364,"800":511.011364,"900":511.011364,"1000":511.011364},window.datawrapper["6kdpx"].iframe=document.getElementById("datawrapper-chart-6kdpx"),window.datawrapper["6kdpx"].iframe.style.height=window.datawrapper["6kdpx"].embedDeltas[Math.min(1e3,Math.max(100*Math.floor(window.datawrapper["6kdpx"].iframe.offsetWidth/100),100))]+"px",window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if("undefined"!=typeof a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var b in a.data["datawrapper-height"])if("6kdpx"==b)window.datawrapper["6kdpx"].iframe.style.height=a.data["datawrapper-height"][b]+"px"});
Comments
Whoever the next Tory leader is, they aren't going to choose a terminally divisive figure like that. Save in the event that they've already split, of course.
History shows in 1990 Heseltine, a former not current Cabinet Minister, would have become Tory leader and PM if Major had not also beaten Kinnock in the polls.
Currently only a Boris led Tory Party does not trail Corbyn Labour in the latest Yougov polling on the subject, all other alternative Tory leaders polled would see the Tories trail Corbyn Labour
Do you think (for example) they understand that ‘no deal’ means that UK haulage operators will go out of business?
“British hauliers that make international journeys will be forced out of business,...”
https://www.rha.uk.net/news/press-releases/2018-07-july/brexit-and-the-uk-haulage-industry-–-no-deal-no-jobs-no-food
Do you think they voted for that? Do you?
Boris will not lead the party
This, of course, becomes very relevant if there's no/minimal deal and it turns out not to be the disaster that a lot of people think it will be. Then we can reasonably assume the following:
1. Tory internecine strife on Europe ends, because there'll have been a clear break and there'll be no interest amongst politicians or the public (save amongst the Eurofederalists, who constitute a small proportion of the chattering classes and a negligible percentage of the general population) in going through the long, fraught, divisive and expensive ordeal of re-joining
2. The Remain/Leave divide can then be consigned to the dustbin of history. Very ardent Europhiles may remain discredited for having spread one too many scare stories, but other than that it'll be possible for the party to move on
Under such circumstances Theresa May could conceivably serve out a full term and fight the next election, though more likely she'd stay on until 2020 to tie up the loose ends and enable a period of relative peace and quiet, and then stand down to allow for an orderly contest to succeed her.
In that scenario, any speculation over the succession would be pointless until much nearer the time.
That's complete baloney.
We are not in Kansas any more. Old rules do not apply over the rainbow.
What’s your basis for thinking otherwise?
Also worth considering that this is the first time MPs won't be the sole decision makers. Hammond, Hunt and Javid are all very boring very uncharismatic (Hunt less so) who could easily win MPs but might well struggle against a more media friendly rival, who is also a Brexitter. Raab/McVey or Mourdunt say.
The man who was responsible for the ginormous clusterfuck these new exams have turned into?
The man who had the bright idea of academy chains?
The man who thought Dominic Cummings was suitable to be a public servant?
If he's competent relative to the rest, we're in a worse mess than I realised.
If you wanted to extend your list TSE then you could add Chamberlain (1937) Baldwin (1923) Asquith (1908) and Disraeli (1868) who were all Chancellor at the time of appointment, plus Rosebery (1894: Foreign Secretary).
The interesting exceptions were Baldwin in 1935 (Lord President of the Council) and Balfour in 1902 (First Lord of the Treasury). However, as they were both leaders of the largest party in the House of Commons and indeed PM de facto at the time, they are hardly relevant to this discussion.
Therefore the meaningful exceptions to your rule in the last 150 years are Winston Churchill as First Lord of the Admiralty and David Lloyd George who was not in cabinet at the time of his appointment. Both had however previously been Chancellor and held (or had just resigned from in DLlG's case) offices to do with the war.
I do not quite see Boris doing a Lloyd George. There isn't a war on, and he doesn't have the priceless advantage of being a needed outsider with a reputation for real brilliance.
That's a long winded way of saying I agree with your assessment.
One comment - I think unless he is crowned a la Howard, Hammond will settle for being kingmaker in return for the deputy leadership and staying at the Treasury. That means we should also look closely at who's trying to get into his good books.
Madness to start the football season on 5 August?
If you're talking percentages then do you view the odds of hauliers out of business etc in a No Deal scenario as being 100%? I don't.
Yes, your comment re the Home Office is true, but there are other reasons for that - mostly because from the 1860s until the 1950s it wasn't seen as a great office of state and tended to attract quite junior figures. Afterwards, it tended to be where people the leadership disliked were parked at the top of their careers because it was thought they couldn't do much damage. Finally, it is the most difficult department and as we saw with Rudd the potential for a career-ending slip is very high.
I do not think that members will have a say if there is a need for haste. If there is a clear leader huge pressure will be put on the runner-up to withdraw, as happened last time.
Quite frankly as far as employment is concerned hauliage is a largely doomed industry anyway. Driverless vehicles will leave hauliers being akin to horse drawn carriages.
Therefore there will be a deal. Possibly after a chaotic but short period before we come to our senses. Therefore the deal will be on the EU's terms. Therefore Vassal State. Therefore unhappy Leavers who will blame Remainers and the EU for failing to resolve the contradictions of the Leave position.
Serious point: since my new Passat's 'Pasenger Protection' system did an emergency stop as it approached an overhanging nettle on a narrow lane in Cornwall, I have become slightly more sceptical about the driverless car revolution. In the real world, country lanes throw up a very large range of odd situations.
But let's assume that JRM, despite appearances, isn't a cretin. Would he support Boris? Even setting aside Boris's almost certain inability to do the job, why would JRM think he could trust Boris?
I would doubt it, because it is not a credible scenario. Half of our food is home-produced and another 20% is imported from outside the EU. Of the 30% that comes from the EU, the notion that the entire lot will end up rotting on wharves in the Channel ports is preposterous. Apart from anything else, much of it isn't so perishable that it won't survive being held up for a couple of days, if things even get that bad.
The worst that's actually likely to happen is that there's a salad vegetable shortage, and we have to get used to eating slightly less meat (and importing more of it frozen from South America) for a while. Besides, the whole debate is a textbook example of short-termism; nobody seems to have considered that, in the long run, abandoning the Common External Tariff would allow the UK to adopt a cheap food policy, and that would leave virtually everyone better off. Agricultural tariffs are a huge net cost to a small but densely-populated country such as ours, and the burden of them is disproportionately shouldered by the worst off.
If we go back 40 years someone might have asked if reforms were worth it if they led to a 5% chance of mines shutting down. We did lose the mines but I would still say the reforms were worth it.
No single industry is necessary. We didn't need mines, so why do we 100% need international hauliage. What makes your faith that a 5% risk could not possibly be worth it so unshakeable? What makes your faith that you can't possibly be wrong so immutable.
(In fact, security is a whole other set of issues)
These are not easy problems to solve. I'm far from convinced that the Waymo-style geofencing is going to work for a full nation, or that it is possible without true AI.
https://twitter.com/hmalikh/status/832262162802470914
First, Mr Eagles, apologies for daring to take you out of context yesterday evening. You did say the words "Tory gains" with reference to the 2019 local elections but I realise you were talking only about Conservatives gaining some of the 200 or so UKIP seats up for grabs as distinct from trying to defend the 5,500 Conservative seats.
On topic, you have to go back to Churchill in 1940 for a person becoming PM outside a GE who was not serving as CoE, HS or FS. Even in the inter-war period, I believe Chamberlain was CoE when taking over from Baldwin and Baldwin was CoE when he took over from Bonar Law (and I think he continued as CoE even after becoming PM). Lloyd George was Chancellor when taking over from Asquith so that leaves Bonar Law who took over in 1922 from Austen Chamberlain (as Conservative leader) and Lloyd George (as PM).
Replacing a PM in office is emphatically different from replacing a defeated PM after an election. I could see Boris emerging from the wreckage of a defeated Conservative Party to take over.
As for 1990, as is widely known (except by some it seems), the vote for Heseltine in the first ballot was to force Thatcher out and allow her Cabinet colleagues who were bound to support her to enter the fray (a similar tactic failed spectacularly in 1975 when Thatcher not only won the first ballot but got so much momentum she was able to defeat Whitelaw in the second ballot).
Heseltine knew once Thatcher had resigned his chances of becoming leader and PM were gone - the "establishment" rallied to Major rather than Hurd (and Major had the "blessing" of Margaret as well) and the rest is history.
Forcing May out via a No Confidence vote would allow senior Cabinet members such as Javid and Hunt to either stand against each other or agree a joint anti-Boris candidature. As an aside, would all this still mean a ballot of Party members or in practice would the defeated candidate withdraw and allow the leading candidate to become PM as soon as possible?
Watch out for this on Tuesday.
Well, you are now a minority legally - you are a second class citizen, official.
Major only beat Heseltine after a poll showed a Major led Tories beating Kinnock Labour
If memory serves, Thatcher got 52 votes more than Heseltine so it's not about winning but how you win and by how much.
Lloyd George was not Chancellor when he replaced Asquith, having been moved to Munitions in 1915, the War Office in 1916 and resigned in 1916.
Baldwin briefly continued to hold the office of Chancellor (he had offered it to Reginald McKenna who wasn't an MP) but the day to day running of the Treasury was left to the Financial Secretary, Joynson-Hicks.
Bonar Law, like Campbell-Bannerman in 1905, effectively marked a change in the governing party.
However, if the VNOC is post Brexit I think it is more likely she would stand down
And post Brexit the Country will move on. Farage is a busted flush
Do you mean 'an oppressed minority?'
https://t.co/VDpHIbMW1p?amp=1
I simply postulated whether Javid and Hunt could or would combine against either Boris or JRM. The next stage would be a ballot of MPs and it might be (given we are talking about choosing a PM rather than LOTO) that the defeated candidates might simply acknowledge the winner as PM rather than taking it to the wider Party membership.
Let me ask you as a cheerleader for Boris - IF Boris came second to Javid or Hunt in the MPs ballot, would you encourage him to withdraw in the interests of quick formation of a Government or would you urge him to push for a members' ballot ?
On your other point - as I recall, there was little or no polling with Major until after Thatcher quit on the Thursday. The bandwagon for major rolled very quickly with Thatcher's endorsement and the widespread support among local Constituency Chairs and the weekend polling confirmed Major's popularity as a "man with the common touch" against the multi-millionaire Heseltine.
Aren't you meant to be on holiday - I'll give you a C minus for your efforts.
BINO would relaunch Farage quicker than Lazarus
It was the polling showing Major beating Kinnock Labour that was key to his win, Javid and Hunt are now senior Cabinet ministers and must improve their polling fast
Assuming UKIP and Farage are busted is a big mistake imho.
Funnily enough, you do not see too many posts on this topic from our anti-Jezziahs.
The Druze faith incorporates elements of Islam's Ismailism,[27] Gnosticism, Neoplatonism, Pythagoreanism, Hinduism[28][29] and other philosophies and beliefs, creating a distinct and secretive theology known to interpret esoterically religious scriptures, and to highlight the role of the mind and truthfulness.[18][29] The Druze follow theophany, and believe in reincarnation or the transmigration of the soul.[30]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Druze
TBH, technologies we already have, such as active lane keeping, 'intelligent' cruise control and automatic braking will, when perfected, reduce much of the drivers' load when driving on many journeys.
Then again this is what the Customs Union border between the EU and Turkey looks like, is this your vision for the UK?
And as we discussed last night, Pakistan has been an Islamic Republic since '47!
However Jezziah is quite happy to support Iran and take paid work on Press TV isn't he? It seems to be only one religion and only one nation that is objected to. There's a word for that.
The risk was that other figures on the right of the party disillusioned with her leadership would have stood against her and split the vote, handing victory to Heseltine. The way out of that was to replace her on the ballot with a more unifying figure - except, ironically, because two of them stood the winner ended up with fewer votes than she had had.
IF the likes of Javid or Hunt were on the ballot their public profile would rise and IF their performance improved to be comparable to or better than Boris, what then?
Major's public profile soared once Thatcher was gone and he became the challenger to Heseltine. Couldn't the same happen to Javid or Hunt once May was gone?
What would YOU do than - if polls showed Javid performing better than Boris in a match with Labour, would you switch your support to Javid?
Man City look rampant again.
https://www.ft.com/content/34b8642e-2215-11e8-9a70-08f715791301
Corbyn had the guts to criticise Saudi Arabia and arms sales to them. No other politician had the ball£ to say it.
Sarri is an interesting choice. It does feel at little bit AVB.
Full membership of the EU may have been sensible but then we had a vote and made our choice. These insane halfway house "solutions" lack the advantages of both membership and leaving. One or the other we need to do and we made our choice.
1) Bowl a no-ball;
2) Watch Michael Klinger whack it for six.
Edit - 3) Bowl the third ball (what would have been the second legitimate ball) for five wides.
This is Kent's overseas spinner as well...
Then you might consider Boris, most Tory member including myself in the latest polls already are
The UK is officially an Anglican nation. The Church of England is our official state religion. Bishops from the Church are given their own seats in Parliament to set laws.
Israel is less extreme in their religion and state mix than we are. Last I checked rabbis aren't given seats in the Knesset.
....think 250 MPs.
Putin works hand-in-glove with the Russian Orthodox Church and Iran is an out-and-out Shi'ite Muslim theocracy. That's two of their favourite countries they'd have to tear strips off for starters.
The basis of the Far-Left world view is anti-Westernism. It hasn't moved on, in any fundamental sense, from the Cold War: America and its allies beat their beloved Soviet Union, and thus any nation, people or political movement that opposes them must be supported. My enemy's enemy is my friend and all that.
Criticism of Israeli policy is perfectly legitimate from a human rights perspective but that's not what they're ultimately interested in. Israel is part of the enemy and so they wish to see it defeated. Working from that perspective, the more radical the Israeli Government becomes the better, because this would give them more sticks to beat the country with.
The last thing on Earth that UK Labour would want would be for Israeli Labour to return to power and implement more moderate policies.