It must follow from the unsuccessful attempt to amend the opposition motion that Her Majesty's Government (or at least the Conservative Party) intends to vote against it.
Indeed, but I'd suggest that a better approach would be to abstain, on the basis that it's motherhood and apple pie with no practical significance and proposed only as a childish spoiling tactic.
Calling Hunchman. Calling Hunchman. FT index at an all time high. There must be some mistake. We need guidance...
If Hunchman was right, we'd now be roasting bits of dog over braziers.
Hunchman will be right eventually.
Hunchman forecast a collapse of the stock markets in August . That was a specific forecast that will never ever be correct except in a parallel universe . What will be interesting is how he explains how he made loads of money personally despite being wrong ..
I remember Mike doing something like that with the bizarre Shadsy Bristol Mayor tip...
I would agree that 12 SNP seats is too high although I think they will increase their number gaining some of the Lib Dem seats up for grabs.
There is a chance that they might also gain the odd seat off Labour but most of SLABs seats are very safe. In Dundee West, for example, which is a very strong area for the SNP generally and where they hold the Scottish Parliamentary seat, Labour got almost as many votes at the last election as the SNP, Lib Dem and tory put together. It really would require something remarkable to change that.
Surely the number of SNP seats will turn on the Referendum result. Lose badly, and they'll probably go backwards. Lose narrowly, and the result will probably be as you suggest. Win, and they'll sweep the board.
As I said the other day if they win then there will not be a board to sweep. But yes, my assumption of their increased number of seats is based on a fairly close result for "no" which is what I expect and fervently pray for.
Looks like the Education debate might be fun this afternoon
The substantive motion, in the name of the Leader of the Oppoisition, is '[t]hat this House endorses the view that in state funded schools teachers should be qualified or working towards qualified teacher status while they are teaching.' Given the recent speech by the Deputy Prime Minister, it will be difficult to see how the Liberal Democrats can plausibly oppose the substantive motion.
Hard to see how anyone could oppose that.
However, it doesn't address the actual point, which is whether teachers should exclusively be drawn from those with a specific named UK qualification, with no discretion given to head teachers and governors at all.
The main problem here is how you define "teacher". Is it someone whose principal employment is to prepare and take classes; or is there a much wider definition that would include people who might take the odd class or teach a specific set of classes over a defined period of time? If you take it to be the former, then there is plenty of discretion allowed for in the motion - up to and including employing non-PGCE qualified people to become full-time teachers.
If anyone is wondering what Cameron was on about when he mentioned at PMQ's about labours vote in the lords would have put energy bills up if they had got it through,here it is.
On second thoughts, if I supply Emily Thornberry with the particulars of my flat, perhaps she could read them out the next time she is called at Prime Minister's Questions, together with the details of the estate agents.
On second thoughts, if I supply Emily Thornberry with the particulars of my flat, perhaps she could read them out the next time she is called at Prime Minister's Questions, together with the details of the estate agents.
The Divisional Court (Richards LJ, Sales J) has retired to consider its decision on whether to grant (1) permission to apply for judicial review of the Lords of the Privy Council's recommendation to reject Pressbof's draft royal charter on press regulation, and (2) if permission is granted, an interim injunction enjoining the Privy Council from approving the government's draft royal charter on press regulation.
Apologies for calling back to last night's thread, but I've just seen some interesting polling which calls into question the apparent consensus that the Republicans need to burn the Tea Party if they want to stand a chance in 2016 -
"42% Identify with Obama Politically, 42% with the Tea Party
Voters are evenly divided when asked whether they agree more politically with President Obama or with the average member of the Tea Party. But an enormous partisan gap colors virtually all opinions of the Tea Party.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 42% of Likely U.S. Voters think the president’s views are closest to their own when it comes to the major issues facing the country. But just as many (42%) say their views come closest to those of the average Tea Party member instead. Sixteen percent (16%) are not sure."
So basically people want the Republicans to run a campaign based on the 16% who are neither Tea Party nor Obama supporters? Good luck with that.
(And before anybody else says it, yes the down-thread polling is all over the place. I do think the most interesting and relevant bit however is - "When it comes to the major issues facing the nation, 77% of Democrats say Obama’s views are closest to their own. Seventy-six percent (76%) of Republicans and 51% of unaffiliated voters identify more closely with the average member of the Tea Party. " - if you want to win unaffiliateds you won't do it by burning the Tea Party.)
Level-pegging is certainly enough for the Republicans to hold onto the House, and the majority of State legistlatures. But to win the Presidency, they need some of that 16%.
Interesting, yes SeanF, but it's Rasmussen, whose performance at the last Presidential elections can be best described as sub-Hunchman,
Not seen them before. Is it a reincarnation of Intrade?
Might I, albeit rather tardily, commend my honourable friend, the PBer for Crossdressing and Feather Boas and incumbent runner-up TOTY for his recent run of form on shutting his eyes and waving the pin close to the racing pages !!
Can tim tell us what tax cut Ed will be pushing for next - can I bring his attention to the cost of watching BBC crisis ?
Does moving charges from bills to taxes reduce taxes? No wonder you can't understand why Osborne is hiking spending
Not if you cut spending to match.
More money in peoples pocket after energy bills means they can spend it and recycle the money to the treasury via VAT and the whole trickle down effect - win win win.
As I said - kudos to Ed for bringing about a green tax cut - he should carry on and put another tax in his sights - licence fee , stamp duty, IHT - come on Ed you are on a roll.
Not seen them before. Is it a reincarnation of Intrade?
Yup, basically an Intrade clone, also based in Ireland. Bitcoin only, and not much money there, but the site's nicely done. Hopefully it'll be a good place to lay Rand Paul when the presidential race picks up, if they last that long.
There's no doubt, Cameron is a man of l'esprit d'escalier - not great the first time round, but much better the second. Worries me each time though!
Yes - after last week's drubbing I'd say Cameron narrowly won this one - despite being in a trickier policy position ('more complicated than that" vs 'free pony") - he was clearly a lot better prepared on energy and lobbed HS2, the economy and Unite in at every available opportunity.......
There's no doubt, Cameron is a man of l'esprit d'escalier - not great the first time round, but much better the second. Worries me each time though!
but still no major answer to labour's price freeze and it does look like he's sticking by the big six,let's hope the tories get a firm policy in the next few weeks.
There's no doubt, Cameron is a man of l'esprit d'escalier - not great the first time round, but much better the second. Worries me each time though!
but still no major answer to labour's price freeze and it does look like he's sticking by the big six,let's hope the tories get a firm policy in the next few weeks.
I doubt you will get much bar hints before the autumn statement.
There's no doubt, Cameron is a man of l'esprit d'escalier - not great the first time round, but much better the second. Worries me each time though!
but still no major answer to labour's price freeze and it does look like he's sticking by the big six,let's hope the tories get a firm policy in the next few weeks.
I doubt you will get much bar hints before the autumn statement.
Wonder if Hills will put up a market which we will be allowed all of 26 pence on...
Little bit too much of a good thing for Ed today. Cameron wasn't exactly comfortable but he was a lot better than last week and there was a lot less traction. It is time for Ed to move on but he scored a lot of points with his nonsense, no question about it.
Seemed strange he was not wanting to make more of the various reverses suffered by the government in the Courts today.
The Divisional Court has refused Pressbof's application for permission to apply for judicial review, and for an interim injunction.
That's a bit of a surprise, to me at least.
Theoretically, Pressbof could go down the corridor and apply to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal against the order of the Divisional Court, but with the Privy Council due to approve the government's charter later today, that seems highly unlikely. Her Majesty's Government's Royal Charter will now be approved. The more interesting litigation will concern the effect of sections 34 to 42 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013. There is a strong case that Parliament has exposed newspapers to liabilities and penalties which are unclear in law, and those liabilities and penalties may be impugned as contrary to the principle of legality. The litigation will go on...
Little bit too much of a good thing for Ed today. Cameron wasn't exactly comfortable but he was a lot better than last week and there was a lot less traction. It is time for Ed to move on but he scored a lot of points with his nonsense, no question about it.
Seemed strange he was not wanting to make more of the various reverses suffered by the government in the Courts today.
And make Labour look like they are standing up for the `scroungers`!.Better he stayed away from the topic.
and Rasmussen shows they break in favour of the Tea Party.
And yet disastrous Tea Party candidates have cost the GOP the Senate over the last couple of cycles by losing almost unloseable elections.
I would suggest the key word there is "disastrous" rather than "Tea Party". The likes of Christine O'Donnell would lose regardless of the label they ran under.
Disastrous candidates have cost the Republicans four Senate seats. Good candidates helped the Democrats retain 2 seats they were expected to lose (North Dakota, and Montana). In the latter two, the Republican candidates were not disastrous, just not as good as their opponents.
I don't think many people expected either Todd Akin or Michael Mourdock to destroy their candidacies in the way they did last year. After all, both were experienced politicians. OTOH, choosing Christine O'Donnell and Sharon Angle was stupid from the outset.
Not seen them before. Is it a reincarnation of Intrade?
Yup, basically an Intrade clone, also based in Ireland. Bitcoin only, and not much money there, but the site's nicely done. Hopefully it'll be a good place to lay Rand Paul when the presidential race picks up, if they last that long.
Hmmmm....thanks Edmund, but I only just got my chestnuts out of the Intrade coflagration in time.
If Cameron is run over by a bus, is there a scenario where Clegg would be caretaker PM for a period and would this qualify under the betting rules?
There is certainly that scenario. Clegg would be an ideal temporary PM if there were to be a genuinely contested Tory leadership fight, as it would keep HMQ out of that contest by her not having to nominate one of the candidates as PM and by so doing give them the immeasureable boost of incumbency to their campaign.
However, you'd first have to have a situation where Cameron couldn't remain in office in the interim i.e. death or immediate resignation. Long-term ill-health doesn't count as he could remain in post while others carried out the PM's duties while a successor was found - there is precedent on that. Neither cause seems particularly likely. Even then, the senior Tories would have to fail to agree on a successor.
Frankly, 50/1 for Clegg seems short to me; I'd be wanting at least triple that.
I'd have thought that was exactly what he was expecting, house price ratios (outside NI) almost up to pre crash levels in 2012 before Osborne started to pump up the bubble.
You still think the crash was caused by high house prices ?
If Cameron is run over by a bus, is there a scenario where Clegg would be caretaker PM for a period and would this qualify under the betting rules?
There is certainly that scenario. Clegg would be an ideal temporary PM if there were to be a genuinely contested Tory leadership fight, as it would keep HMQ out of that contest by her not having to nominate one of the candidates as PM and by so doing give them the immeasureable boost of incumbency to their campaign.
However, you'd first have to have a situation where Cameron couldn't remain in office in the interim i.e. death or immediate resignation. Long-term ill-health doesn't count as he could remain in post while others carried out the PM's duties while a successor was found - there is precedent on that. Neither cause seems particularly likely. Even then, the senior Tories would have to fail to agree on a successor.
Frankly, 50/1 for Clegg seems short to me; I'd be wanting at least triple that.
As Herders implies there is no such position as temporary PM. You are either PM or not, thus Clegg would qualify under the rules.
Guardian reports the press are going to the Court of Appeal.....
As I observed, such a course is theoretically possible. Presumably, if an application is made, the parties will agree to the court being constituted by only two Lords Justice of Appeal. Finding two LJs at this short notice will not be an easy task.
If Cameron is run over by a bus, is there a scenario where Clegg would be caretaker PM for a period and would this qualify under the betting rules?
There is certainly that scenario. Clegg would be an ideal temporary PM if there were to be a genuinely contested Tory leadership fight, as it would keep HMQ out of that contest by her not having to nominate one of the candidates as PM and by so doing give them the immeasureable boost of incumbency to their campaign.
However, you'd first have to have a situation where Cameron couldn't remain in office in the interim i.e. death or immediate resignation. Long-term ill-health doesn't count as he could remain in post while others carried out the PM's duties while a successor was found - there is precedent on that. Neither cause seems particularly likely. Even then, the senior Tories would have to fail to agree on a successor.
Frankly, 50/1 for Clegg seems short to me; I'd be wanting at least triple that.
As Herders implies there is no such position as temporary PM. You are either PM or not, thus Clegg would qualify under the rules.
How would Clegg become PM, he'd need to go to the palace and say he could form a govt, and about 100 tory backbenchers would say "oh no he can't"
1. Cameron inexplicably falls under the Clapham omnibus (Met police looking for a deranged Cheshire farmer lurking in the vicinity)
2. Contested Conservative leadership election - May, Gove and Hague. They agree DPM Clegg should be interim PM until new Con leader elected.
3. Peter Bone and Mark Senior spontaneously combust for slightly different reasons.
4. Mike Smithson announces he's collected on a 1997 wager @ 500/1 that a son of immigrant, public school educated Northern LibDem MP would be PM in 2014.
Hunt makes clear that Labour's opposition to "unqualified" teachers is due the downward pressure that allowing such teachers puts on the 'status of the teaching profession'. As always, licensure is a means of preserving status rather than quality.
There's no doubt, Cameron is a man of l'esprit d'escalier - not great the first time round, but much better the second. Worries me each time though!
but still no major answer to labour's price freeze and it does look like he's sticking by the big six,let's hope the tories get a firm policy in the next few weeks.
I doubt you will get much bar hints before the autumn statement.
The pre-budget report was often given in December, but Osborne is the first Chancellor to give an Autumn statement in that month, this year for the second time in a row.
Could we have some clarity from the Chancellor as to which day he considers to be the first of winter?
If Cameron is run over by a bus, is there a scenario where Clegg would be caretaker PM for a period and would this qualify under the betting rules?
There is certainly that scenario. Clegg would be an ideal temporary PM if there were to be a genuinely contested Tory leadership fight, as it would keep HMQ out of that contest by her not having to nominate one of the candidates as PM and by so doing give them the immeasureable boost of incumbency to their campaign.
However, you'd first have to have a situation where Cameron couldn't remain in office in the interim i.e. death or immediate resignation. Long-term ill-health doesn't count as he could remain in post while others carried out the PM's duties while a successor was found - there is precedent on that. Neither cause seems particularly likely. Even then, the senior Tories would have to fail to agree on a successor.
Frankly, 50/1 for Clegg seems short to me; I'd be wanting at least triple that.
As Herders implies there is no such position as temporary PM. You are either PM or not, thus Clegg would qualify under the rules.
How would Clegg become PM, he'd need to go to the palace and say he could form a govt, and about 100 tory backbenchers would say "oh no he can't"
No he wouldn't. He'd just need to agree to attempt to form a government. It would be for others to prove he's not able to.
In any case, everyone would know and accept that he was a temporary PM de facto, even if not de jure (though as Jack rightly says, that distinction is important as far as the bet would go), and that the new Tory leader would become PM once chosen. It would almost certainly be a condition of his appointment, from both senior Tories and Palace officials, that Clegg would agree to resign on a new Tory leader being elected. Otherwise, a Tory grandee might be the next best option.
This is one area where the constitution is evolving as the principles and theory surrounding prime ministerial appointments date from the days when party leadership elections took at most days rather than weeks. Once precedent, however, was 1834, when Wellington was appointed PM on a stand-in basis (and about half the other cabinet posts!), pending Peel's return from the continent.
The Privy Council is set to meet at 5.30 pm this evening. That gives Pressbof a little over three hours to have any application for leave to appeal against the order of the Divisional Court heard and determined. The clock is ticking.
We aren't talking about Dave dying, we're talking about a metaphorical bus, ie the Tories remove him as leader, but he'd stay as PM until the contest is held.
The precedent is Major in 1995. He remained Prime Minister after resigning as Conservative leader.
We aren't talking about Dave dying, we're talking about a metaphorical bus, ie the Tories remove him as leader, but he'd stay as PM until the contest is held.
You might be, and in such circumstances, Cameron very probably would stay on unless there was some almighty scandal that necessitated immediate resignation. However, the effects of terrorists and nutters can't be entirely ruled out and in such circumstances, you would need a new PM almost immediately.
I'd have thought that was exactly what he was expecting, house price ratios (outside NI) almost up to pre crash levels in 2012 before Osborne started to pump up the bubble.
The funny thing is that all of the increase in English median houseprices occurred by Q1 of 2010, when ONS median houseprices peaked at £210,000 and since then they have gently dropped to £197,000 at Q2 2013.
So the only people blowing up a bubble were Labour at the fag end of their time in power.
Its also worth noting that median earnings are now higher than they were in 2010 so houses are still more affordable than they were under Labour.
You'll have to try harder to establish your bubble conspiracy theory.
We aren't talking about Dave dying, we're talking about a metaphorical bus, ie the Tories remove him as leader, but he'd stay as PM until the contest is held.
You might be, and in such circumstances, Cameron very probably would stay on unless there was some almighty scandal that necessitated immediate resignation. However, the effects of terrorists and nutters can't be entirely ruled out and in such circumstances, you would need a new PM almost immediately.
Given that the odds on Cameron dying in the next 18 months are probably >100/1 anyone taking 50/1 on Clegg is a fool
Went into Leeds today and came back to find the postmen had managed to try and deliver a parcel during the brief time I was out. However, the online method to have it redelivered to my local post office was excellent (cost £1.50, which is ok given it saves me a long walk or the potential annoyance of a second failed delivery).
The Hon Hunt's second outing went marginally better than his first.....but not much - again looks like he hasn't done his homework......it being pointed out that his policy could lead to the sacking of good teachers in the state sector who would have to go and work in the independent sector where he himself was educated, and where he may educate his own children.....
Effectively Clegg as next PM is only realistically viable through two scenarios :
1. Cameron dies from whatever cause. 2. Cameron resigns immediately through scandal.
Both most unlikely but not out of the question.
It's far more likely that the First Secretary of State would be invited to form a government, rather than the Deputy Prime Minister, in those circumstances.
We aren't talking about Dave dying, we're talking about a metaphorical bus, ie the Tories remove him as leader, but he'd stay as PM until the contest is held.
You might be, and in such circumstances, Cameron very probably would stay on unless there was some almighty scandal that necessitated immediate resignation. However, the effects of terrorists and nutters can't be entirely ruled out and in such circumstances, you would need a new PM almost immediately.
Given that the odds on Cameron dying in the next 18 months are probably >100/1 anyone taking 50/1 on Clegg is a fool
The probability that the average English male dies in the year after his 47th birthday is 0.002375, and following his 48th birthday 0.002642.
Thus the odds are about 200/1 on an average English male dying in the two years following their 47th birthday. Since Cameron to my knowledge does not smoke, his chances of survival are likely to be higher than this, though I have not attempted to take account of the risk of assassination [does anyone have an idea of the assassination rates for the heads of Government of NATO member states in the last 50 years?]
It's far more likely that the First Secretary of State would be invited to form a government, rather than the Deputy Prime Minister, in those circumstances.
Indeed so; the only circumstance in which it would not be Hague would be if he wanted to stand for next leader of the party, which I think is very unlikely.
If David Cameron vacated the office of Prime Minister suddenly (and without an election turfing him out!), Nick Clegg would only become Prime Minister on a temporary basis if both George Osborne and William Hague wished to stand for leadership of the Conservative party. If either one of them publicly declared that they were sitting that contest out, one of them would take over the reins on a temporary basis as the man most capable of steering the country in the short term. Only if both were by that point discredited or standing for the Conservative party leadership would Nick Clegg be called upon.
I'd say it's considerably more likely that both George Osborne and William Hague decline to stand for the Conservative leadership than that they both throw their hats into the ring. William Hague in particular now seems to have no interest at all in the job.
Nick Clegg's chances to me seem to revolve more around defection to the Conservatives. I do not think it remotely likely that Nick Clegg would defect to the Conservatives this side of a referendum on EU membership.
In short, no bet at 50/1.
Then again, in yeoldepoliticalbetting.com in early 1659, you would probably have got odds of 1000/1 that Charles Stuart would be the next head of state of England.
We aren't talking about Dave dying, we're talking about a metaphorical bus, ie the Tories remove him as leader, but he'd stay as PM until the contest is held.
You might be, and in such circumstances, Cameron very probably would stay on unless there was some almighty scandal that necessitated immediate resignation. However, the effects of terrorists and nutters can't be entirely ruled out and in such circumstances, you would need a new PM almost immediately.
Given that the odds on Cameron dying in the next 18 months are probably >100/1 anyone taking 50/1 on Clegg is a fool
The probability that the average English male dies in the year after his 47th birthday is 0.002375, and following his 48th birthday 0.002642.
Thus the odds are about 200/1 on an average English male dying in the two years following their 47th birthday. Since Cameron to my knowledge does not smoke, his chances of survival are likely to be higher than this, though I have not attempted to take account of the risk of assassination [does anyone have an idea of the assassination rates for the heads of Government of NATO member states in the last 50 years?]
Apart from Kennedy (and that just fits in the 50 years), I can't think of one.
We aren't talking about Dave dying, we're talking about a metaphorical bus, ie the Tories remove him as leader, but he'd stay as PM until the contest is held.
You might be, and in such circumstances, Cameron very probably would stay on unless there was some almighty scandal that necessitated immediate resignation. However, the effects of terrorists and nutters can't be entirely ruled out and in such circumstances, you would need a new PM almost immediately.
Given that the odds on Cameron dying in the next 18 months are probably >100/1 anyone taking 50/1 on Clegg is a fool
The probability that the average English male dies in the year after his 47th birthday is 0.002375, and following his 48th birthday 0.002642.
Thus the odds are about 200/1 on an average English male dying in the two years following their 47th birthday. Since Cameron to my knowledge does not smoke, his chances of survival are likely to be higher than this, though I have not attempted to take account of the risk of assassination [does anyone have an idea of the assassination rates for the heads of Government of NATO member states in the last 50 years?]
Apart from Kennedy (and that just fits in the 50 years), I can't think of one.
Olaf Palme springs to mind (though it's not technically an answer to the question as Sweden's not in NATO but is surely still relevant).
There've been quite a few unsuccessful attacks though. Thatcher and Major were both fortunate to survive IRA attacks, as was Heath (though after he'd left No 10). Reagan was also another lucky survivor. Just outside the 50 year limit is De Gaulle. There are probably others I can't think of off-hand, never mind plots which the various security services prevented.
Comments
Round one to Cammo
Open goal missed by Ed .... are they Burnley in disguise ?!?
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/10/8651771/
Rescue from oblivion?
"Labour's Emily Thornberry talks about a £720,000 two-bedroom flat in her Islington constituency."
I'm disgusted at her attempts to drive down property prices in her constituency.
`Big 7 including PM plus the big 6`
Some stingers from Ed.
Huzzah for the bearded Scottish nobility
"Absolutely nobody called the 2008 banking crisis, not even the off the chart contrarians..."
That is absolutely not true.
Many did, and not just the odd crank or naysayer. Read Nate Silver's brilliant book 'The Signal and the Noise' for the full story in great detail.
Alan Greenspan and many others have no excuse.
Could always go for some personal attacks. (See Tim's songsheet from Labour High Command for further reference).
Is he going to bomb them?
Not seen them before. Is it a reincarnation of Intrade?
Replied to a couple of your comments on previous thread.
Check back if you wish to be insulted.
Huzzah for a steady hand in the old folk.
More money in peoples pocket after energy bills means they can spend it and recycle the money to the treasury via VAT and the whole trickle down effect - win win win.
As I said - kudos to Ed for bringing about a green tax cut - he should carry on and put another tax in his sights - licence fee , stamp duty, IHT - come on Ed you are on a roll.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/30/pmqs-nick-clegg-press-conference-politics-live-cameron-milliband
Seemed strange he was not wanting to make more of the various reverses suffered by the government in the Courts today.
http://www.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/reports---correspondence/correspondence/letter-from-sir-andrew-dilnot-to-rt--hon--alistair-darling-mp-28-october-2013.pdf
Too many pensioners? Easy - just add in children and call them "dependants"....
BREAKING: Newspapers have lost a legal bid to stop politicians' new Royal Charter to regulate the Press being rubber-stamped today.
:Not so innocent face:
Listen more to your Uncle John.
I don't think many people expected either Todd Akin or Michael Mourdock to destroy their candidacies in the way they did last year. After all, both were experienced politicians. OTOH, choosing Christine O'Donnell and Sharon Angle was stupid from the outset.
Average house price ratio to median earnings 2012 (vs 2007)
UK: 8.9 (-0.2)
Eng: 9.1 (-)
Sco: 7.4 (+0.5)
Wal: 7.3 (-0.8)
NI: 6.1 (-6.0)
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2013-10-29a.234.0&s=speaker:13442#g234.1
BUBBLE!!!!!!
Think I'll pass on this one.
However, you'd first have to have a situation where Cameron couldn't remain in office in the interim i.e. death or immediate resignation. Long-term ill-health doesn't count as he could remain in post while others carried out the PM's duties while a successor was found - there is precedent on that. Neither cause seems particularly likely. Even then, the senior Tories would have to fail to agree on a successor.
Frankly, 50/1 for Clegg seems short to me; I'd be wanting at least triple that.
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=13972
Dr the Honourable Tristram I've got a PhD from Cambridge you know Hunt on his feet....
Angry Red Fop.
2. Contested Conservative leadership election - May, Gove and Hague. They agree DPM Clegg should be interim PM until new Con leader elected.
3. Peter Bone and Mark Senior spontaneously combust for slightly different reasons.
4. Mike Smithson announces he's collected on a 1997 wager @ 500/1 that a son of immigrant, public school educated Northern LibDem MP would be PM in 2014.
Could we have some clarity from the Chancellor as to which day he considers to be the first of winter?
In any case, everyone would know and accept that he was a temporary PM de facto, even if not de jure (though as Jack rightly says, that distinction is important as far as the bet would go), and that the new Tory leader would become PM once chosen. It would almost certainly be a condition of his appointment, from both senior Tories and Palace officials, that Clegg would agree to resign on a new Tory leader being elected. Otherwise, a Tory grandee might be the next best option.
This is one area where the constitution is evolving as the principles and theory surrounding prime ministerial appointments date from the days when party leadership elections took at most days rather than weeks. Once precedent, however, was 1834, when Wellington was appointed PM on a stand-in basis (and about half the other cabinet posts!), pending Peel's return from the continent.
"Brief appearance in Commons chamber by @ChukaUmunna, just to keep an eye on how his rival @TristramHuntMP is getting on. Not v well."
The funny thing is that all of the increase in English median houseprices occurred by Q1 of 2010, when ONS median houseprices peaked at £210,000 and since then they have gently dropped to £197,000 at Q2 2013.
So the only people blowing up a bubble were Labour at the fag end of their time in power.
Its also worth noting that median earnings are now higher than they were in 2010 so houses are still more affordable than they were under Labour.
You'll have to try harder to establish your bubble conspiracy theory.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/taxonomy/index.html?nscl=House+Price+Indices#tab-data-tables
1. Cameron dies from whatever cause.
2. Cameron resigns immediately through scandal.
Both most unlikely but not out of the question.
Went into Leeds today and came back to find the postmen had managed to try and deliver a parcel during the brief time I was out. However, the online method to have it redelivered to my local post office was excellent (cost £1.50, which is ok given it saves me a long walk or the potential annoyance of a second failed delivery).
Can't see Clegg as PM.
Thus the odds are about 200/1 on an average English male dying in the two years following their 47th birthday. Since Cameron to my knowledge does not smoke, his chances of survival are likely to be higher than this, though I have not attempted to take account of the risk of assassination [does anyone have an idea of the assassination rates for the heads of Government of NATO member states in the last 50 years?]
I'd say it's considerably more likely that both George Osborne and William Hague decline to stand for the Conservative leadership than that they both throw their hats into the ring. William Hague in particular now seems to have no interest at all in the job.
Nick Clegg's chances to me seem to revolve more around defection to the Conservatives. I do not think it remotely likely that Nick Clegg would defect to the Conservatives this side of a referendum on EU membership.
In short, no bet at 50/1.
Then again, in yeoldepoliticalbetting.com in early 1659, you would probably have got odds of 1000/1 that Charles Stuart would be the next head of state of England.
There've been quite a few unsuccessful attacks though. Thatcher and Major were both fortunate to survive IRA attacks, as was Heath (though after he'd left No 10). Reagan was also another lucky survivor. Just outside the 50 year limit is De Gaulle. There are probably others I can't think of off-hand, never mind plots which the various security services prevented.
Palms Springs. Isn't that a city in the USA?