politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Boris Johnson – the man who gets overstated by the polls
Above is a chart based on the final polls in the 2012 London Mayoral race when John just squeezed to victory with a margin of three points. As can be seen none of the pollsters had the gap so close.
Has anyone in PB [ with so many experts ] worked out the following:
1. New Prime MInister 2. EU does not budge. 3. Government decides No-Deal on 31st Oct or earlier 4. Parliament stops the government from doing so. How ? 5. Government refuses to apply for an extension to Art.50 or EU refuses. What next then. VONC ? 6. What if HMG survives ? 7. Are we back at No-Deal ?
Thread headers seem to have consistently underestimated Boris Johnson's apparent appeal and chances in this leadership contest. I do hope that isn't because many of the Tories and others below the line here simply don't like him.
Yet another anti Boris thread totally ignoring the fact Boris is the only Tory ever to win the London Mayoralty in the first place (and indeed in 2008 the polls actually underestimated him) and also ignoring the fact the only reason Leave won the 2016 EU referendum was Boris was fronting it, had Farage been the frontman Leave would likely have lost.
The 2012 polling was wrong on 2nd preferences anyway a totally different proposition to a FPTP election like the next general election
Perhaps it should be 'don't confuse high name recognition with voting intention' ?
Cameron polled better in 2005 on hypotheticals than Davis with no greater name recognition.
Hunt or Gove are well recognised as is Javid now as Senior Cabinet Ministers yet all poll worse than Boris v Labour mainly as all see the Brexit Party poll over 20% while Boris cuts the Brexit Party down to 13% so zilch to do with name recognition
Has anyone in PB [ with so many experts ] worked out the following:
1. New Prime MInister 2. EU does not budge. 3. Government decides No-Deal on 31st Oct or earlier 4. Parliament stops the government from doing so. How ? 5. Government refuses to apply for an extension to Art.50 or EU refuses. What next then. VONC ? 6. What if HMG survives ? 7. Are we back at No-Deal ?
Yes, we are back at No Deal, if 1-6 occur as you suggest
The Javid video is interesting. Vastly superior in production values to his first little movie, Clever use of dogs, mums, old photos, the word "Bromsgrove".
Yet he is still stilted, and oddly inarticulate. He repeats words in a weird fashion. He does that strange politicians' hand movement: a lightly clenched fist, with thumb protruding, waggling up and down. They must have been told it looks effective (like the legs apart power-stance). Fail.
And yet.... the video has been watched 200,000 times. Maybe he has a chance.
Note: they are using the updated version of trigger ballot. Sitting AMs are triggered (aka full open selection contest) if either 1/3 of the party branches or 1/3 of the affiliates branches vote to trigger the ballot. Previously, just like MPs, party branches (in this case CLPs; in MPs case wards) and affiliates branches were considered together. And to be triggered it was required to lose the vote in 50% of them. Given affiliates (mainly unions) often vote for reselection of everyone, it was difficult to deselect sitting members, also because affiliates usually outnumber party branches.
Back to London... 3 constituency AMs are retiring: Andrew Dismore (Barnet and Camden), Navin Shah (Brent and Harrow) and Janette Arnold (North East)
The "trigger ballot" situation for CLPs section (let's assume none of them will have troubles with affiliates) is as follows:
City and East (Unmesh Desai): he won in Bethnall Green & Bow, Poplar & Limehouse, Dagenham & Rainham, Barking, Cities of London. West Ham and East still to come. So he is 5/7. Already above the 2/3 threshold required regardless of the outcome of Newham CLPs
Ealing and Hillingdon (Onkar Sahota): he won Eailing Southall and Ruislip & North Pinner . Lost in Ealing Central. Ealing North, Hayes & Harlington and Uxbridge/South Ruislip etc still to vote. He needs to win all of them
Enfield and Haringey (Joanne McCartney): she won in Tottenham, Edmonton and Enfield Southgate. Enfiled North and Horney/Wood Green still to come. Winning in 1 of them is enough.
Greenwich and Lewisham (Len Duvall). CLPs part finished. He won in Lewisham East, Lewisham West, Greenwich/Woolwich, Eltham and Erith. He lost in Lewisham Deptford. So 5/6. Save.
Lambeth and Southwark (Florence Eshalomi): she won in Vauxhall and lost in Streatham. Dulwich/West Norwood, Camberwell/Peckham and Bermondsey/Old Southwark still to come. She needs to win all of them.
Merton and Wandsworth (Leonie Cooper): she won Putney and Mitcham & Morden. Wimbledon, Tooting and Battersea left. She can afford to lose one of them.
The Javid video is interesting. Vastly superior in production values to his first little movie, Clever use of dogs, mums, old photos, the word "Bromsgrove".
Yet he is still stilted, and oddly inarticulate. He repeats words in a weird fashion. He does that strange politicians' hand movement: a lightly clenched fist, with thumb protruding, waggling up and down. They must have been told it looks effective (like the legs apart power-stance). Fail.
And yet.... the video has been watched 200,000 times. Maybe he has a chance.
I think it's good. Has a chance of winning over Mcvey/Harper's troops over with the working class Tory story.
The Javid video is interesting. Vastly superior in production values to his first little movie, Clever use of dogs, mums, old photos, the word "Bromsgrove".
Yet he is still stilted, and oddly inarticulate. He repeats words in a weird fashion. He does that strange politicians' hand movement: a lightly clenched fist, with thumb protruding, waggling up and down. They must have been told it looks effective (like the legs apart power-stance). Fail.
And yet.... the video has been watched 200,000 times. Maybe he has a chance.
I think it's good. Has a chance of winning over Mcvey/Harper's troops over with the working class Tory story.
Yes. It's such a shame he is so lacking in charisma. He is anti-charismatic. One of those people that makes you fall asleep as soon as he speaks. Worse than TMay, even though he is clearly smarter than her, and more flexible.
I like his policies, in general. And a Muslim-heritage PM might heal some of the nation's divisions. And boy, do they need healing.
I don’t think anyone except HY believes that hypothetical “how would you vote if X were leader” polls are worth a bean.
Ken Clarke led on hypothetical polls in 1997 and 2001 and the Tories ignored them and picked Hague and IDS/Howard and lost in 2001 and 2005. David Cameron led hypothetical polls in 2005 and the Tories followed them and won in 2010 and 2015.
David Miliband led in hypothetical polls in 2010 and Andy Burnham led in hypothetical polls in 2015 and Labour ignored them and lost in 2015 and 2017.
Occasionally you can win regardless e.g. Heath polled better than Thatcher pre 1979 but Thatcher won anyway because of the need for change but generally they are right
Is it me or is Boris suddenly looking quite a lot older?
They've clearly chosen that photo for its unflattering qualities. But I have seen lots of other photos, where he looks similarly haggard, tired, and podgy.
Perhaps this will be to his advantage, as it makes him seem a bit less adolescent, and clownish.
Thread headers seem to have consistently underestimated Boris Johnson's apparent appeal and chances in this leadership contest. I do hope that isn't because many of the Tories and others below the line here simply don't like him.
Is it me or is Boris suddenly looking quite a lot older?
They've clearly chosen that photo for its unflattering qualities. But I have seen lots of other photos, where he looks similarly haggard, tired, and podgy.
Perhaps this will be to his advantage, as it makes him seem a bit less adolescent, and clownish.
Has anyone in PB [ with so many experts ] worked out the following:
1. New Prime MInister 2. EU does not budge. 3. Government decides No-Deal on 31st Oct or earlier 4. Parliament stops the government from doing so. How ? 5. Government refuses to apply for an extension to Art.50 or EU refuses. What next then. VONC ? 6. What if HMG survives ? 7. Are we back at No-Deal ?
Yes, we are back at No Deal, if 1-6 occur as you suggest
An unexplored area is the capacity of parliament, against the will of government, to pass an act, mandating the government to revoke Art 50 as a way of avoiding 'no deal'. Can the speaker facilitate this step, and if so how?
It is also conceivable that a court would grant an injunction requiring revocation or application for extension on the (arguable) basis that in passing Art 50 parliament was not thereby agreeing to crashing out but only to an agreed deal.
Plenty of lawyers will be having a think about all this.
One other small point. 'No deal' requires someone to take responsibility for the 'No Deal' outcome - something which no-one so far has reached the point of being willing to do. In political terms the end of October is a long time off, and promises now about it mean nothing. Under Art 50 the EU can offer an extension without the UK even asking for one; and under Art 50 the UK can of course both ask for an extension and (as now interpreted) Revoke. Come 31 October will something have changed and will both sides be willing to allow crashing out? I doubt it.
Is it me or is Boris suddenly looking quite a lot older?
They've clearly chosen that photo for its unflattering qualities. But I have seen lots of other photos, where he looks similarly haggard, tired, and podgy.
Perhaps this will be to his advantage, as it makes him seem a bit less adolescent, and clownish.
He is converging on Trump, appearance-wise.
Yes, he is. i wonder what it will do to public perceptions, as people notice.
By the by, Trump was quite handsome in his youth. Easy to forget that.
Is it me or is Boris suddenly looking quite a lot older?
They've clearly chosen that photo for its unflattering qualities. But I have seen lots of other photos, where he looks similarly haggard, tired, and podgy.
Perhaps this will be to his advantage, as it makes him seem a bit less adolescent, and clownish.
Exactly what struck me when I saw him on TV the other day. He has 'gone over' and has done so at the rather tender age of 54. OK, will be 55 in a week, but that is still well short of the usual age at which this happens, which is 58.
A benefit to him politically? Possibly, since as you say he appears (physically at least) less immature and clowny.
But on balance I think not - because the wear & tear on that face looks to me like the result not of 'long nights wrestling with the soul', but of long nights.
Is it me or is Boris suddenly looking quite a lot older?
They've clearly chosen that photo for its unflattering qualities. But I have seen lots of other photos, where he looks similarly haggard, tired, and podgy.
Perhaps this will be to his advantage, as it makes him seem a bit less adolescent, and clownish.
He increasingly resembles a Beerbohm caricature of Wilde.
The Javid video is interesting. Vastly superior in production values to his first little movie, Clever use of dogs, mums, old photos, the word "Bromsgrove".
Yet he is still stilted, and oddly inarticulate. He repeats words in a weird fashion. He does that strange politicians' hand movement: a lightly clenched fist, with thumb protruding, waggling up and down. They must have been told it looks effective (like the legs apart power-stance). Fail.
And yet.... the video has been watched 200,000 times. Maybe he has a chance.
I think it's good. Has a chance of winning over Mcvey/Harper's troops over with the working class Tory story.
On balance I've decided I agree with kinabalu. The Ageing Of Boris is bad for Boris.
People want to vote for him (if they want to vote for him) because he seems charismatic, fun, ambitious, energetic - a gamble, but at least an amusing gamble. None of that applies if, when you look at him, you are reminded of death, and the ageing process. Plus you also get the sense he's a major boozer.
On balance I've decided I agree with kinabalu. The Ageing Of Boris is bad for Boris.
People want to vote for him (if they want to vote for him) because he seems charismatic, fun, ambitious, energetic - a gamble, but at least an amusing gamble. None of that applies if, when you look at him, you are reminded of death, and the ageing process. Plus you also get the sense he's a major boozer.
Because when one looks at Corbyn, all one feel is youth and vigour, right?
All this "Boris hiding" malarkey will be forgotten when he delivers his grand entrance to the race tommorow. The story will move on to whatever minor gaffe he commits.
It is worth remembering that Johnson won the London mayorality in 2012 by 4% on the first round at the same time as the Conservatives ended up 9% behind Labour in the Assembly elections and as the Conservatives were being absolutely trashed in local elections up and down the rest of England, more so that at any other point of Cameron's premiership.
On balance I've decided I agree with kinabalu. The Ageing Of Boris is bad for Boris.
People want to vote for him (if they want to vote for him) because he seems charismatic, fun, ambitious, energetic - a gamble, but at least an amusing gamble. None of that applies if, when you look at him, you are reminded of death, and the ageing process. Plus you also get the sense he's a major boozer.
Because when one looks at Corbyn, all one feel is youth and vigour, right?
Get your point. But Corbyn only came to public consciousness when he was already quite old. Indeed his age is, arguably, his selling point, with his allotment and his string vests. He is the Magic Grandpa, after all.
Boris is meant to be youthful and amusing. He is not amusing when he reminds you of the grave.
All comedians face this problem: it is much harder to be funny as you age. That's why so many successful comedians move on to other trades - writing, serious acting, etc.
Because when one looks at Corbyn, all one feels is youth and vigour, right?
When I look at Jeremy the main thing that I feel is a frisson of excitement at the prospect (ever nearer) of a modest but significant and much needed reversal of the Thatcher Blair consensus.
But of course I recognize that not everyone feels that.
I cannot abide Johnson but do not condemn him for avoiding the broadcasters . That should always be a matter for the candidates themselves. Heath, Maudling and Powell did not debate or give media interviews in the July 1965 contest - neither did Heath, Thatcher, Whitelaw et al do so in the February 1975 contest. I see no reason at all for these campaign launches either - at least not until the party members' stage is reached. I really do resent the sense of entitlement evident from the broadcasters' criticism.
All comedians face this problem: it is much harder to be funny as you age. That's why so many successful comedians move on to other trades - writing, serious acting, etc.
This falls fair and square into the 'sad but true' category. Affects everyone not just comedians. My dad used to make me laugh (for all the right reasons) but now, not so much. All gets a bit stale.
Bangladesh vs Sri Lanka abandoned. Not too confident about tomorrows Aus v Pakistan clash, either.
The rest of the week will be a washout, I fear. What will that do to the tournament?
The media rights guys will be absolutely sh1tting themselves if India v Pakistan on Sunday gets washed out. It would be the largest TV audience for any sporting event this year.
I cannot abide Johnson but do not condemn him for avoiding the broadcasters . That should always be a matter for the candidates themselves. Heath, Maudling and Powell did not debate or give media interviews in the July 1965 contest - neither did Heath, Thatcher, Whitelaw et al do so in the February 1975 contest. I see no reason at all for these campaign launches either - at least not until the party members' stage is reached. I really do resent the sense of entitlement evident from the broadcasters' criticism.
The person who would be Prime Minister should face scrutiny.
It is worth remembering that Johnson won the London mayorality in 2012 by 4% on the first round at the same time as the Conservatives ended up 9% behind Labour in the Assembly elections and as the Conservatives were being absolutely trashed in local elections up and down the rest of England, more so that at any other point of Cameron's premiership.
Some achievement that.
He was up against Ken Livingstone thought. Who was at or even past his sell-by by then.
I cannot abide Johnson but do not condemn him for avoiding the broadcasters . That should always be a matter for the candidates themselves. Heath, Maudling and Powell did not debate or give media interviews in the July 1965 contest - neither did Heath, Thatcher, Whitelaw et al do so in the February 1975 contest. I see no reason at all for these campaign launches either - at least not until the party members' stage is reached. I really do resent the sense of entitlement evident from the broadcasters' criticism.
The person who would be Prime Minister should face scrutiny.
This isn't the 70s.
Scrutiny by those who can vote for him - ie Tory MPs until the final stage.The case for scrutiny today is no stronger than in the 70s.
The debate in the Tory Party on TV licences really is absurd. Here's a party that is supposed to defend the interests of those who have saved and been frugal all of their lives, talking about stripping well-off pensioners of their TV licences: the same pensioners who will have to sell their homes to pay for their own care.
All while the Tory government sends £9bn a year to corrupt African regimes.
This is the kind of upside-down thinking Cameron and Osborne have given us.
All comedians face this problem: it is much harder to be funny as you age. That's why so many successful comedians move on to other trades - writing, serious acting, etc.
This falls fair and square into the 'sad but true' category. Affects everyone not just comedians. My dad used to make me laugh (for all the right reasons) but now, not so much. All gets a bit stale.
Essential caveat, there are plenty of exceptions.
But not my dad.
I think people can remain funny (in private) well into their 60s. It's much harder to remain funny in your 60s on stage, or on TV, because when non-related people look at you, they immediately think, maybe subconsciously, "Here's an old man" (or woman) - and that is quintessentially unfunny.
Because when one looks at Corbyn, all one feels is youth and vigour, right?
When I look at Jeremy the main thing that I feel is a frisson of excitement at the prospect (ever nearer) of a modest but significant and much needed reversal of the Thatcher Blair consensus.
But of course I recognize that not everyone feels that.
What you experience as a 'frisson' is the cold shudder that will make me not only vote for but campaign for the Blues in any general election in which Corbyn is the opponent.
I cannot abide Johnson but do not condemn him for avoiding the broadcasters . That should always be a matter for the candidates themselves. Heath, Maudling and Powell did not debate or give media interviews in the July 1965 contest - neither did Heath, Thatcher, Whitelaw et al do so in the February 1975 contest. I see no reason at all for these campaign launches either - at least not until the party members' stage is reached. I really do resent the sense of entitlement evident from the broadcasters' criticism.
The person who would be Prime Minister should face scrutiny.
This isn't the 70s.
Scrutiny by those who can vote for him - ie Tory MPs until the final stage.The case for scrutiny today is no stronger than in the 70s.
Yes it is. We are in the age of the internet, 24/7 news and TV debates. Time has changed
All this "Boris hiding" malarkey will be forgotten when he delivers his grand entrance to the race tommorow. The story will move on to whatever minor gaffe he commits.
It's just the media having a tantrum because all the other launches are such dull fayre.
Guys, chill. Have a game of wiff-waff. Better still, spend the time until the launch tomorrow seeing if you can do this:
The debate in the Tory Party on TV licences really is absurd. Here's a party that is supposed to defend the interests of those who have saved and been frugal all of their lives, talking about stripping well-off pensioners of their TV licences: the same pensioners who will have to sell their homes to pay for their own care.
All while the Tory government sends £9bn a year to corrupt African regimes.
This is the kind of upside-down thinking Cameron and Osborne have given us.
Mate you weren't at the Bruges Group meeting yesterday were you by any chance?
I cannot abide Johnson but do not condemn him for avoiding the broadcasters . That should always be a matter for the candidates themselves. Heath, Maudling and Powell did not debate or give media interviews in the July 1965 contest - neither did Heath, Thatcher, Whitelaw et al do so in the February 1975 contest. I see no reason at all for these campaign launches either - at least not until the party members' stage is reached. I really do resent the sense of entitlement evident from the broadcasters' criticism.
The person who would be Prime Minister should face scrutiny.
This isn't the 70s.
Scrutiny by those who can vote for him - ie Tory MPs until the final stage.The case for scrutiny today is no stronger than in the 70s.
Yes it is. We are in the age of the internet, 24/7 news and TV debates. Time has changed
Says who? Candidates are free to accept or decline media interviews. We had the Today programme , The World Tonight ,PM , and various TV programmes such as 24 Hours, This Week & Panorama in the 60s and 70s but the leadership hopefuls did not feel obliged to appear. Why did we need so much less scrutiny of the candidates in those days?
The Javid video is interesting. Vastly superior in production values to his first little movie, Clever use of dogs, mums, old photos, the word "Bromsgrove".
Yet he is still stilted, and oddly inarticulate. He repeats words in a weird fashion. He does that strange politicians' hand movement: a lightly clenched fist, with thumb protruding, waggling up and down. They must have been told it looks effective (like the legs apart power-stance). Fail.
And yet.... the video has been watched 200,000 times. Maybe he has a chance.
I think it's good. Has a chance of winning over Mcvey/Harper's troops over with the working class Tory story.
Yes. It's such a shame he is so lacking in charisma. He is anti-charismatic. One of those people that makes you fall asleep as soon as he speaks. Worse than TMay, even though he is clearly smarter than her, and more flexible.
I like his policies, in general. And a Muslim-heritage PM might heal some of the nation's divisions. And boy, do they need healing.
The Saj should sign up with Rada for some charisma training. Mrs T had voice coaching. With the demise of public meetings and conference debates, many politicians have never learned the skills of holding a crowd's attention. I expect we will see something similar in America when the debates begin and we find we have done our money on someone who speaks hesitantly in a dull monotone.
Boris has got the media all in a slavver. He'll announce tommorow to much fanfare !
If he annoys the media too much, their questions tomorrow could be rather amusing given all the skeletons we know about (and probably a few more that they know about but we don’t).
Comments
A motto for the Democratic race, too.
(Though Biden is, actually, quite popular.)
1. New Prime MInister
2. EU does not budge.
3. Government decides No-Deal on 31st Oct or earlier
4. Parliament stops the government from doing so. How ?
5. Government refuses to apply for an extension to Art.50 or EU refuses. What next then. VONC ?
6. What if HMG survives ?
7. Are we back at No-Deal ?
I do hope that isn't because many of the Tories and others below the line here simply don't like him.
The 2012 polling was wrong on 2nd preferences anyway a totally different proposition to a FPTP election like the next general election
Hunt or Gove are well recognised as is Javid now as Senior Cabinet Ministers yet all poll worse than Boris v Labour mainly as all see the Brexit Party poll over 20% while Boris cuts the Brexit Party down to 13% so zilch to do with name recognition
MPs will be drinking g and t s in the bar and twiddling their thumbs.
Yet he is still stilted, and oddly inarticulate. He repeats words in a weird fashion. He does that strange politicians' hand movement: a lightly clenched fist, with thumb protruding, waggling up and down. They must have been told it looks effective (like the legs apart power-stance). Fail.
And yet.... the video has been watched 200,000 times. Maybe he has a chance.
Note: they are using the updated version of trigger ballot. Sitting AMs are triggered (aka full open selection contest) if either 1/3 of the party branches or 1/3 of the affiliates branches vote to trigger the ballot.
Previously, just like MPs, party branches (in this case CLPs; in MPs case wards) and affiliates branches were considered together. And to be triggered it was required to lose the vote in 50% of them. Given affiliates (mainly unions) often vote for reselection of everyone, it was difficult to deselect sitting members, also because affiliates usually outnumber party branches.
Back to London...
3 constituency AMs are retiring: Andrew Dismore (Barnet and Camden), Navin Shah (Brent and Harrow) and Janette Arnold (North East)
The "trigger ballot" situation for CLPs section (let's assume none of them will have troubles with affiliates) is as follows:
City and East (Unmesh Desai): he won in Bethnall Green & Bow, Poplar & Limehouse, Dagenham & Rainham, Barking, Cities of London. West Ham and East still to come. So he is 5/7. Already above the 2/3 threshold required regardless of the outcome of Newham CLPs
Ealing and Hillingdon (Onkar Sahota): he won Eailing Southall and Ruislip & North Pinner . Lost in Ealing Central. Ealing North, Hayes & Harlington and Uxbridge/South Ruislip etc still to vote. He needs to win all of them
Enfield and Haringey (Joanne McCartney): she won in Tottenham, Edmonton and Enfield Southgate. Enfiled North and Horney/Wood Green still to come. Winning in 1 of them is enough.
Greenwich and Lewisham (Len Duvall). CLPs part finished. He won in Lewisham East, Lewisham West, Greenwich/Woolwich, Eltham and Erith. He lost in Lewisham Deptford. So 5/6. Save.
Lambeth and Southwark (Florence Eshalomi): she won in Vauxhall and lost in Streatham. Dulwich/West Norwood, Camberwell/Peckham and Bermondsey/Old Southwark still to come. She needs to win all of them.
Merton and Wandsworth (Leonie Cooper): she won Putney and Mitcham & Morden. Wimbledon, Tooting and Battersea left. She can afford to lose one of them.
Yes, first name recognition is well overestimated as a pointer to results.
I like his policies, in general. And a Muslim-heritage PM might heal some of the nation's divisions. And boy, do they need healing.
David Miliband led in hypothetical polls in 2010 and Andy Burnham led in hypothetical polls in 2015 and Labour ignored them and lost in 2015 and 2017.
Occasionally you can win regardless e.g. Heath polled better than Thatcher pre 1979 but Thatcher won anyway because of the need for change but generally they are right
They've clearly chosen that photo for its unflattering qualities. But I have seen lots of other photos, where he looks similarly haggard, tired, and podgy.
Perhaps this will be to his advantage, as it makes him seem a bit less adolescent, and clownish.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1feCjt98HJcY9tlc5Zx78ZoSOC2fN-j0vRVFD5eUTbUE/edit#gid=0
Not much sign of a Lunge for Leadsom to justify the odds, so far.
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/oy4q6y1tfj/Results_190516_ConservativePartyMembers_formatted_2w.pdf
A similar number for Hancock. I suspect those numbers would be very different today.
And everyone asks why he bothered running.
An unexplored area is the capacity of parliament, against the will of government, to pass an act, mandating the government to revoke Art 50 as a way of avoiding 'no deal'. Can the speaker facilitate this step, and if so how?
It is also conceivable that a court would grant an injunction requiring revocation or application for extension on the (arguable) basis that in passing Art 50 parliament was not thereby agreeing to crashing out but only to an agreed deal.
Plenty of lawyers will be having a think about all this.
One other small point. 'No deal' requires someone to take responsibility for the 'No Deal' outcome - something which no-one so far has reached the point of being willing to do. In political terms the end of October is a long time off, and promises now about it mean nothing. Under Art 50 the EU can offer an extension without the UK even asking for one; and under Art 50 the UK can of course both ask for an extension and (as now interpreted) Revoke. Come 31 October will something have changed and will both sides be willing to allow crashing out? I doubt it.
https://twitter.com/GeneralBoles/status/1138432690640871424
By the by, Trump was quite handsome in his youth. Easy to forget that.
https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/5nvore/young_donald_trump_and_barry_pepper_the/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/48593972
A benefit to him politically? Possibly, since as you say he appears (physically at least) less immature and clowny.
But on balance I think not - because the wear & tear on that face looks to me like the result not of 'long nights wrestling with the soul', but of long nights.
This is Britain.
Fox 7 -> 16 (+9) (+128.6%)
Gove 27 -> 48 (+19) (+70.4%)
Leadsom 42 -> 66 (+24) (+57%)
May 141 -> 165 (+24) (+17%)
On balance I've decided I agree with kinabalu. The Ageing Of Boris is bad for Boris.
People want to vote for him (if they want to vote for him) because he seems charismatic, fun, ambitious, energetic - a gamble, but at least an amusing gamble. None of that applies if, when you look at him, you are reminded of death, and the ageing process. Plus you also get the sense he's a major boozer.
https://www.metcheck.com/WEATHER/article.asp?ID=9672&Article=Behold...+the+June+Monsoon#
Some achievement that.
Boris is meant to be youthful and amusing. He is not amusing when he reminds you of the grave.
All comedians face this problem: it is much harder to be funny as you age. That's why so many successful comedians move on to other trades - writing, serious acting, etc.
But of course I recognize that not everyone feels that.
Same stupid mistake May made.
Some of us are relying on winnings from the cricket in order to unwind our longstanding lay on Boris Bloody Johnson.
Essential caveat, there are plenty of exceptions.
But not my dad.
This isn't the 70s.
All while the Tory government sends £9bn a year to corrupt African regimes.
This is the kind of upside-down thinking Cameron and Osborne have given us.
But yes, there are exceptions: Billy Connolly?
Guys, chill. Have a game of wiff-waff. Better still, spend the time until the launch tomorrow seeing if you can do this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPvf5Yw5l2o
https://twitter.com/HenrySmithUK/status/1138436462683316224
Elsewhere teams often play ODIs on consecutive days, and today’s players are genuine athletes.
These scriptwriters are shit-hot!
Part of the magic of cricket - the best of all sports.