Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Red Letter Day. Jeremy Corbyn’s chances of being next Prime Mi
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Red Letter Day. Jeremy Corbyn’s chances of being next Prime Minister
It used to be so easy. For the period after the 2017 general election when Theresa May was Prime Minister, all you had to do was take advantage of Jeremy Corbyn’s enthusiasts and regularly lay him for next Prime Minister at the short prices that prevailed. Since she had made it plain that she was not going to fight the next election, so the circumstances in which he would be next Prime Minister were very limited indeed.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
(I still can’t believe how the circumstances of that photo came about).
There was little-enough chance of Parliament uniting when it looked like Brussels was rejecting Boris's negotiations out of hand, to do so while negotiations are ongoing seems a definite lay.
October maybe, but not September.
How many days did he have before the Merkel and Macron meetings?
Was it:
a) less than 30?
b) 30?
c) more than 30?
If there's an election before Brexit, Corbyn has a better chance than 20%.
It would be a stop brexit/2nd ref election, which *should* mean lots of tactical voting. I think that would probably help Lib and Lab more than Tories...
As an aside, nice piece. Would suggest maybe a table at the end could summarize the probabilities and make it a little easier for the reader to follow.
Point of order: end of the penultimate paragraph, references "being charitable", which implies some measure of prudence. However, in fact overestimating Corbyn's probability of becoming PM makes the bet look better, not worse, which means if you weren't "being charitable" he might not be such an obvious buy.
Not sure if I've interpreted correctly, but thought it worth pointing out since I agree that 1/3 is probably an overestimate and contributing quite a bit to total expected value.
If the Remoaner Parliamentarians want to replace Johnson with a government of national unity (sic), they’ve got about a week at the beginning of September to get a confidence vote passed in a named new PM, else they guarantee both no-deal and Parliament not sitting when we leave the EU.
If they go for a VoNC without a new PM lined up, they’re playing with fire. High stakes.
Therefore the chance of a VONC being carried when Parliament resumes is close to 0%, the numbers are not there.
A solution does not exist in the ether. It is not a thing that naturally exists waiting to be discovered. It isn't a real object like a mountain or river. It is a compromise that must be agreed and negotiated between both parties - unless both parties can negotiate and ratify it, it is meaningless. Any amount of alternative arrangements can be suggested which may or may not be acceptable but without all relevant parties engaging they are meaningless. Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
While official negotiations where ongoing Robbins and May were leading them and Boris wasn't in charge. He had no time then.
After Boris became PM but until yesterday the EU was saying the WDA couldn't be amended. Macron even said it earlier today, but then said something different after meeting Boris today.
Now he has time, before he had none. 30 > 0 therefore A is the answer to your question.
So, it may be worth laying all Tories on the list. Difficult to see how it would be one in other than exceptional circumstances. And were it to be so, it is unlikely to be any of the older cohort.
I am increasingly not buying the GNU btw.
He can become PM with less seats than the blues too (The SNP will never back Johnson), simply put Labour's "friends" are likely to be larger in number next parliament than the Tories.
It would result in no deal, but with Parliament sitting so anything that needed urgent legislation could be accommodated.
To play devils advocate, maybe he suggests that she first calls Michael Gove. Who turns up, kisses hands, waits a couple of hours and returns to the Palace, suggesting Dominic Raab, who resigns at 22:55GMT.
Anyway, Merkel's 30 Days to Save the EU has given Boris more than enough breathing space. (A cannier leader would have said "You have 30 days to make proposals - but we need to extend to 30th November to cover it. Your call, Boris....")
Which would have left him in something of a bind.
The main reason is that I disagree with the header on a key point. I do not think (sadly) that this country has appetite for radical economic reform of the Left variety unless it is combined with a good dose of xenophobic nationalism (which Corbyn to his credit has no time for), and therefore the ONLY non-exotic way that he gets to be PM is in the event of a PRE Brexit election - where Remainer tactical voting gives him a good chance of achieving a minority Labour government with a mandate to deliver Ref2.
So, a 30% chance of a GE before Brexit (IMO) and a 30% chance of Labour doing well enough in that election to make him PM.
Meaning his chances of being our next PM are 9%. Round up a bit to allow for the more unlikely scenarios. Say 15%. About 1 in 6.
I expect in these uncharted waters, she would send for Corbyn.
https://twitter.com/trussliz/status/1164510238348849157?s=21
Shocking that a grandson of Lewis doesn't have a favourite Bible verse.
https://twitter.com/Caring_Atheist/status/1164255516878446592?s=20
Beer o’clock in the sandpit, laters all!
The effort that has gone into trying to stop Brexit is staggering. It's a shame none of this zeal was present during the referendum campaign. But then, why bother, when you think you've got the system rigged to get your own way regardless?
Johnson will though want an election soon after the UK has left and will either force once (aka 2017) if he secures enough concessions to sign up to an amended agreement (going to the country in a position of strength) or be (quite willingly) forced into one by a VONC that takes place too late to stop a no deal Brexit and thus removes the point of installing any other temporary PM (with the Brexit Party vote returning en masse to the Conservatives). I cannot remotely envisage Corbyn becoming PM after an election taking place in either set of circumstances - it is more likely that he would lose badly enough to be forced out as LOTO.
Everybody happy.....maybe.
That does not mean that the decision would necessarily go one way or the other.
"When not in use, Apple Card should be returned to a uniformly lit white cube," joked Alex Stamos, Facebook's former chief security officer.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-49435687
☺
They have never been called South, never claimed to be South and do not call themselves South. South Korea is an informal name used in the west that they don't use and to use it formally would be diplomatically insulting them.
While signing a formal agreement with the Republic of Korea, for a British minister to refer to South Korea would be like signing an agreement with Ireland and calling them Southern Ireland.
https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/1164506819617837057
Nor will Farage.
Who's the thickest journo of all"
Peter Oborne asked
"It's a close call" replied the mirror
"But Chris Hope has surpassed your effort in the Mail"
If that is right then the only way this bet comes off is some sort of GNU in the current Parliament. Given the attitude of the Lib Dems and sundry independents I really can't see Corbyn pulling that off. If anything the Betfair odds look a little generous to me.
Waste of time with current parliamentary arithmetic. The spartans will vote against any deal, because they want no further links with the EU at all. Corbyn will vote against any deal, because he wants a crash exit the Tories get blamed for.
I know it's an idea that's anathema to spend and borrow UK but China, Saudi Arabia, Norway, Singapore, Australia and New Zealand all have one bringing in regular dividends, growth and whatnot - and they all have very different systems of Gov't. A national pension fund if you will. I think it looks very fiscally prudent though I'd agree that it should not solely buy EU equities.
I agree with his point (assuming I've interpreted it correctly, for what it's worth. In either case, the original point wasn't about the FTPA, it was about whether the courts could force Johnson to revoke on Oct 31 if he resigned rather than do so (see first post in the chain)!